When a judge dismisses a case with prejudice, there is a certain silence in federal court. The phrase’s finality reflects how attorneys frequently remain motionless in court. That is precisely what U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich did on Tuesday in Phoenix when she dismissed the Department of Justice’s case, which had attempted to force Arizona to turn up its statewide voter registration rolls. The decision was straightforward and well-executed.
The DOJ’s legal foundation, Title III of the Civil Rights Act, merely does not permit the demand. According to the court’s reading, the Attorney General cannot use that process to request voter rolls. Arizona thus became one of an increasing number of states whose refusals to provide voter data have been upheld by federal courts.
| Arizona Voter Data Lawsuit — Snapshot | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | U.S. Department of Justice |
| Lead Defendant | Arizona Attorney General Adrian Fontes |
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of Arizona |
| Presiding Judge | Susan Brnovich (Trump appointee) |
| Ruling | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Legal Statute Cited | Title III of the Civil Rights Act |
| Court’s Finding | Voter rolls not subject to AG request |
| States Refusing Requests | Arizona, Rhode Island, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, plus 1 more |
| Data Sought by DOJ | Names, addresses, DOB, partial SSN, driver’s license numbers |
| Compliant States (Examples) | Alaska, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, others |
| State Officials Statement | Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and AG Kris Mayes |
| Parallel Development | North Carolina State Board of Elections identifies ~34,000 deceased on rolls |
| Federal Database | Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) |
| Civil Liberties Reference | Brennan Center for Justice |
Because of who made the decision, it has extra weight. As a Trump appointee who was appointed to the federal bench during his first term, Judge Brnovich’s decision further complicates matters for an administration that has been pursuing similar demands nationwide. The simple political framing that has occasionally been used to overturn similar decisions from judges of diverse backgrounds is eliminated by the fact that the dismissal was made by a Trump-appointed judge with conservative credentials.
The significance of these tendencies will be evident to everyone who closely monitors federal election disputes. It is more difficult to discount the underlying interpretation as politically driven when justices with diverse appointment pathways come to comparable decisions on the same legal issue.
This case has garnered a lot of attention in part because of the content of the request itself. Dates of birth, home addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers were among the voter data the DOJ was requesting for the entire state. Verifying adherence to federal election rules and verifying the citizenship status of those on the register have been the administration’s claimed justifications.
Arizona’s stance, expressed by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes, is that disclosing this information would put millions of voters at serious risk of privacy while acting outside the purview of any particular federal authority. Fundamentally, the legal argument was whether the Civil Rights Act gives the AG a broad way to access state voting records. The Phoenix federal court is one of six federal courts that have now responded negatively.
The larger picture is revealed by the state-by-state geography. The petitions have been denied by Arizona, Rhode Island, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, and at least one other state in the last month. Alaska, Texas, Tennessee, and Ohio are among the at least 13 states that have either complied or promised to comply. In addition to reflecting differing legal interpretations of what state-level officials are ready to defend in court, the divergence also reflects larger political alignments.
As the maps fill in, it seems as though the same federalist arguments that frequently run in opposing directions on policy are flowing in concert here. States are taking steps to safeguard their data. States that wish to share it are also doing so. Due to its inability to enforce universal compliance, the federal government has turned to lawsuit, which has now failed six times.
An intriguing twist is added by the simultaneous development out of North Carolina. After doing a thorough comparison with federal records, the State Board of Elections there discovered almost 34,000 deceased people on its voter rolls. Although the board has stressed that the inclusion of deceased people on a roster does not, by itself, suggest that unlawful votes were cast, the number is larger than officials had predicted.
As part of a continuous accuracy effort, the NCSBE uploaded more than 7.3 million voter records to the federal SAVE database. This issue is exacerbated in part by the contradictory fact that voter roll upkeep is both politically fraught and legitimately required. In theory, it is not contentious to remove deceased voters off the rolls. The courts continue to conclude that mass federal access to state voter data is a separate matter.
The Arizona verdict feels important beyond its immediate effects in part because of the cultural context. One of the most contentious data sets in American politics today is voter rolls. Concerns over voter privacy, roll accuracy, and federal-state cooperation have been voiced by both parties at different points in time.
Civil liberties organizations, such as the ACLU and the Brennan Center for Justice, have opposed the current administration’s attempt to gather comprehensive state data, claiming that the privacy concerns far outweigh the claimed benefits. The true complexity of the underlying data quality issues and the amount of space for both reasonable improvement and legitimate worry are evident to anyone who has taken the time to study election management.
