Judge says Civil Rights Act does not require state to turn over a computerized voter list

A federal judge has dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit seeking New Jersey’s statewide computerized voter registration database, ruling that the federal law the department relied on does not authorize the U.S. government to compel the state to produce the records.

U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the lawsuit cannot be refiled in its current form.

The lawsuit accused New Jersey Secretary of State and Lt. Gov. Dale Caldwell of violating Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 by refusing to provide the state’s computerized voter registration list with all data fields, including driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of Social Security numbers, to the Justice Department for an investigation into whether New Jersey was complying with federal voter registration laws.

New Jersey officials had argued the department lacked authority to demand those confidential records and that turning them over would conflict with state privacy laws.

Quraishi agreed with the state, but on narrower grounds. He concluded the Justice Department had sued under the wrong federal law.

“The State’s computerized [voter registration list] is outside the scope of Title III,” Quraishi wrote.

The Justice Department had argued that Title III of the Civil Rights Act allows the attorney general to demand election records through a streamlined court proceeding with only a limited judicial review.

Quraishi rejected that argument, finding that nothing in the law exempts these cases from the normal Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or prevents courts from determining whether the government’s request satisfies the statute.

He also rejected the government’s broader interpretation of what records the Civil Rights Act covers.

The law requires election officials to preserve and produce records that “come into” their possession relating to voter registration. Quraishi found that phrase refers to documents election officials receive — such as voter registration applications — not databases that states themselves create and continually update.

The statewide voter registration list, he wrote, is a “live, dynamic database” that draws information from multiple state agencies and must be continuously updated to comply with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. Treating it as a static record covered by Title III would create conflicts with those federal laws, which require states to regularly modify their voter rolls.

Long-running dispute

The case grew out of a series of requests that began in July 2025.

The Justice Department initially sought New Jersey’s computerized voter registration list after citing statistics from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission that it said warranted further review of the state’s voter list maintenance practices. New Jersey provided a public version of the database but withheld confidential personal information, including driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

The department later demanded an unredacted version under the Civil Rights Act, arguing it needed the information to determine whether New Jersey was complying with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. State officials repeatedly declined, saying the request exceeded federal authority and raised privacy concerns.

During the litigation, the Justice Department also pointed to New Jersey’s recent disclosure that approximately 6,600 noncitizens were mistakenly registered to vote between June 2023 and June 2024 because of a Motor Vehicle Commission software error, arguing the announcement provided an additional basis for its request.

Quraishi said that development did not affect his legal analysis because the question before the court was whether the Civil Rights Act entitled the department to the records it sought.

He also noted that the New Jersey case is one of more than two dozen lawsuits the Justice Department has filed around the country seeking voter registration data from states and local governments.

His opinion also cites several recent federal decisions reaching the same conclusion: that computerized statewide voter registration databases are not records covered by Title III of the Civil Rights Act.