Court rejects bid for Oregon voter rolls in first ruling on DOJ data grab

A federal judge in Oregon made the first ruling in one of the lawsuits the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched against 23 states and Washington D.C., reportedly refusing to grant their demand for the state’s unredacted voter registration records. 

U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai tentatively granted Oregon’s motion to dismiss, saying he would subsequently issue a written opinion, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.*

“This is a big win for Oregonians’ privacy and the rule of law,” Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read (D) said in a written statement. “The federal government tried to abuse their power to force me to break my oath of office and hand over your private data. I stood up to them and said no. Now, the court sided with us. Tonight, we proved, once again, we have the power to push back and win.”

Oregon was one of the first states sued by the DOJ, back in September, for rejecting the agency’s request for unfettered access to the state’s voter rolls. In their initial complaint, the DOJ alleged that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the 1960 Civil Rights Act (CRA) both empowered the Attorney General to inspect state registration files to ensure the state was adequately maintaining them, including access to sensitive private data like social security numbers and dates of birth. 

Oregon responded by noting that the NVRA and CRA only require states to make the records available for “public inspection,” and “inspection” respectively — not total access. Moreover, the CRA requires the Attorney General to demand access stating the “basis and purpose” of the record inspection, but the DOJ failed to state a basis for the demand. In response to the DOJ’s initial letter, Read offered to hand over a redacted voter registration list and allow inspection in person by DOJ officials. 

Oregon also noted that other federal statutes, like the Privacy Act, actually prohibit states from disseminating an individual’s private information unless required by law.

Kasubhai, a President Joe Biden appointee, sided with Oregon after a lively daylong hearing, agreeing that states clearly aren’t required by the NVRA to provide unredacted voter registration data. The CRA is “more detailed and complicated,” the judge said, according to the lawyer, but added that he was “hanging my hat on the ‘basis and purpose.'”

“I only offer this as a tentative draft, but I reserve the right to change my mind upon further consideration,” Kasubhai said. “That said, the fact that I’ve decided to say this in open court indicates this is the answer.”

Oregon was joined in defending the lawsuit by a number of intervenors, including Our Oregon, an advocacy group. According to Courthouse News Service, Our Oregon attorney Branden Lewiston argued that the DOJ’s real purpose in demanding the voter rolls wasn’t ensuring states were properly maintaining the registration records, but rather an attempt to create a national voter list aimed at preventing unwanted people from casting ballots.

“That’s a dark theory,” Kasubhai responded. 

A DOJ attorney denied the allegation. But the department has admitted that it is sharing the voter records it has received from complying states with the Department of Homeland Security, running nearly 50 million voters through a citizenship database program. 

The ruling came down amid a recent rash of statements from President Donald Trump musing about cancelling the upcoming midterm elections and threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act to send troops to American cities to quell peaceful protests. 

*Democracy Docket Founder Marc Elias’s law firm, Elias Law Group, represents intervening defendant in this lawsuit.

*This story has been updated.