Federal courts in Maine and Wisconsin have dismissed lawsuits filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking access to comprehensive state voter registration records.

緬因州與威斯康辛州的聯邦法院已駁回司法部 (DOJ) 尋求獲取州政府全面選民登記紀錄的訴訟。

The litigation in question constitutes a component of a broader federal initiative to compel over 30 states and the District of Columbia to surrender detailed voter data, including dates of birth, residential addresses, and partial Social Security numbers. The administration's legal posture posits that such data is requisite for verifying state compliance with federal election laws, specifically regarding the maintenance of accurate voter rolls. This objective is pursued via the invocation of the National Voter Registration Act and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

該訴訟是一項更廣泛聯邦行動的一部分，旨在強迫 30 多個州與哥倫比亞特區交出詳細的選民數據，包括出生日期、居住地址及部分社會安全號碼。政府的法律立場認為，此類數據是核實各州是否遵守聯邦選舉法（特別是關於維持準確選民名冊）所必需的。此目標是透過引用《國家選民登記法》及 1960 年《民權法案》第三章來實現。

However, judicial review has consistently favored state autonomy. In Wisconsin, Judge James D. Peterson determined that voter registration lists do not constitute records subject to production under Title III. Similarly, in Maine, Judge Lance Walker granted a motion to dismiss, asserting that the constitutional framework designates states as the primary administrators of federal elections absent preemptive congressional legislation. This trajectory aligns with prior dismissals in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, and Rhode Island. In the Arizona instance, Judge Susan Brnovich ruled that such lists are not documents subject to request by the Attorney General.

然而，司法審查一向傾向支持州自治。在威斯康辛州，法官 James D. Peterson 認定選民登記名單不屬於第三章規定需提交的紀錄。同樣地，在緬因州，法官 Lance Walker 准許了駁回申請，主張在缺乏國會先佔性立法的情況下，憲法框架將各州設定為聯邦選舉的主要管理單位。這一趨勢與先前在亞利桑那州、加州、麻薩諸塞州、密西根州、俄勒岡州及羅德島州的駁回結果一致。在亞利桑那州的案例中，法官 Susan Brnovich 裁定此類名單並非總檢察長可以要求提供的文件。

Stakeholder positioning reveals a stark divergence in the interpretation of federal authority. State officials, such as Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, contend that the requests exceed statutory requirements and jeopardize voter privacy. Conversely, a minority of thirteen states—including Texas, Ohio, and Florida—have complied with the federal requests. The tension centers on the equilibrium between federal oversight of election integrity and the preservation of state-level privacy protections.

利益相關者的立場揭示了對聯邦權限解釋的嚴重分歧。州政府官員，如緬因州州務卿 Shenna Bellows 主張，這些要求超出了法定要求並危及選民隱私。相反，少數 13 個州（包括德州、俄亥俄州及佛羅里達州）已配合聯邦要求。爭議的核心在於聯邦對選舉誠信的監督與維護州級隱私保護之間的平衡。

The federal government's efforts to centralize voter data have encountered significant judicial resistance, reinforcing the primacy of state administration in election processes.

聯邦政府嘗試集中選民數據的行動遇到了顯著的司法阻力，強化了州政府在選舉過程中管理的主導地位。