Court sides with Michigan in dispute over access to sensitive voter information

A voter data fight reaches court

Michigan voters’ private details became the center of a federal appeals court ruling on June 24. The dispute tested how far Washington can go when seeking state election records.

A divided appeals court sided with Michigan, saying the Justice Department could not force the state to turn over unredacted voter rolls under the Civil Rights Act provision it relied on during the appeal.

Michigan kept some data private

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson gave the federal government Michigan’s public voter list but refused to provide extra personal details from the full registration file.

The unredacted records included birth dates, partial Social Security numbers, and driver’s license numbers for registered voters. Michigan argued federal law did not clearly authorize the demand in court filings.

The appeals panel split

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the Justice Department on Wednesday. Judge Andre Mathis wrote the majority opinion in the case.

Senior Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. joined Mathis, while Judge John Nalbandian dissented. The split showed how differently judges can read the same civil rights law in this dispute over Michigan records.

Title III sat at the center

The case turned on Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, a provision tied to election records after federal contests and later investigations.

The law requires states to keep certain election records for 22 months and allow federal inspection when the attorney general explains the basis and purpose of an official request made.

The court found a missing step

The majority said the Justice Department did not submit a Title III demand containing both the basis and purpose required before seeking Michigan’s unredacted voter file.

Because that requirement was not met, the court said Benson did not violate Title III by refusing to provide the sensitive voter information. The ruling affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Justice Department’s case.

A public list was already shared

Michigan did not refuse every request for voter information. Benson’s office provided the public version of the state’s registered voter list to federal officials.

The fight focused on additional private details that are not part of the public file. Those records raised privacy and security concerns for state officials, voters, and advocacy groups in Michigan.

Judges weighed the law’s history

Mathis wrote that Title III was created to help investigate voting discrimination, not to help the government search for ineligible voters across state databases.

His opinion noted that the law once protected access to the ballot. In this case, the majority said the government used it for a different purpose than before in modern elections.

Little-known fact: A 2024 Michigan audit found only 16 potential noncitizens among 5.7 million voters, all referred to the attorney general.

The dissent saw broader power

Nalbandian disagreed with the majority and said the law should cover more than voter-submitted papers. He read Title III as reaching government-created records.

That view would have given the Justice Department more room to inspect Michigan’s voter list. The majority rejected that broader reading in this case on Wednesday and kept the lower ruling intact.

Other states face similar demands

The Michigan case is part of a wider Justice Department effort to obtain voter registration data from states and the District of Columbia.

The administration says it needs the records to check whether states are maintaining voter rolls properly. Several states have resisted, citing privacy, legal authority, and data protection concerns in federal courts this year.

Lower courts had already pushed back

Before the appeals ruling, District Judge Hala Jarbou had agreed with Michigan and dismissed the Justice Department’s demand for the unredacted list.

Other district courts have also rejected similar lawsuits involving states such as California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arizona, Wisconsin, Maine, and Maryland in recent months during the broader fight over sensitive voter records.

Privacy drove the state’s stance

Michigan argued that sensitive voter data should not be released without clear legal authority, especially when records include identifying information tied to millions of people.

Supporters of the state’s position said voter privacy and data security matter. The federal government said the information was needed for election law oversight and voter list review in Michigan.

The ruling affects federal reach

The decision limits one route the Justice Department used to seek unredacted voter files. It does not settle every related dispute in other courts.

Appeals and separate lawsuits may continue in other states. Still, the Michigan ruling gives state officials a clear example when resisting broad federal data demands under Title III in similar cases.

What makes this Michigan highway so unusual? See how its narrow route, old-growth forest, and Lake Michigan views set it apart.

The next fight may move elsewhere

The ruling leaves Michigan in control of the sensitive voter information at issue, while keeping the public voter list available under existing state rules.

The larger debate is not finished. Courts, state officials, and federal agencies will keep testing where election oversight ends, and voter privacy begins in future cases around the country as well.

Wondering why aircraft carriers once operated far from the ocean? Learn how Lake Michigan became part of WWII aviation history.

What do you think this court decision means for voter privacy in Michigan? Share your thoughts in the comments.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• Michigan communities prepare for expanded Juneteenth celebrations
• Firefighter’s win in Michigan special election seals blue state Senate
• A $5 billion property tax cut passes Michigan House without funding replacement