Federal Judge Halts Justice Department’s Voter Suppression Scheme
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled that the Justice Department’s attempt to cross-check state voter lists with an immigration database and purge alleged ineligible voters is illegal, protecting vulnerable communities from disenfranchisement.
A federal judge in New York delivered a crucial victory for voting rights Friday, blocking the Justice Department’s aggressive effort to undermine democracy by targeting state voter rolls and comparing them with the flawed SAVE immigration database. The Department’s scheme, which demanded states purge voters it arbitrarily deemed ineligible, was found unlawful in a 78-page opinion by U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, an appointee of Joe Biden. Judge Sooknanan emphasized that the policy was a blatant overreach, attempting to usurp the states’ constitutional authority over voter eligibility. She highlighted the Department’s reckless disregard for the risk of disenfranchising eligible citizens, pointing to evidence that the SAVE database is riddled with inaccurate citizenship data.
"The challenged policy represents the federal government's attempt to decide who gets to vote. But Congress has left that authority where our Constitution has always placed it: with the states," the judge wrote.
This ruling comes after a lawsuit by Common Cause, a watchdog group fighting for fair elections, and was celebrated by civil-rights attorneys. Ming Cheung of the ACLU stated the decision sends a clear message that the federal government cannot weaponize its power to disrupt elections and silence marginalized voices.
The Justice Department, undeterred, said it is reviewing the decision. Previously, the court blocked a similar attempt to use the expanded SAVE database in June, a decision the Supreme Court temporarily paused last month. Federal election law prohibits systematic voter-list purges within 90 days of a federal election, limiting the immediate impact of both the new decision and the Supreme Court’s pause on the upcoming midterms.
The Department had demanded all 50 states surrender complete, unredacted voter rolls, including sensitive information like Social Security numbers and birth dates. Eighteen states complied, after which the Department ran the data through the unreliable SAVE database and flagged individuals as non-citizens. The judge warned that the database contains outdated Social Security Administration data, putting naturalized citizens at risk of being wrongfully stripped of their rights.
So far, the Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C. for refusing to comply with its invasive demands and has lost 26 of those cases, underscoring the widespread resistance to these voter suppression tactics.