By Nathaniel Rakich, Votebeat
Bridge Michigan
This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. Visit the newsroom online: bridgemi.com.
A federal judge has dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Michigan over the state’s refusal to give the department an unredacted list of registered voters, finding the state isn’t required by federal law to turn it over.
Last year, the Department of Justice requested unredacted voter data from virtually every state as part of President Donald Trump’s quest to root out noncitizen voters, which are extremely rare. The department requested a copy of Michigan’s voter roll in July, along with answers to a series of questions about its voter registration practices.
In September, Michigan provided a redacted version of the voter roll that withheld voters’ personally identifiable information, which the state said was necessary to avoid breaking state and federal law. The Department of Justice then sued Michigan for the complete data later that month.
However, on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou of the Western District of Michigan, a Trump nominee, dismissed the case. Jarbou wrote in her opinion that none of the three laws that the Department of Justice had used to justify its request — the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act — required the disclosure of the data.
Justice Department officials have argued that obtaining voter rolls is necessary in order for the department to make sure states are complying with federal requirements for how voter rolls should be maintained. Over the past year, the Department of Justice has sued 24 states, plus Washington, D.C., for not sharing their data. Federal judges have also so far dismissed the suits against California and Oregon.
A spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
The Department of Justice also did not immediately respond to a request for comment, including a question about whether it would appeal the ruling.
Bridge Michigan
This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. Visit the newsroom online: bridgemi.com.
A federal judge has dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Michigan over the state’s refusal to give the department an unredacted list of registered voters, finding the state isn’t required by federal law to turn it over.
Last year, the Department of Justice requested unredacted voter data from virtually every state as part of President Donald Trump’s quest to root out noncitizen voters, which are extremely rare. The department requested a copy of Michigan’s voter roll in July, along with answers to a series of questions about its voter registration practices.
In September, Michigan provided a redacted version of the voter roll that withheld voters’ personally identifiable information, which the state said was necessary to avoid breaking state and federal law. The Department of Justice then sued Michigan for the complete data later that month.
However, on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou of the Western District of Michigan, a Trump nominee, dismissed the case. Jarbou wrote in her opinion that none of the three laws that the Department of Justice had used to justify its request — the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act — required the disclosure of the data.
Justice Department officials have argued that obtaining voter rolls is necessary in order for the department to make sure states are complying with federal requirements for how voter rolls should be maintained. Over the past year, the Department of Justice has sued 24 states, plus Washington, D.C., for not sharing their data. Federal judges have also so far dismissed the suits against California and Oregon.
A spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
The Department of Justice also did not immediately respond to a request for comment, including a question about whether it would appeal the ruling.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
