Trump DOJ loses again, now 0 for 5 on voter roll cases, as court rejects Rhode Island lawsuit
By Jim Saksa for
the Democracy Docket
In Donald Trump’s second term, the DOJ has
demanded every state’s unredacted voter registration records — including
sensitive private data like social security numbers and dates of birth — 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.
Rhode
Island is now the fifth state to secure a district court victory,
joining California, Oregon, Michigan and Massachusetts.*
U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy, a Trump appointee,
called the DOJ’s widespread voter roll demands a “fishing expedition.” The DOJ
sought to use the 1960 Civil Rights Act (CRA) to order Rhode Island to turn
over unredacted versions of its registration records, saying they were needed
to ensure compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Help
America Vote Act (HAVA).
The CRA empowers the DOJ to demand copies of registration records, provided that the agency also provides a “basis” and “purpose” when they do so. In state after state, the DOJ failed to explicitly do that, leading to their losses in California, Oregon, Massachusetts, and now Rhode Island.
“With that understanding, the Court finds that the Attorney
General’s demand lacks a legally sufficient basis to satisfy [the CRA’s]
requirements,” McElroy wrote. “Absent from the demand are any factual
allegations suggesting that Rhode Island may be violating the list maintenance
requirements of the NVRA and HAVA, let alone the CRA. This alone would be
enough to foreclose judicial enforcement of the demand.”
In the wake of these repetitive defeats, the DOJ has asked
the federal court’s permission in 13
states to file new demand letters with a more explicit basis laid out
in the hopes of fixing the issue.
McElroy seemed to preempt such a request on appeal here,
though.
“Following [U.S.
v.] Galvin’s dismissal of the United States’ suit in Massachusetts,
the United States requested that, should the Court follow Galvin, DOJ be
permitted leave to send [Rhode Island] Secretary [of State Gregg] Amore a
‘curing elaboration letter’ presumably containing some factual basis for its
[CRA] demand,” McElroy wrote. “But even were the Demand Letter to contain a
factual basis, it would still fail to state a claim under [the CRA] because it
lacks a legally sufficient purpose.”
“As such, even were the Court to grant DOJ leave to send its
requested “curing elaboration letter” containing a factual basis for its
allegation that Rhode Island might be falling short of its obligations under
the NVRA or HAVA,” McElroy added, “that letter would remain legally
insufficient to support a [CRA] records demand because its purpose would fall
outside [the CRA’s] intended scope.”
McElroy is the second Trump appointee to rule against the
DOJ in these cases, joining U.S. District Judge Hala Jarbou, who sided with
Michigan. Unlike that narrow
opinion, however, McElroy’s justification for dismissal echoed the rulings
in California, Oregon and Massachusetts. The DOJ has filed appeals in all those
states.
McElroy’s opinion repeatedly cited the DOJ’s earlier losses,
particularly California’s win in United States v. Weber, which was the first
published opinion in
these cases. Legal experts had questioned the
wisdom of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon’s
sue-every-state strategy, predicting the losses would snowball against the
agency. The White House is now reportedly considering a promotion for Dhillon
to either the DOJ’s third top ranking position or Attorney General.
*Intervenor defendants in this lawsuit are represented by
the Elias Law Group (ELG). Democracy Docket founder Marc Elias is ELG chairman.
*Ashley Cleaves contributed to this report.