In ‘tentative’ ruling, judge denies federal access to Oregon voter data

Federal attorneys argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 provides a legal justification for their lawsuit seeking access to Oregon unredacted voter-roll data, but a judge appeared to disagree after a day of courtroom arguments Wednesday, Jan. 14.

“My tentative decision is to grant the motion to dismiss” a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai said a few minutes before 5 p.m.

He cited multiple concerns with the federal request as he appeared poised to grant a motion filed by Oregon state attorneys, stating a need to weigh privacy concerns among other considerations.

Kasubhai said his closing remarks were “a tentative draft,” and that “I reserve the right to change my mind.”

But “the fact I have taken the risk to articulate it openly in court and, on the record, also should suggest to you that I’ve made a thoughtful and deliberative decision,” Kasubhai said.

First in July and then in August, the federal Department of Justice submitted letters seeking voter-roll data to include personally identifiable information about all the state’s voters, including address information, date of birth, and driver’s license number or the last four digits of the registered voter’s Social Security number.

In a Eugene courtroom Wednesday, an attorney representing Our Oregon, an economic and social justice advocacy group, noted that the federal Department of Justice has filed similar lawsuits seeking voter-roll data in 24 states and sent a larger number of letters demanding the data.

The administration of President Donald Trump has made frequent references to concerns about the integrity of elections, with Trump issuing an executive order last March setting forth significant changes to election rules. The executive order also stated the federal government would “assist States in determining whether individuals are eligible to register and vote.”

But Trump’s executive order has been blocked by a recent federal judge’s ruling in Washington after Oregon and Washington argued that Trump lacked the authority to enact such changes without the backing of Congress.

James Tucker, an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, argued in court Wednesday that federal authorities needed the data to see if Oregon is following a federal law requiring states to make a “reasonable effort” to remove ineligible voters from registration lists, specifically people who have died or moved to a different state. 

Kasubhai, however, said two specific federal laws about states maintaining voter registration lists did not authorize federal officials to access comprehensive lists of states’ voter rolls.

Tucker argued that the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, enacted to combat what at the time was widespread voter suppression on the basis of race, provided authority for the federal government to ask for and be given the unredacted voter data.

But Senior Assistant Attorney General Thomas Castelli, with the state of Oregon, and an attorney representing Our Oregon, Branden Lewiston, argued for a more narrow interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

Tucker referred to the section of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 about election records, Title III.

“The whole point of Title III … is to be able to get the records,” Tucker said.

Tucker said the federal government needed access to records including driver’s license information numbers and other personally identifiable information to enforce provisions in later laws, specifically the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Lewiston countered that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 had a focus on preventing the unlawful exclusion of people from voting, rather than voter registration “list maintenance.”

Tucker gave a hypothetical example of how someone with a common name might be mistaken for someone ineligible to vote, thus improperly excluded from voting.

Tucker argued also that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 authorized the federal Department of Justice to ask for and receive data without providing a “factual basis” for the request.

Lewiston cited case law in arguing that there should be “judicial review” of the stated purpose for a request like that made by the federal Department of Justice.

‘Yellow flags’

Tucker referred to what he called “yellow flags” about Oregon voter data.

In a court filing, the federal Department of Justice referred to “how Oregon reported nearly as many registered voters as the entire citizen-voting-age population in Oregon, with a registration rate in 2024 of 95.3 percent of the citizen-voting-age population,” calling the rate “unusually high for several years.”

Kasubhai asked Lewiston how he might interpret such data.

“I would say Oregon is doing a good job … making registering to vote simple and easy in the state,” Lewiston said.

The court filing by the federal Department of Justice also noted how the state compared to others based on voluntarily submitted survey data in terms of the ratio of people removed from the voter rolls.

“Oregon reported that it had removed 111,621 voters, or 3.6% of registered voters, from the list of eligible voters, which is well below the national average of 9.1%,” the Department of Justice said in a court filing.

But when asked by Kasubhai, Tucker said the federal government’s lawsuit only alleged a violation of federal law in connection with Oregon declining to provide the unredacted voter data, a point also made by Castelli with the state of Oregon.

“I think it’s important that the complaint here is not alleging an actual violation of our list maintenance requirements” under federal law, Castelli said.

Castelli also said Oregon has a privacy law prohibiting the release of the type of unredacted data sought by the federal Department of Justice.

Some discussion also turned to how the federal Department of Justice would handle the unredacted data, should it be provided.

Lewiston said he is concerned that the federal government is seeking to “create a national voter registration list,” then run such a list through federal Department of Homeland Security or other databases to then “try to to go to the states and force those voter removals.”

Tucker disputed the idea that the federal Department of Justice is seeking to create such a national list.

“The data, when it’s received, is separated from all other states,” Tucker said. It would be in “a single file, not mixed or matched with any other states,” with access “severely restricted” in a “secure system,” he said.

Tucker said that 14 states have agreed to voluntarily provide the federal government with a statewide list of their voter rolls. The Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy organization, reports that “at least eight” states have handed over or said they will give unredacted lists of voters that include driver’s license and Social Security numbers.

‘The decentralization is not a glitch’

Kasubhai, in his closing remarks, referred to the various arguments made during the day.

“There is a distinct interest the states have in maintaining privacy,” Kasubhai said, referring to a balance “that must be struck with the government’s ability to maintain compliance” with federal law.

Kasubhai said redacted copies of the state’s voter registration list resolve this dilemma.

Kasubhai said that while the Civil Rights Act of 1960 contains “broad language,” “meaningful judicial scrutiny and adherence to federal rules and procedures is appropriate.”

Kasubhai also noted how historically in the United States it has been states rather than the federal government running elections.

“The decentralization is not a glitch, but an absolutely necessary feature,” Kasubhai said, adding that “this court won’t disturb that balance, not through this decision today.”

Other organizations submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in the lawsuit, including the League of Women Voters of Oregon.

The day of arguments in U.S. District Court in Eugene began with close to 25 members of the nonpartisan group in attendance, including Mark Kendall, the organization’s interim president.

The League of Women Voters “is pleased that the court appropriately identified” the federal Department of Justice’s suit as ready for dismissal, Kendall said in a text message.

Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, said in a statement Wednesday evening the hearing put “a spotlight on a real question: Why does the Trump administration want access to Oregonians’ most private voter information in the first place?

“Oregon can protect elections without putting people’s personal information at risk. We look forward to the Court’s final ruling,” Rayfield said.