Justice Department sues four states, Fulton County to obtain voter records

The Justice Department filed suit on December 12, 2025 seeking statewide voter registration lists and additional election records from four states and from Fulton County, Georgia after officials in those jurisdictions declined to turn over the detailed data. The states named in the complaints are Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Nevada. The complaints ask federal courts to require the production of records the department says are subject to federal disclosure requirements.

The filings mark an intensification of a broader dispute over the balance between public transparency and voter privacy. Election officials in several states have resisted requests for full registration lists in recent years, citing concerns about the potential misuse of sensitive personal information and the safety of election workers. The Justice Department response, brought under federal authority, frames the issue as one of enforcement of national standards for access to election information.

Access to voter rolls is not only a matter for political campaigns and journalists. Public health agencies, community organizations and researchers have historically used registration lists to plan outreach, identify communities with low vaccination or screening rates and coordinate services. For marginalized neighborhoods that face barriers to health care, the ability to match public records with health canvassing efforts can shape resource allocation and emergency response. With the suits, the federal government is asserting that withholding statewide voter data can also impede functions that extend beyond electoral politics.

At the same time advocates for privacy highlight the risks. Detailed voter databases can include home addresses, dates of birth and other personal details that can be exploited for targeted harassment, discriminatory marketing or other harmful purposes. Public health workers and community organizers can suffer blowback when their outreach is framed as political surveillance. The legal battle therefore sits at the intersection of civic transparency, personal security and community trust.

The cases are likely to produce precedents that will shape how states manage the tension between openness and protection. Courts will weigh statutory text, legislative history and practical considerations such as the feasibility of redacting sensitive fields while preserving the utility of the records. The decisions could affect not only campaign activity and investigative journalism, but also how public health departments and community groups design outreach to populations that have historically been underserved.

For communities of color, low income neighborhoods and people with disabilities the stakes are practical and immediate. If records remain inaccessible, groups that rely on public lists to identify hard to reach residents may struggle to deliver vaccines, screenings and social services efficiently. If records are released without safeguards, those same communities could face heightened privacy risks that undermine trust in both health and civic institutions.

The lawsuits set up an urgent policy conversation about federal standards for election data, the safeguards necessary to protect vulnerable people and how to ensure transparency without causing harm. Whatever the legal outcomes, policymakers and public health officials will need to work with election administrators and community leaders to create protocols that permit necessary public functions while minimizing the risks to individual safety and social equity.