Federal judge vacates DOJ policy for collecting state voter rolls

The ruling addresses a federal review system that shared state voter lists with the Department of Homeland Security for checks against its SAVE citizenship database. The Justice Department then sought state action against people the review identified as ineligible.

What did the judge block?

Sooknanan set aside the policy after finding that the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act did not authorize it. She also found that the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Justice Department’s legal position was that those election laws let it obtain statewide voter lists and act on the results. Its Office of Legal Counsel also said the department could share the lists with DHS to identify people ineligible to vote. Sooknanan rejected that interpretation: the laws did not give the department authority to direct states to remove voters based on the federal checks.

The statutes set out different responsibilities. The Civil Rights Act allows the attorney general to request certain election records for specified purposes. The NVRA requires state voter-registration programs and limits systematic removals from federal voter rolls, including in the 90 days before a federal election. HAVA requires computerized statewide registration lists and reasonable efforts to keep them accurate. The judge found those requirements did not authorize the federal policy.

What limits does the ruling place on federal access?

The decision vacates the policy behind the collection and review of the lists, including where states had already provided voter files. It does not bar every form of federal assistance or prevent states from maintaining their own rolls.

Sooknanan wrote, in remarks reported by CBS News, “Today’s decision does not prevent the federal government from taking lawful steps to support states’ efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls. Neither does it prevent states from maintaining their own voter rolls.” The distinction is between lawful assistance and a federal program that collects personal records, checks them against citizenship data and seeks state removals without the authority Congress provided.

The judge also found the policy deficient under the Privacy Act, which sets protections for federal agencies’ collection, disclosure and accuracy of personal records. She said potentially inaccurate database information risked disenfranchising eligible voters. The opinion found that the policy had resulted in U.S. citizens being removed from voter rolls, while identifying the risk of further wrongful removals.

Why does the dispute matter to voters?

State voter rolls hold sensitive personal information, and the federal review could shape whether a person stays registered. A mistaken match can have consequences at the ballot box; Sooknanan found that the department had not adequately accounted for the risk to eligible voters.

The case also tests who has power over voter-list maintenance. The government said its effort aimed to enforce federal voting laws and identify ineligible voters. The judge did not rule against states’ authority to keep their lists accurate; she ruled that the statutes the department invoked did not authorize this federal system or its pressure on states to remove people.

The Justice Department said it was reviewing the decision. The ruling leaves state-run voter-roll maintenance in place while ending the challenged federal policy.