New Hampshire Stands Firm Against DOJ Demand for Voter Records

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan has refused a request from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for the state’s complete voter registration list. Scanlan cited state law and significant cybersecurity concerns as the reasons for his decision.

In a letter sent Friday, Scanlan detailed that New Hampshire’s voter database is protected by state statutes, preventing its disclosure under current laws. The DOJ’s request is part of a larger federal initiative, stemming from an executive order by President Trump earlier this year, aiming to obtain voter data from various states.

Scanlan emphasized that New Hampshire law permits the release of the statewide voter registration list only in specific circumstances, none of which apply to the DOJ’s current request.

The DOJ’s request, made in June, referenced sections of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and implied oversight under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).However, Scanlan firmly reminded the department that New Hampshire is exempt from the NVRA.

“New Hampshire is somewhat unique when it comes to applicable federal election laws,” Scanlan explained.”New Hampshire is exempt from the NVRA.”

This exemption, shared with five other states, is due to New Hampshire’s continuous allowance of same-day voter registration since before the NVRA’s implementation in 1994.This exemption substantially limits the federal government’s authority to demand oversight or data access.

Beyond legal exemptions, Scanlan also highlighted critical cybersecurity risks. He pointed out that disclosing sensitive voter infrastructure data could jeopardize national security, noting that the Department of Homeland Security considers election systems as critical infrastructure. “Divulging any cybersecurity information could harm the integrity of the systems,” Scanlan stated.

While declining to provide the full statewide list, Scanlan did direct DOJ officials to an alternative: New Hampshire’s public checklists, which are maintained at the city and town levels and remain accessible to the public.

New Hampshire now joins Minnesota and Wisconsin in their refusal of the DOJ’s requests for full voter rolls, citing similar legal protections and concerns over federal overreach.

Does the DOJ’s request for detailed voter facts align with typical election audit procedures?

The DOJ’s Request and New Hampshire’s Response

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently requested extensive voter information from New Hampshire, sparking a important political and legal standoff. This demand, made under the guise of investigating potential voter fraud, has been met with staunch resistance from state officials, raising critical questions about federal overreach and voter privacy.The request encompassed a wide range of data,including voter names,addresses,dates of birth,and voting history – information considered highly sensitive. New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, Dave Scanlan, publicly refused full compliance, citing concerns over data security and the potential for misuse of the information.this isn’t simply a bureaucratic disagreement; it’s a clash over states’ rights and the integrity of the electoral process.

What Data Did the DOJ Request?

The DOJ’s request went beyond typical election audit procedures. Specifically, they sought:

Full voter lists: Including names, addresses, dates of birth, and driver’s license numbers (where available).

Voting history: Detailed records of every vote cast by registered voters.

Information on absentee ballots: Data related to applications, approvals, and returns of absentee ballots.

Registration forms: Copies of original voter registration applications.

This level of detail raised immediate red flags for New Hampshire officials, who argued the request was overly broad and lacked a clear, justifiable purpose. Concerns were voiced that the data could be used for purposes beyond investigating alleged voter fraud, perhaps impacting voter intimidation or discriminatory practices.

Legal Basis for New Hampshire’s Resistance

New Hampshire’s refusal isn’t based on defiance, but on a firm legal foundation.The state argues that the DOJ’s request violates several key principles:

Federalism: The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, and election administration traditionally falls under state control.

Voter Privacy: State laws protect the confidentiality of voter information, and the DOJ’s request would require the state to circumvent those protections.

Lack of Specificity: The DOJ’s request lacked a clear and specific justification, failing to demonstrate a legitimate investigative need for such extensive data.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA): New Hampshire contends the request exceeds the scope of permissible data access under the NVRA, also known as the “Motor Voter” law.

Historical Context: Previous DOJ Requests & Voter Fraud claims

This isn’t the first time the DOJ has sought extensive voter data.Similar requests were made during the Trump administration, often linked to unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud. In 2017, the presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, led by then-Vice President Mike Pence, requested similar data from all 50 states. Many states,including New Hampshire,resisted that request as well.

The current situation echoes these past controversies, fueling concerns that the DOJ’s actions are politically motivated. The lack of concrete evidence supporting claims of widespread voter fraud further exacerbates these concerns. Numerous studies and audits have consistently shown that voter fraud is extremely rare in the United States.

Implications for Voter Rights and Election Security

The DOJ’s demand and new Hampshire’s response have significant implications for voter rights and election security:

Chilling Effect: Overly broad data requests can create a chilling effect on voter registration and participation, particularly among marginalized communities.

Data Security Risks: Sharing sensitive voter data with the federal government increases the risk of data breaches and misuse.

Erosion of Trust: The dispute erodes public trust in both the DOJ and state election officials.

Precedent Setting: The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future DOJ requests,potentially impacting election administration across the country.

What Happens Next? Potential Outcomes

Several outcomes are possible:

1. Negotiation: The DOJ and New Hampshire could reach a compromise, with the state providing a limited subset of data.
2. Litigation: The DOJ could file a lawsuit seeking to compel New Hampshire to comply with the request. New Hampshire is prepared to defend its position in court.
3. Congressional Action: congress could pass legislation clarifying the scope of the DOJ’s authority to request voter data.
4. Continued Standoff: the situation could remain unresolved, with New Hampshire continuing to resist the DOJ’s demands.

The legal battle is highly likely to be protracted and closely watched by election officials and civil rights advocates nationwide. The outcome will have lasting consequences for the balance of power between the federal government and the states in the administration of elections.

Benefits of Protecting Voter Data

Maintaining the privacy and security of voter data offers several key benefits:

Increased Voter Confidence: Protecting voter information builds trust in the electoral process.

Enhanced Election Integrity: Secure data systems reduce the risk of manipulation and fraud.

Protection of Civil Liberties: Safeguarding voter privacy protects basic rights.

Reduced Risk of Voter Intimidation: Limiting access to sensitive data minimizes the potential for targeted harassment.

practical Tips for Voters Concerned About Data Security

While states work to protect voter data, individuals can also take steps to safeguard their information:

* Regularly Check Your voter Registration: Verify that your information is accurate and up-to-date.