Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Request for Wisconsin Voter Registration Database

A federal judge in Wisconsin has dismissed a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit seeking access to the state’s unredacted voter registration database, ruling that a Civil Rights Act provision dating back to the 1960s does not give the federal government authority to compel production of the records.

In a decision issued May 21, U.S. District Judge James Peterson ruled that Wisconsin election officials lawfully refused to provide the Department of Justice with a version of the state’s voter registration list containing driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of Social Security numbers.

The Department of Justice requested Wisconsin’s voter registration records in 2025, stating it had received complaints related to the state’s compliance with the Help America Vote Act, commonly known as HAVA. Wisconsin election officials provided a publicly available redacted voter list and answered questions about voter list maintenance procedures, according to the ruling.

Federal officials later renewed the request and specifically sought an unredacted version of the database containing additional identifying information tied to registered voters. Wisconsin Elections Commission officials declined to produce the records, citing state privacy protections.

The Justice Department then sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission, its administrator, and commission members, arguing that federal law required the records to be produced under Title III of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling states that similar lawsuits have been filed against dozens of states after the federal government sought voter registration data nationwide.

Judge Peterson rejected the government’s interpretation of the law and sided with Wisconsin election officials and voter advocacy groups that intervened in the case. The opinion relied heavily on recent federal court rulings from Michigan and Arizona that reached similar conclusions.

The court explained that Title III was enacted during the civil rights era to help the federal government investigate discriminatory voting practices, particularly efforts by states to suppress Black voters through the destruction or concealment of registration records.

Under the law, election officials must preserve certain voting-related records for 22 months after an election and produce them to the U.S. Attorney General upon written demand. But the judge ruled that Congress intended the law to apply primarily to records received from voters, such as registration applications and poll tax records, rather than statewide computerized databases created and maintained by state governments.

Wisconsin argued its statewide voter registration list is continuously updated as voters move, register, become ineligible, or are removed from the rolls under federal and state election laws. The court agreed that treating the database as a record that must be “retained” and “preserved” under Title III would conflict with other federal election laws requiring states to regularly update voter rolls.

While Congress established baseline election requirements through laws such as HAVA and the National Voter Registration Act, states still retain significant authority under the Constitution to manage voter registration systems and election procedures.

Title III was enacted decades before states created centralized digital voter registration systems containing large amounts of personal data. Several federal courts reviewing similar lawsuits have concluded that Congress did not clearly authorize the Department of Justice to compel production of those modern statewide databases under the language of the 1960 law.

Judge Peterson dismissed the federal government’s complaint with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled in its current form. The court also denied the government’s motion to compel production of Wisconsin’s voter registration records and directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Wisconsin election officials and the intervening voter advocacy groups.