Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Against California Over Voter Data

Rex Ballard
Jan 21
4 min read

In a significant blow to the Trump administration's efforts to centralize voter information nationwide, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter dismissed the Department of Justice's (DOJ) lawsuit against California on January 15, 2026, ruling that the federal government's demand for unredacted voter rolls was "unprecedented and illegal." The case, United States v. Weber, centered on the DOJ's request for sensitive personal data from California's approximately 23 million registered voters, including full names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers.

Judge Carter (Clinton appointee), presiding in the Central District of California in Santa Ana, granted motions to dismiss filed by California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and intervenor-defendants, including civil rights organizations such as the ACLU, NAACP, and League of Women Voters. In his 33-page opinion, Carter emphasized that the DOJ's actions violated federal privacy laws and exceeded the authority granted under voting rights statutes, potentially chilling voter participation and undermining democratic principles. "The taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece by piece until there is nothing left," Carter wrote, highlighting concerns over the executive branch repurposing civil rights laws for broader data collection.

Background of the Dispute

The lawsuit stemmed from a broader DOJ initiative launched in the summer of 2025, targeting at least 21 states and Washington, D.C., to obtain unredacted voter registration lists. The administration argued that access was necessary to enforce voter list maintenance under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA), aiming to identify and remove ineligible voters, such as non-citizens or duplicates.

In July 2025, the DOJ formally requested California's statewide voter file, citing "anomalies" like high registration rates as evidence of potential non-compliance. California offered redacted versions for in-person inspection but refused to release sensitive data, invoking state privacy laws under the California Election Code and Government Code. When the state declined, the DOJ filed suit on September 25, 2025, marking one of the most aggressive federal interventions in state election administration in recent history.

Intervenors, including the ACLU of Southern California and the Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN), argued that the request could enable misuse of data for non-election purposes, such as immigration enforcement by sharing with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). They contended it would disproportionately affect marginalized communities, potentially suppressing voter turnout among immigrants, people of color, and low-income groups.

Key Elements of the Ruling

Carter's decision dismissed the complaint with prejudice, meaning the DOJ cannot refile without substantial new grounds, and deemed amendments futile. He rejected the DOJ's claims on multiple fronts:

Civil Rights Act (Title III): The DOJ's "statement of basis and purpose" was deemed insufficient and pretextual, lacking evidence of specific voting rights violations or discrimination. Carter noted the statute was intended to combat voter suppression, not facilitate broad federal data grabs.
NVRA and HAVA: These laws require states to maintain accurate voter rolls and allow public inspection but do not mandate unredacted access to government entities. California's redaction practices were ruled compliant, as they balance accuracy with privacy protections.
Privacy Violations: The request breached the Privacy Act, E-Government Act, and Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) by failing to conduct required privacy impact assessments and lacking safeguards against misuse. Carter highlighted the risk of creating a "1984-style" federal dossier on citizens.

The judge also addressed separation of powers, stating, "It is not for the Executive ... to authorize the use of civil rights legislation as a tool to forsake the privacy rights of millions of Americans. That power belongs solely to Congress."

A related case against Orange County Registrar of Voters Robert Page was stayed pending this outcome and may now be resolved similarly.

Reactions and Broader Implications

California officials and civil rights advocates hailed the ruling as a victory for voter privacy and state sovereignty. Secretary Weber stated, "I will continue to uphold my promise to Californians to protect our democracy and challenge this administration's disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote." ACLU representatives described it as a rejection of "federal overreach" that could have chilled participation in future elections.

From the DOJ's perspective, the initiative was framed as essential for election integrity, with officials like Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon previously emphasizing the need to complete the project amid concerns over voter fraud. Critics on the right, including some Republican lawmakers, have argued that states like California harbor inflated rolls, potentially enabling irregularities, though no widespread evidence was presented in court.

Legal experts predict an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals within 60 days, with potential escalation to the Supreme Court given the national scope. Similar lawsuits in states like Oregon and Connecticut are ongoing, and this decision could influence them, reinforcing states' rights to redact sensitive data. DOJ attorneys will likely argue that federal law trumps state laws.

As the 2026 midterms approach, the debate over voter data could intensify, pitting election integrity against privacy protections.

SHASTA

Serving the North State with Honest News and Entertainment

UNFILTERED

Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Against California Over Voter Data

Sources

Related Posts