Full Breakdown
Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit for Rhode Island Voter Data
4/19/2026, 4:18:51 AM
Overview of the Case
On April 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking access to Rhode Island's voter registration data. This ruling marks the fifth consecutive defeat for the DOJ in its attempts to obtain sensitive voter information from various states, including California, Oregon, Michigan, and Massachusetts. The DOJ's lawsuit aimed to compel Rhode Island to provide unredacted voter rolls, which include personal information such as names, birth dates, driver's license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers.
Legal Arguments and Ruling
Judge McElroy characterized the DOJ's request as a "fishing expedition," asserting that federal law does not authorize such demands without a factual basis. In her 14-page ruling, she stated that the DOJ failed to demonstrate any evidence suggesting that Rhode Island was not in compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) or the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The judge emphasized that the DOJ's demand lacked a legally sufficient purpose, as required by Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960.
Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore expressed satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it reaffirmed the state's authority over voter list maintenance and criticized the DOJ's actions as constitutional overreach. Amore had previously offered the DOJ a publicly available version of the voter list but declined to provide unredacted data.
Broader Implications
The DOJ's ongoing efforts to access voter data have raised significant concerns regarding privacy and state rights. Critics argue that the federal government’s demands could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive personal information, potentially jeopardizing voter security. The DOJ has claimed that it needs this data to ensure election integrity and compliance with federal laws, but many state officials, both Democratic and Republican, have resisted these demands, citing privacy laws.
The ruling in Rhode Island is part of a larger pattern, as federal judges across the country have consistently rejected the DOJ's requests for voter data, emphasizing the need for a clear legal basis for such demands. The DOJ's strategy has faced scrutiny, with legal experts questioning the efficacy of its approach and the potential for further legal setbacks.
Official Statements
In response to the ruling, Amore stated, “Voter list maintenance is a responsibility entrusted to the states, and I remain confident in the steps we take here in Rhode Island to keep our list as accurate as possible.” He further criticized the DOJ's approach as an overreach of federal authority.
The DOJ has not publicly commented on the ruling but has indicated its intention to continue pursuing voter data from other states. Following the ruling, the DOJ sought permission from federal courts in 13 states to issue new demand letters that would provide a clearer basis for its requests.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
While the DOJ has faced multiple defeats, at least a dozen states have complied with its requests for voter data, including Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. This discrepancy highlights the varied responses from states regarding the DOJ's demands and raises questions about the consistency of federal election enforcement.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Neither the NVRA nor HAVA authorize DOJ to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here,” — U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy
- “The executive branch seems to have no problem taking actions that are clear Constitutional overreaches, regularly meddling in responsibilities that are the rights of the states,” — Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore
- “The United States’ complaint fails for the simple reason that the Attorney General’s demand did not comply with Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the statute on which it purports to rely,” — Judge Leo Sorokin, regarding a similar case in Massachusetts.
