As the U. S. midterm elections approach, Democrats have won legal challenges against the Trump administration’s efforts to obtain voter rolls from states, undermining the president’s attempts to increase the federal government’s role in elections. These victories come as Democrats aim to regain both houses of Congress from Trump’s Republicans in the elections on November 3.
Federal judges in states like California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, and Rhode Island have dismissed Justice Department lawsuits seeking sensitive voter information, including partial Social Security numbers. Legal disputes surrounding elections are common, with Democrats challenging laws they see as voter restrictions, while Republicans argue against practices they believe invite fraud. Trump has claimed, without evidence, that his 2020 election loss resulted from fraud.
The current situation marks a new element in voter rights litigation, where voting rights groups are now contesting the federal government’s actions in court. Lis Frost, a lawyer from Elias Law Group, which represents voting rights groups, indicated that the Justice Department has taken on a role similar to that of right-wing organizations in seeking to remove certain voters from rolls. This firm was founded by Marc Elias, a known Trump critic who represents the Democratic party in legal matters.
Notably, four judges who dismissed the lawsuits included three appointed by Democratic presidents and one by Trump. They found that the Justice Department did not satisfactorily explain the necessity for the unredacted voter data. The fifth judge, appointed by Trump, claimed the request was adequately explained but did not demonstrate legal grounds for state compliance.
The Trump administration is appealing three decisions and has 25 more cases pending, with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon prepared to escalate the fight to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department has sought voter rolls from nearly every state and has claimed to find numerous deceased individuals and people lacking proof of citizenship among the records, though no evidence of fraudulent voting has been presented.
Trump and his allies believe states are not doing enough to prevent voter fraud, despite audits and studies showing it is rare. Critics argue that Republicans are more focused on gaining political power than ensuring election security, potentially disenfranchising eligible voters, often those who lean Democratic. In February, Trump suggested Republicans should “nationalize” voting but did not clarify his plans. Legal experts think many actions taken by his administration will not pass court challenges.
Three federal judges have blocked Trump’s 2025 executive order, which required proof of citizenship for voter registration and limited mail ballot counting, and the Justice Department is appealing these decisions. Additionally, a March 2026 executive order to restrict mail-in voting is facing legal challenges. Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department elections lawyer, stated that Trump lacks the authority to take federal control of elections.
Even if the Justice Department continues to face legal losses, some experts anticipate that Trump will use these situations to question the legitimacy of future elections if Republicans do not win. This echoes his behavior following the 2020 election loss, when he cited multiple legal defeats to undermine trust in the electoral process. David Becker, a former election lawyer, noted that this approach serves as a tool for propaganda and can destabilize future elections.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll indicates that many Americans, including a significant majority of Republicans, support Trump’s claims about widespread voter fraud. The Justice Department has invoked the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to challenge state voter rolls, a law initially aimed at preventing racial discrimination against Black voters. However, a judge dismissed the request for California’s voter data, arguing that the request was too broad and suggested an intention to create a national voter database rather than address state-specific issues.
This potential for a nationwide voter database raises concerns among voting rights advocates, who fear it could lead to disenfranchisement of eligible voters, particularly if outdated information is used to purge voter lists. Renata O’Donnell, from the Campaign Legal Center, expressed alarm at the risks of disenfranchising eligible citizens.
With information from Reuters
