West Virginia GOP Election Chief Refuses DOJ Demand for Unredacted Voter Rolls
West Virginia’s Republican secretary of state has rejected the U. S. Department of Justice’s demand for full, unredacted voter registration records, rejecting what he called an unlawful attempt to seize sensitive personal data and asserting state law protects voters’ privacy. The move marks another break between federal election enforcement efforts and state election officials — including members of the president’s own party.
Republican officials push back on federal request
Secretary of State Kris Warner wrote to the Justice Department that the federal request for names, addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers exceeds the department’s authority and conflicts with state law. Warner emphasized that voter lists are available from his office only in redacted form and refused to turn over protected information for the state’s roughly 1. 2 million registered voters.
Warner framed his refusal as consistent with both legal obligations and practical administration, noting the work of county clerks who have been maintaining and refreshing voter rolls. He said his office reviewed the statutes cited by the department — including election and privacy laws — and found none that mandate compliance with so broad a demand for personal data.
The refusal follows similar objections from several other Republican state election officials who say the federal demand intrudes on state control of elections and threatens voter privacy. Those objections underscore growing bipartisan friction over how far a federal law enforcement agency can go in requesting state-held voter data.
Legal fights escalate as DOJ sues states
The Justice Department has pursued litigation in dozens of states that declined to provide unredacted voter files, filing suits seeking access to the records. That litigation strategy has met resistance in the courts: a Trump-appointed federal judge dismissed the department’s suit against one Midwestern state, finding that federal law does not compel states to turn over the requested files and questioning the legal basis for using civil-discovery mechanisms to obtain them.
State election officials have cited that ruling and other legal concerns in declining the federal demands. Warner pointed to the recent dismissal in his letter as part of his rationale for withholding sensitive information, and he offered to cooperate with the federal government on election integrity efforts that respect state law and voter privacy.
As the litigation continues, judges around the country will weigh competing claims about the scope of federal authority under statutes invoked by the Justice Department. The outcomes could set important precedents for the balance of power between state control of election administration and federal enforcement priorities.
Political and practical implications
The dispute highlights broader political tensions: an administration seeking broad access to voter files is running headlong into state officials — including Republicans — who prioritize local control and voter privacy. For election administrators, the controversy raises operational questions about how to respond to federal requests while protecting personal data and complying with state statutes that limit disclosure.
For voters, the central concern is privacy: officials refusing to hand over unredacted files argue that exposing driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers risks identity theft and undermines public trust in election systems. Proponents of the federal requests say access could help identify irregularities, but with legal challenges unresolved, many states are standing firm on statutory protections and the authority of local election officials.
With dozens of lawsuits pending and court rulings beginning to reject the federal approach, the dispute is likely to shape election policy debates and litigation into the coming months. The clash underscores how questions about data, privacy and federal-state authority have become central flashpoints in contemporary election administration.
