In a bold move to protect our elections, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Trump has sued Maine and Oregon for stonewalling access to the states’ voter registration rolls. This isn’t some partisan tactic by the DOJ—it’s a straightforward enforcement of federal law to work toward accurate elections. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires that states make these rolls available for public inspection, yet these two states have continued to violate this law, hiding behind flimsy privacy excuses.

Securing American elections isn’t optional — it’s essential.

On September 16, 2025, the DOJ filed lawsuits alleging that Oregon and Maine violated the NVRA by refusing to provide complete voter rolls. Maine’s Secretary of State had refused to provide the voter rolls despite earlier requests from the DOJ, making the preposterous claim that the DOJ was interested in the data for nefarious reasons, and telling the DOJ to “go jump in the gulf of Maine..”

Regardless, the NVRA explicitly requires states to allow public access to voter registration records, including for federal oversight to verify accuracy. It’s built into federal law to ensure that states are not sitting on voter rolls full of deceased voters, duplicate entries, non-citizens, and other ineligible individuals. Other states have had no issue providing their voter rolls in the interest of working with the federal government and the resources available to ensure proper voter list maintenance.

Maine and Oregon have cited privacy concerns as the primary reason for denying the DOJ’s request for voter rolls. But that can’t really be it — because at the same time they deny access to the DOJ, they are providing free and complete voter roll access to Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) — and not just voter rolls, but also of lists of eligible but unregistered people in their states — people not even on the voter rolls yet. It’s like complaining a mile is too far to walk and then cheerfully running a marathon.

Maine and Oregon happily deliver their voter data to ERIC, which they trust despite its track record. They claim federal requests violate data privacy, yet ERIC’s data-sharing model exposes the exact same data to a private organization with clear partisan ties. This double standard reeks of political gamesmanship. If privacy is in fact the hill to die on, why not apply it consistently? The DOJ’s suit cuts through this nonsense, forcing compliance with federal law and increasing accountability and transparency in voter rolls.

And what exactly is ERIC? Why is this such a concerning hypocrisy by these states?

ERIC purports to be a nonprofit that’s supposed to help states clean up voter rolls by sharing data across borders. But it seems to be not quite what it claims. Founded in 2012, it is funded by a network of leftist dark money and is staffed and led by former leftist bureaucrats and lawyers. ERIC claims to be nonpartisan. But in recent years, states have hemorrhaged from this “nonpartisan” partnership, citing among other concerns — shockingly — serious privacy breaches. Florida left in March 2023, criticizing ERIC for data privacy lapses and blatant partisanship. Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia followed suit, viewing ERIC as participating in partisan scope creep and unwilling to share voter data with an organization that had such serious data privacy concerns.

It’s too ironic that this is the exact reason Maine and Oregon are alleging of the federal government while actively compromising their voter data in sharing it with ERIC.

The states leaving ERIC aren’t conspiracy theorists; they’re responding to real issues. ERIC requires members to send mailings to potentially eligible but unregistered citizens every two years, which does nothing to ensure voter roll accuracy. But ERIC doesn’t require states to remove voters who ERIC identifies as potentially ineligible — the whole point, ostensibly, of the interstate agreement.

Now, why would the DOJ actually want these rolls? How can the federal government help states keep voter rolls accurate and NVRA-compliant? First off, the NVRA isn’t just a suggestion — it’s law. It mandates that states make “a reasonable effort” to remove ineligible voters. States can use data from sources like the U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address database or death records from Social Security to flag removals, and since these are federal databases, the DOJ can also easily audit voter rolls against these databases to make sure states are actually maintaining their voter rolls. Lawsuits like this one compel states to provide rolls for audits that catch inaccuracies. That is the reason for the requests — in no way nefarious.

Why is this lawsuit critical?

Well, bloated rolls lead to fraud risks — dead people voting or double registrations across states, for example — and every fraudulent vote negates the value of a legitimate one. By suing Maine and Oregon, the DOJ isn’t overstepping; it’s upholding the NVRA’s mandate for accuracy, especially when states like Maine and Oregon fail to follow the law and the DOJ can help ensure that every legitimate vote counts without dilution.

This isn’t about suppressing voters or playing political games — it’s about safeguarding democracy. In this circumstance, the DOJ is simply enforcing a law already on the books to ensure there’s no foul play with voter rolls. Securing American elections isn’t optional — it’s essential. Kudos to the DOJ for working tirelessly towards that end, and for calling these states on their bluff.

READ MORE:

Voters Wisely Dropped Ranked-Choice Voting

Ensuring Greater Trust in Mail-in Voting

New York’s Mayoral Race May Define the Future of the Democratic Party

Brett Tolman is chair for American Justice at the America First Policy Institute. He previously served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah, and as a federal prosecutor for many years.

Anna Pingel is the director of the Secure Elections campaign at the America First Policy Institute.