US Federal Court: DOJ Denied Unredacted Georgia Voter Rolls

• A Georgia federal judge denied the Department of Justice's request for unredacted state voter rolls.
• U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Marie Calvert ruled that the National Voter Registration Act does not preempt Georgia's voter privacy law.
• Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had provided redacted voter data, citing state law protecting sensitive information.
• The court found that federal law does not require the disclosure of sensitive voter details and that states can comply with both federal and state regulations.
• This ruling is one of over two dozen similar decisions against the Trump administration regarding unredacted voter information requests.

This decision underscores that compliance with both state privacy statutes and federal voter record regulations is achievable, rejecting the notion of federal preemption in this context.

A federal court in Georgia recently dismissed a lawsuit initiated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that sought full, unredacted access to the state's voter registration information. This significant ruling, issued on a Wednesday, means the DOJ was denied unredacted Georgia voter rolls, upholding the state's right to protect sensitive personal data. The legal challenge stemmed from Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's decision to provide voter data with certain details redacted, including dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and driver's license numbers, in compliance with Georgia's voter privacy law.

U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Marie Calvert, a Joe Biden appointee, issued a 23-page ruling that found the matter to be dispositive, noting that the state had already largely fulfilled the federal government's request for voter records. The Georgia Secretary of State lawsuit, filed by the DOJ in December, aimed to compel the state to release this confidential information. However, Judge Calvert concluded that federal law does not preempt Georgia's voter privacy law, thereby affirming the state's ability to safeguard its residents' private information.

The Department of Justice had contended that it was entitled to the unredacted information under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The federal agency argued that this data was crucial for verification purposes through the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. Furthermore, the DOJ asserted that access to voters' private information was necessary to identify duplicate registration records, track individuals who had moved, and pinpoint deceased registrants or others no longer eligible to vote in federal elections.

However, Judge Calvert's ruling directly challenged these assertions. She clarified that the National Voter Registration Act does not mandate the disclosure of sensitive personal details, but rather imposes procedural requirements on states to make reasonable efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls by removing ineligible voters. The court determined that the National Voter Registration Act preemption argument did not hold, as Secretary Raffensperger's actions demonstrated that it is entirely possible to comply with both Georgia's voter privacy law and federal statutes concerning voter records. This decision underscores that compliance with both state privacy statutes and federal voter record regulations is achievable, rejecting the notion of federal preemption in this context and limiting federal access state voter information.

This particular ruling is not an isolated incident; it joins more than two dozen similar decisions where federal attempts to obtain unredacted voter information from states were unsuccessful. These lawsuits were largely initiated by the Trump administration against states that resisted handing over complete voter data. In contrast, at least 16 other states, including Alabama, Florida, and Alaska, fully complied with the administration’s demands for such information. The Brennan Center for Justice has characterized these federal efforts as part of a concerted campaign by the administration to interfere with future elections, based on unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud and rigged electoral processes.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican known for defending the state's 2020 election results against false claims, publicly praised the court's decision. He reaffirmed his commitment to protecting the sensitive personal information of Georgians, stating his adherence to the law and the Constitution. Raffensperger emphasized that he would not yield to pressure or violate legal statutes for anyone, reinforcing the Georgia voter privacy law upheld by the court. This stance highlights the ongoing tension between federal data requests and state-level privacy protections regarding Brad Raffensperger voter data.

Beyond the legal battle over data access, Georgia has been actively engaged in its own voter roll maintenance efforts. Last year, the state undertook one of the largest removals of inactive voters in U.S. history, canceling nearly 471,000 voter registrations. These systemic statewide voter list purges are currently on hold, however, as federal law prohibits such actions within 90 days of a federal election. Exceptions are made for individually focused maintenance, such as updating the registration status of individuals who have died or legally changed their names. This context demonstrates Georgia's proactive approach to voter roll integrity, even as it defends its privacy laws against federal demands for unredacted data.

This ruling clarifies that federal law (specifically the NVRA) does not automatically preempt state voter privacy laws, affirming states' ability to redact sensitive voter information when providing data to federal agencies. Lawyers advising state election officials or involved in election law should note this precedent regarding the balance between federal data requests and state privacy protections.

Source: Reporting based on CN coverage.