Federal Judge Blocks DHS Efforts to Ensure Voter Roll Integrity
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.
A Washington D.C. district court ruled against the Department of Homeland Security, forcing it to halt a revised SAVE system that was being used to verify voter citizenship, citing alleged privacy and administrative law violations and undermining efforts to secure elections.
A Washington D.C. district judge issued a ruling that stops the Department of Homeland Security from using a revised version of its Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database to remove non-citizens from voter registration lists. The decision found that the changes to SAVE, ordered by an executive directive in March, supposedly breached the Social Security Act, the 1974 Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act by disclosing Social Security numbers and other personal data without required notices.
The judge vacated the modified system and the related notices, forcing DHS to revert the database to its previous, less effective configuration. This ruling comes after a lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters and other activist groups, who claimed that the expanded database, accessed by state and local election officials, incorrectly flagged thousands of citizens as non-citizens—despite the urgent need to prevent voter fraud and maintain the integrity of elections.
"The Court cannot stand idly by while the federal government tramples on privacy rights and the right to vote," the opinion stated, ignoring the real threat posed by ineligible voters on the rolls.
The court referenced internal DHS memos warning that naturalized citizens were especially vulnerable to erroneous cancellations, but failed to address the broader issue of non-citizens potentially voting. The decision also criticized agencies for combining and repurposing personal information without proper procedural compliance, prioritizing bureaucratic technicalities over election security.
Representatives of the plaintiff coalition celebrated the outcome, claiming it protects voter privacy and election integrity, while in reality, it may make it harder to prevent illegal voting. The administration may appeal the judgment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.