By Nick Smith
Gongwer News Service
Michigan is not required to provide the U.S. Department of Justice with its voter registration lists, a federal judge ruled recently.
In an opinion issued Feb. 10 in United States v. Benson (Docket No. 1:25-cv-1148), Judge Hala Jarbou of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted motions by
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and the other intervenor-defendants to dismiss.
Last July, the DOJ requested an unredacted copy of Michigan’s voter rolls. Benson refused, saying she would follow the law to ensure strict privacy protections for personal data.
The state informed DOJ that it would only provide the public voter registration list. That list does not include dates of birth, driver’s license numbers and social security numbers, because the state asserted that data is sensitive information under statute. This prompted U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to file a lawsuit against Michigan and five other states over similar refusals.
Bondi, in the lawsuit, said her office was “uniquely charged” with enforcing the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act for voter roll maintenance as well as having the Civil Rights Act of 1960 at its disposal to demand voter registration lists for “production, inspection and analysis.”
Analyzing the federal government’s argument that it can obtain Michigan’s list under the Help America Vote Act, Jarbou wrote that the law requires states to maintain a statewide voter registration list including certain personal information as well as ensure the list is accurate and updated regularly.
“But the United States does not state a HAVA claim because it does not allege any violations of HAVA’s substantive provisions,” Jarbou wrote. “There is simply no basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States’s suggestion that it can file a HAVA claim, allege no violations of HAVA, and obtain information to support its (as-yet-nonexistent) claim via discovery.”
Jarbou also rejected the federal government’s claim that it could obtain Michigan’s voter list under the National Voter Registration Act, citing several past cases in which courts have ruled that the states are not required to disclose voters’ sensitive information.
She wrote that the federal government’s interpretation of the relevant statute in the NVRA to require disclosure would contradict the act’s objective of increasing voter participation and the risk of someone’s personal information being misused could deter people from registering to vote.
“Such an interpretation would also fly in the face of other federal statutes protecting private information,” Jarbou wrote, adding that the federal government’s interpretation of the act could also impose an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Jarbou then turned to the claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, saying it requires states to preserve all election records for 22 months after any federal election. It also outlines how the U.S. attorney general can demand records be made available for inspection, reproduction or copying, but must provide a statement of the basis and purpose for the request.
“In sum, the Court is not persuaded by Michigan’s arguments regarding the scope of the CRA. However, Defendant-Intervenors make an additional argument as to why the voter registration list is not requestable: a voter registration list is not a “record” that “c[a]me into [the state’s] possession relating to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election.”” Jarbou wrote. “They contend that this language refers only to documents that people submit to the State as part of the voter registration process, not a document like the voter registration list that is created by state officials. The Court agrees.”
Benson, in a statement, called the court’s ruling a win for the people of Michigan and the rule of law.
“Once again, a federal judge has blocked this administration from abusing their authority and attempting to illegally intimidate state officials into handing over citizens’ personal information,” Benson said. “Today’s decision affirms that the law is on our side. I urge state election officials across the country to stand up to the federal government’s overreach and safeguard citizens’ private voting information we’ve been entrusted to protect.”
Attorney General Dana Nessel echoed Benson in a statement of her own.
“The Trump administration attempted to unlawfully force Michigan into handing over private, sensitive information of millions of voters with no legal basis, and I am relieved that the court dismissed this case,” Nessel said. “We will not be bullied into violating the privacy rights of residents, and my office will continue to protect the personal data of Michiganders.”
Gongwer News Service
Michigan is not required to provide the U.S. Department of Justice with its voter registration lists, a federal judge ruled recently.
In an opinion issued Feb. 10 in United States v. Benson (Docket No. 1:25-cv-1148), Judge Hala Jarbou of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted motions by
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and the other intervenor-defendants to dismiss.
Last July, the DOJ requested an unredacted copy of Michigan’s voter rolls. Benson refused, saying she would follow the law to ensure strict privacy protections for personal data.
The state informed DOJ that it would only provide the public voter registration list. That list does not include dates of birth, driver’s license numbers and social security numbers, because the state asserted that data is sensitive information under statute. This prompted U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to file a lawsuit against Michigan and five other states over similar refusals.
Bondi, in the lawsuit, said her office was “uniquely charged” with enforcing the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act for voter roll maintenance as well as having the Civil Rights Act of 1960 at its disposal to demand voter registration lists for “production, inspection and analysis.”
Analyzing the federal government’s argument that it can obtain Michigan’s list under the Help America Vote Act, Jarbou wrote that the law requires states to maintain a statewide voter registration list including certain personal information as well as ensure the list is accurate and updated regularly.
“But the United States does not state a HAVA claim because it does not allege any violations of HAVA’s substantive provisions,” Jarbou wrote. “There is simply no basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States’s suggestion that it can file a HAVA claim, allege no violations of HAVA, and obtain information to support its (as-yet-nonexistent) claim via discovery.”
Jarbou also rejected the federal government’s claim that it could obtain Michigan’s voter list under the National Voter Registration Act, citing several past cases in which courts have ruled that the states are not required to disclose voters’ sensitive information.
She wrote that the federal government’s interpretation of the relevant statute in the NVRA to require disclosure would contradict the act’s objective of increasing voter participation and the risk of someone’s personal information being misused could deter people from registering to vote.
“Such an interpretation would also fly in the face of other federal statutes protecting private information,” Jarbou wrote, adding that the federal government’s interpretation of the act could also impose an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Jarbou then turned to the claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, saying it requires states to preserve all election records for 22 months after any federal election. It also outlines how the U.S. attorney general can demand records be made available for inspection, reproduction or copying, but must provide a statement of the basis and purpose for the request.
“In sum, the Court is not persuaded by Michigan’s arguments regarding the scope of the CRA. However, Defendant-Intervenors make an additional argument as to why the voter registration list is not requestable: a voter registration list is not a “record” that “c[a]me into [the state’s] possession relating to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election.”” Jarbou wrote. “They contend that this language refers only to documents that people submit to the State as part of the voter registration process, not a document like the voter registration list that is created by state officials. The Court agrees.”
Benson, in a statement, called the court’s ruling a win for the people of Michigan and the rule of law.
“Once again, a federal judge has blocked this administration from abusing their authority and attempting to illegally intimidate state officials into handing over citizens’ personal information,” Benson said. “Today’s decision affirms that the law is on our side. I urge state election officials across the country to stand up to the federal government’s overreach and safeguard citizens’ private voting information we’ve been entrusted to protect.”
Attorney General Dana Nessel echoed Benson in a statement of her own.
“The Trump administration attempted to unlawfully force Michigan into handing over private, sensitive information of millions of voters with no legal basis, and I am relieved that the court dismissed this case,” Nessel said. “We will not be bullied into violating the privacy rights of residents, and my office will continue to protect the personal data of Michiganders.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
