Background
In the summer of 2025, the United States Department of Justice demanded that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson produce state voter rolls. While the state provided the public version of the list, it refused to provide unredacted records containing dates of birth, partial social security numbers, and driver’s license numbers. The government filed suit to compel production, arguing statutory authority under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960. The district court dismissed the suit, finding the government’s request too broad for the statute’s text.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Title III was enacted to end voting discrimination by empowering the Attorney General to investigate violations, not to ensure that some people have not voted. The statute requires records to be retained for twenty-two months and made available for inspection only when the Attorney General specifies the basis and purpose of the demand. The court found that the government’s purpose of verifying voter eligibility did not align with the statute’s narrow text and intent to combat discrimination. The court emphasized that states retain broad authority over election mechanics under the Elections Clause, and Congress has not clearly authorized the federal government to demand such sensitive personal data for this purpose.
But today, the government invokes Title III for an inverse purpose—to ensure that some people have not voted.
United States v. Benson, 26-1225 (6th Cir. 2026)
The dissent
What it means going forward
The decision limits the federal government’s ability to access sensitive voter data under Title III, reinforcing state control over voter registration records and requiring clear congressional authorization for such broad data demands.