Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democracy Docket-Trump DOJ now 0 for 4 on voter roll cases as court rejects Massachusetts lawsuit
I am still pissed that Abbott gave trump all of Texas' voter data. trump needs these voter records to do his database of voters. trump has filed 30 of these lawsuits and have lost everyone so far. I am glad that the courts have repeatedly rejected these lawsuits
Link to tweet
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-doj-now-0-for-5-on-voter-roll-cases-as-court-rejects-massachusetts-lawsuit/
A federal judge dismissed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit demanding Massachusetts’ unredacted voter registration rolls Thursday, marking the fourth loss for the agency, with zero wins, out of 30 active cases.
Since President Donald Trump returned to office, the DOJ demanded unfettered access to every state’s voter registration records as part of the administration’s obsessive focus on immigration enforcement. While 17 Republican-led states have complied, the rest have refused, leading the DOJ to sue 29 states and Washington, D.C. for their voter rolls.
But when the DOJ demanded Massachusetts’ voter data, which includes sensitive information like social security numbers and dates of birth, it failed to explain why as required by the 1960 Civil Rights Act (CRA), District Court Judge Leo Sorokin noted in his opinion.*
“The United States’ complaint fails for the simple reason that the Attorney General’s demand did not comply with Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the statute on which it purports to rely,” Sorokin wrote. “Here, the Attorney General offered no basis—none—and the demand was therefore facially inadequate.”
Under the CRA, the DOJ can request copies of state voter records to ensure compliance with federal laws, provided that the agency also provides a “basis” and “purpose” for the demand. In state after state, the DOJ failed to explicitly do that, leading to their losses in California and Oregon. A Trump-appointed judge in Michigan also ruled against the DOJ’s demands on separate legal grounds. Sorokin cited all of those cases in his ruling.
Since President Donald Trump returned to office, the DOJ demanded unfettered access to every state’s voter registration records as part of the administration’s obsessive focus on immigration enforcement. While 17 Republican-led states have complied, the rest have refused, leading the DOJ to sue 29 states and Washington, D.C. for their voter rolls.
But when the DOJ demanded Massachusetts’ voter data, which includes sensitive information like social security numbers and dates of birth, it failed to explain why as required by the 1960 Civil Rights Act (CRA), District Court Judge Leo Sorokin noted in his opinion.*
“The United States’ complaint fails for the simple reason that the Attorney General’s demand did not comply with Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the statute on which it purports to rely,” Sorokin wrote. “Here, the Attorney General offered no basis—none—and the demand was therefore facially inadequate.”
Under the CRA, the DOJ can request copies of state voter records to ensure compliance with federal laws, provided that the agency also provides a “basis” and “purpose” for the demand. In state after state, the DOJ failed to explicitly do that, leading to their losses in California and Oregon. A Trump-appointed judge in Michigan also ruled against the DOJ’s demands on separate legal grounds. Sorokin cited all of those cases in his ruling.