Cincinnati, Ohio (WWJ) - The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the U.S. Department of Justice’s request for access to Michigan’s unredacted voter rolls, upholding a previous dismissal by a federal judge in the state.
The ruling means the DOJ will not be permitted to obtain the personal identifying information of Michigan voters, including Social Security numbers. According to Hayley Harding, the Michigan reporter for Votebeat, the decision is part of a broader, multi-state legal battle that appears increasingly likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The DOJ has filed lawsuits against several states over the issue, repeatedly arguing that federal law allows the attorney general to access unredacted voter data.
"Functionally the DOJ is making the same argument over and over again in all of these cases that federal law allows the Attorney General to have access to these unredacted voter rolls," Harding tells WWJ. "And that over and over again has been decided by judges that both state law and federal law says that actually, no you can't."
In the Michigan case, the federal judge went a step further, noting that the DOJ failed to provide sufficient information regarding what it actually intended to do with the data if access was granted.
Despite the ongoing litigation, the lawsuit is not expected to impact upcoming elections or result in immediate voter purges. Ballots are already on their way to voters for the August primary and will not be affected by the ruling.
Looking ahead to the November election, federal laws enforce a strict cooling-off period that prevents voters from being removed from the rolls within a specific number of days prior to a federal election, making any immediate impact on those races highly unlikely.
While it is possible the 6th Circuit could review the case again, Harding said the Michigan lawsuit is moving faster than similar cases across the country, making it a prime candidate for the Supreme Court.
"I do think the laws are pretty clear in what is, what the DOJ is allowed to have and what the federal government is allowed to request of states," Harding tells WWJ. "I think the Supreme Court generally speaking has shown itself to be pro states' rights in this particular court. And I think one of the prime arguments is that to share all of this information with the federal government would violate a voter's state right to privacy that is guaranteed by the states."
