By Sara Merken
NEW YORK, Jan 15 (Reuters) – A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit that sought an unredacted statewide voter registration list from California.
U.S. District Judge David Carter in Santa Ana said the Justice Department’s claims were insufficient under federal civil rights law and voting laws, adding that its demands, which included voter names, dates of birth, driver’s license information and partial social security numbers violated privacy laws.
“The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration, which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose,” said Carter, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.
The Trump administration’s Justice Department filed lawsuits against California and several other mostly Democratic-led states in September for not providing voter registration lists. It cited laws it said allowed the attorney general to demand statewide voter lists and to ensure states effectively maintained voter data.
California resisted the request, arguing it was not legally entitled to hand over the voter information.
In a statement on Thursday, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said she would “continue to uphold my promise to Californians to protect our democracy and I will continue to challenge this administration’s disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote.”
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Reuters reported in September that the DOJ was in talks with a division of the Department of Homeland Security about transferring voter roll data for use in criminal and immigration investigations.
Trump and many of his allies have long spread unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud, including that immigrants living illegally in the country are voting in large numbers.
(Reporting by Sara Merken in New York; Editing by Thomas Derpinghaus)
Comments