* Democracy Docket…
President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice suffered its 19th straight voter roll loss Friday, as a federal judge dismissed its Illinois lawsuit with prejudice and ruled the department lacks authority to seize the state’s unredacted voter database.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Lawless denied DOJ’s motion to compel Illinois to surrender its complete statewide voter registration list and granted motions to dismiss filed by state officials and intervenors.*
Because Lawless found that amending the complaint would be futile, the department cannot revive the same claim in district court, though it can appeal as it has of its other losses.
The ruling extends DOJ’s district court record in its nationwide voter-data crusade to brutal 0-19, just two days after a federal judge dismissed its New Jersey case.
Illinois had already provided DOJ with a redacted version of its voter list. But the department demanded sensitive identifying information, including driver’s license and Social Security numbers.
Lawless held that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 does not authorize the attorney general to obtain a live voter database created and maintained by the state.
“The Board possesses the list by its own creation,” Lawless wrote. “The Board did not come into its possession.”
The judge also found that DOJ’s interpretation would put federal laws in direct conflict. The Civil Rights Act prohibits altering records that must be preserved, while the National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act require states to update their voter lists regularly.
* From Matt Dietrich at the Illinois State Board of elections…
Rich — Just found out about this, in case you’re interested. Judge granted our motion to dismiss in the DOJ suit over Illinois voter data.
We’re letting the order speak for itself.
Matt
* Order…
COLLEEN R. LAWLESS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through the Attorney General, asks this Court to order Defendant Bernadette Matthews, as the Executive Director of the Illinois State Board of Elections, to produce federal voter records pursuant to Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (“Title III” and “CRA”). (Doc. 5). Matthews and the Intervenor Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the United States lacks authority under Title III to demand the voter registration list from the State of Illinois. (Docs. 41, 49, 56, 64, 67). For the following reasons, the United States’ Motion to Compel is DENIED and Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED. […]
It is well established that “a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.” TRW Inc., 534 U.S. at 31 (internal quotation marks omitted and collecting cases). This Court agrees with the Sixth Circuit and district courts who have considered the issue and, in accordance with principles of statutory construction, have required the Attorney General to state both a basis and purpose in his demand. … The Court finds the Attorney General was statutorily required to explain the relevance of the Sensitive Voter Information to his inquiry. Because he failed to do so, the Attorney General’s written demand was deficient on its face for want of a stated basis. […]
Accordingly, the Court finds a voter registration list is not subject to the Attorney General’s investigatory power under Title III. […]
Therefore, the Attorney General’s stated interest in investigating “Illinois’s compliance with the list maintenance requirements of the NVRA and HAVA” is not a proper Title III purpose as it does not relate to any suspected violation of voting. The Attorney General’s demand is deficient in both its stated basis and purpose and cannot be enforced against Matthews.
