A federal judge has dismissed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit against New Hampshire over its refusal to provide unredacted statewide voter registration lists. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante on June 29, determined that the DOJ failed to meet legal requirements for accessing the data.
Core Facts and Immediate Action
- Judge’s Decision: Laplante ruled that New Hampshire’s voter registration data is a state-generated compilation and not subject to federal demand under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960. The DOJ did not adequately explain its request or allege a violation under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
- State’s Response: New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan welcomed the decision, emphasizing his commitment to protecting voter privacy. The state had previously rejected the DOJ’s request, citing state laws safeguarding sensitive personal information.
Deeper Dive & Context
Legal Basis for the Ruling
The judge’s 26-page ruling clarified that the state voter registration list (SVRL) is a continuously maintained database controlled by New Hampshire, not an external document. Laplante noted that the DOJ’s request lacked sufficient justification, as required by law. The ruling also dismissed the DOJ’s motion to compel compliance.
Broader Implications
The lawsuit was part of a broader effort by the DOJ to obtain voter registration lists from multiple states, including California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvania. New Hampshire’s rejection in August 2023 followed a similar demand from the Trump administration, which argued federal authority superseded state privacy laws. The dismissal reaffirms state control over voter data under existing legal frameworks.
Perspectives and Reactions
- DOJ’s Stance: The DOJ has not publicly commented on the ruling or its next steps. The lawsuit was filed under the Civil Rights Division, which has jurisdiction over voting rights enforcement.
- State Officials’ Views: Scanlan stated that the decision upholds New Hampshire’s legal obligations to protect voter privacy. The state attorney general’s office successfully defended the case, reinforcing state sovereignty in election administration.
Long-Term Implications
The ruling may set a precedent for future disputes over federal access to state voter data. It highlights tensions between federal oversight and state autonomy in election-related matters. Legal experts note that the decision underscores the importance of clear statutory authority when demanding sensitive voter information.