Top Headlines

Feeds

Minnesota Refuses Bondi’s Voter‑Roll Request as DOJ Pushes Nationwide Data Collection

Updated (7 articles)

State officials label Bondi’s demand a “ransom note” and refuse compliance Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon rejected Attorney General Pam Bondi’s letter, saying the request violates state and federal privacy statutes and calling the tone “deeply disturbing”[1]. Simon emphasized that Minnesota will not turn over full voter‑registration files without a court order[1]. The refusal follows similar rejections in other states and adds pressure on the Justice Department’s broader data‑gathering effort[1].

White House asserts full authority to enforce election‑law requests spokeswoman Abigail Jackson declared that the Department of Justice possesses “full authority” to obtain voter‑roll data under federal election law[1]. The administration ties the push to President Trump’s pledge for “accurate rolls” and frames the request as a routine enforcement action[1]. Critics, however, describe the move as extortionate and politically motivated[1].

Judges question the executive’s legal basis and motives District Judge Kate Menendez asked whether the DOJ is overreaching by using force to achieve policy goals beyond judicial reach[1]. Courts in California and Oregon have already dismissed similar lawsuits, criticizing the DOJ’s reliance on the 1960 Civil Rights Act as insufficient authority[1]. These rulings warn against consolidating election‑related power in the executive branch[1].

Only a minority of states comply while lawsuits multiply Fourteen states have either complied or are working toward compliance with the DOJ’s voter‑data requests, leaving most states resistant[1]. Nebraska faces a lawsuit seeking to block data sharing, and the Democratic National Committee warned ten states about legal pitfalls in a proposed 45‑day “clean‑up” plan[1]. Election officials in at least two states shared data but rejected the DOJ’s terms, highlighting growing legal contention[1].

Expanded SAVE system fuels privacy and accuracy concerns The Department of Homeland Security’s upgraded SAVE tool now accesses Social Security and passport information to flag non‑citizen voters[1]. Texas identified 2,724 potential non‑citizens from 18 million voter records, but Travis County later discovered that 11 of 97 flagged individuals already possessed proof of citizenship, underscoring accuracy issues[1]. Critics argue the expanded data linkage threatens voter privacy and could lead to wrongful disenfranchisement[1].

Sources (1 articles)

Timeline

Nov 2020 – The 2020 General Election occurs, later becoming the focus of federal subpoenas seeking ballots and registration data under civil‑rights and election‑law statutes. [1][4]

Oct 2025 – The Justice Department issues a federal subpoena to Fulton County, Georgia, demanding all used and void 2020 ballots, stubs, signature envelopes, and digital files, citing a need to investigate compliance with federal election law. [1]

Dec 2, 2025 – The DOJ files lawsuits against Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington for refusing to provide statewide voter‑registration lists, raising the total of sued states to fourteen. [7]

Dec 12, 2025 – The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division sues Fulton County to obtain the 2020 ballot materials, alleging the county’s refusal violates the Civil Rights Act; earlier that month a judge dismisses the racketeering indictment against former President Donald Trump related to the 2020 Georgia election. [1][4]

Jan 7, 2026 – The DOJ sues Connecticut and Arizona for not turning over detailed voter records, bringing the total of states sued to twenty‑three; Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes publicly rebukes the demand with a “Pound sand” post on X. [6]

Jan 14, 2026 – U.S. District Judge David O. Carter blocks the DOJ’s request for California voter‑roll data under the Civil Rights Act, calling the demand unprecedented and illegal. [3]

Jan 15, 2026 – In his ruling, Carter stresses that the DOJ must show a specific purpose and legal basis for any records request, warning that a nationwide data pool would chill voter registration and turnout; the department pivots to the Civil Rights Act after its NVRA/HAVA arguments falter. [3]

Jan 16, 2026 – Judge Carter dismisses the DOJ’s bid for California voter data, ruling that only Congress can authorize a consolidation of election authority and that the request threatens the right to vote. [5]

Jan 27, 2026 – Attorney General Pam Bondi writes to Minnesota’s governor demanding full voter‑registration records after an ICE killing in Minneapolis; state officials label the request a “ransom note,” judges question the administration’s authority, the White House asserts full enforcement power, and the DHS‑run SAVE system expands to flag non‑citizens, with Texas identifying 2,724 potential non‑citizens and Travis County later confirming 11 of 97 flagged voters already have proof of citizenship. [2]

2026 (date TBD) – A fast‑track hearing is scheduled on the DOJ’s request for Connecticut’s voter‑roll data, testing the new purpose‑and‑basis safeguards outlined by Judge Carter. [3]

2026 (planned) – The Democratic National Committee issues a proposed 45‑day “clean‑up” plan for voter rolls, warning ten states of legal pitfalls as the DOJ’s data‑collection lawsuits continue. [2]

Social media (1 posts)

All related articles (7 articles)

External resources (10 links)