Trump quest for voter data spurs lawsuits, a raid and jail risk

The recent FBI raid of a Georgia county election office is a precursor to battles ahead as President Donald Trump’s administration steps up efforts to obtain sensitive voter information from states.

The effort has set up legal showdowns with 24 states and Washington, D.C., with the Justice Department suing them for refusing to turn over voter data. The administration has also sued Fulton County, Georgia, for records related to the 2020 election.

The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, has said it may take action against states that do turn over data if that violates voter rights. In turn, the Justice Department’s civil rights chief said the DNC could face repercussions — laying the groundwork for a significant clash before November’s midterm elections.

The matter could eventually wind its way to the Supreme Court, as the U.S. Constitution says states establish the times, places and manner of congressional elections but allows for Congress to alter those regulations.

U.S. officials say they’re trying to ensure election integrity. But the states say the demands are too broad and could impact the vote — the Justice Department seeks not only names and addresses but voter birth dates, driver’s license information and partial Social Security numbers.

“I won’t turn the data over, consequences be damned,” Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said in an interview. “It wouldn’t surprise me if they have plans to throw civil actors and civil servants like me in jail.”

Tensions spilled into the open when the FBI raided the Fulton County elections center near Atlanta on Jan. 28 to seize voting records and other data from the 2020 election, which Joe Biden won. But Trump has been fixated on his defeat in that race, continuing to repeat unsubstantiated claims of fraud dismissed by election officials, the courts, and some of his former aides years ago.

Although those records related to the 2020 election, local officials warned the raid foreshadows the months ahead and warned of further actions across the country.

“It is coming to a place near you,” Fulton County Commissioner Mo Ivory told reporters after last week’s FBI raid. “This is the beginning of the chaos of 2026 that is about to ensue.”

The Justice Department seized the records using a grand jury subpoena as part of a criminal investigation. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the administration’s approach when asked about the seizure of records in Fulton County.

“Election integrity is extraordinarily important to this administration,” Blanche told reporters last Friday. He said it shouldn’t be surprising that the administration is “investigating issues around elections to make sure that we do have completely fair and appropriate elections.”

The battles are already playing out in court. Federal judges have started to weigh in, delivering early losses to Trump in lawsuits against state leaders in California and Oregon.

“The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose,” U.S. District Judge David Carter said in a Jan. 15 ruling dismissing the U.S. lawsuit against California. Carter was nominated by President Bill Clinton.

Obstruction Threat

A further escalation could be on the horizon.

The DNC warned states in writing that it would respond if they violated voters’ rights in sharing of data with the federal government. Harmeet Dhillon, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, shot back by warning that such a move could lead to retaliation.

“Organizations should think twice before interfering in a federal investigation and encouraging the obstruction of justice, unless they’d like to join the dozens of states that are learning their lesson in federal court,” Dhillon said in a posting on X.

Then, in a statement to Bloomberg, Dan Freeman, the DNC’s director of litigation, said the committee “will never back down from a fight to protect voting rights, and we look forward to meeting the Justice Department in federal court.”

The Justice Department declined to make Dhillon available for an interview.

‘Ransom Note’

The U.S. demand for voter records came up recently in Minnesota, where the Trump administration is facing massive protests over the killing of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration authorities. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent Minnesota Governor Tim Walz a letter suggesting that if the state turned over voter rolls to the federal government, it would “bring an end to the chaos.”

At a hearing on the state’s bid to halt the administration’s surge of immigration agents, Lindsey Middlecamp of the Minnesota attorney general’s office told District Judge Katherine Menendez the letter amounts to a “ransom note” for the voting records. The judge questioned the Justice Department’s attorney about the letter.

Federal government lawyer Brantley Mayers replied that there is no evidence agents are on the ground “for another reason” other than for immigration enforcement. Menendez on Saturday turned down the state’s request to pause the surge.

Eileen O’Connor, a former eight-year veteran of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said the letter laid bare the connection between voter data access and immigration enforcement.

“It’s just stunning to think that killings in Minnesota are being linked to the state not turning over its unredacted voter files,” said O’Connor, now a senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan group at New York University law School that works to defend democracy. “Getting a snapshot of a voter file isn’t going to tell you whether or not states have an adequate procedure in place to keep their voter rolls up to date.”

She said the scope of the data request from the department is “unprecedented” and unnecessary to prove compliance with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. States are equipped to monitor and update voter information and any attempted federal takeover of state elections would be unconstitutional and impossible for the federal government to manage, she said.

Fontes, the Arizona secretary of state, said he would be willing to supply the Justice Department with legally available public data that his office regularly provides, but the federal government’s requests go beyond its mandate, and wouldn’t serve the stated purpose.

“The type of analysis that they say they want to make is not supported by the type of data they’re requesting,” he said.