BREAKING: DNC Wins First Battle in Fight Against DOJ Requesting Unredacted State Voter Rolls Arrow

Federal Court rejects Trump Justice Department's attempt to obtain unredacted voter file in California, relying on DNC amicus brief

A federal court in California dismissed the Trump Justice Department's lawsuit seeking access to California's full voter registration database Thursday, warning that the government's bid for the records "threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy." This dismissal comes after the DNC filed an amicus brief in support of the state of California to fight back against Trump's attempts to obtain sensitive, personal information of nearly 23 million California voters.

The victory comes less than a week after the DNC sent warning letters to 10 states urging them not to enter into agreements requiring them to send their unredacted voter files to DOJ and to purge registered voters within 45 days of a DOJ demand, which would run roughshod over federal voter protections.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter wrote, "It is not for the Executive, or even this Court to authorize the use of civil rights legislation as a tool to forsake the privacy rights of millions of Americans."

DNC Chair Ken Martin issued the following statement:

"Donald Trump and Pam Bondi want the personal information of Americans across the country so they can create a national database with sensitive personal information like driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, and party affiliation. This should be a five-alarm fire for Americans everywhere - it opens the door to privacy concerns and further political retribution. The DNC refuses to let this happen. That's why we filed an amicus brief joining with the state of California to fight back, and last night, we won. We've already filed amicus briefs in four more states, and we'll continue to fight back across the country to protect the rights of all American citizens. Democrats will never stop fighting to defend voters. As we kick off the midterm year, this victory is just the beginning."

Key passages of the decision:

• "Congress' purpose in passing the civil rights laws the DOJ now invokes for its extraordinary request was to protect hard won civil rights victories allowing access to the ballot box. . . . It is not for the Executive, or even this Court to authorize the use of civil rights legislation as a tool to forsake the privacy rights of millions of Americans."
  
• "There is an inherent level of trust that comes along with Americans voting locally. . . . State run elections mean that voters recognize their neighbors who staff polling stations, trust their Secretaries of State-whom they voted for-to keep their personally identifying information safe, and believe that they will not be targeted because of what they look like or who they vote for. The DOJ's request for the sensitive information of Californians stands to have a chilling effect on American citizens like political minority groups and working-class immigrants who may consider not registering to vote or skip casting a ballot because they are worried about how their information will be used."
  
• "There cannot be unbridled consolidation of all elections power in the Executive without action from Congress and public debate. This is antithetical to the promise of fair and free elections our country promises and the franchise that civil rights leaders fought and died for."
  
• "This Court and the American people deserve to know what exactly the sensitive information of millions of Americans is going to be used for. The Court is not required to accept pretextual, formalistic explanations untethered to the reality of what the government has said outside of the courtroom. . . . The Court does not take lightly DOJ's obfuscation of its true motives in the present matter."
  
• "[T]he Constitution requires that any decision which might erode fundamental privacy and voting rights must be subjected to the crucible of public debate through the Legislative Branch of the American government. It cannot be the product of an executive fiat."