USDOJ v Oregon Secretary of State

January 14, 2026

Mark Kendall, LWVOR President

The US Department of Justice sued the State of Oregon Secretary of State for refusing to divulge detailed voter registration data not specifically addressed in federal law and prohibited for release to third parties by Oregon voter privacy statute. 

On 14 January 2026 the case was heard by 2^nd U.S. District Court Judge Mustpha T. Kasubhai in Eugene Oregon.  After the all day the hearing the Judge clearly stated the case will likely be dismissed at the end of his deliberation on the basis that the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) failed to state a basis nor a purpose in either a July data request nor an August demand letter.

The League of Women Voters of Oregon (LWVOR), who filed an amicus brief (in support of the State of Oregon), was recognized as having standing by the court.  Over two dozen LWVOR members were in attendance at the day-long hearing. 

The expectation is that USDOJ will not appeal this ruling but will likely refile a much more specific demand.  Our Oregon filed as an intervenor in this case alongside the ODOJ and were represented by the Elias Group law firm.   

The hearing provided insight into the nuance of the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) authority to conduct oversight and investigation into elections, specific to voter registration.  Three laws were at issue in the case, the Civil Rights Act (CRA), National Voting Rights Act (NVRA), and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).  

CRA Title 3 specifies USDOJ authority to investigate states removal of voters from voter registration rolls based on race of other protected class.  NVRA specifically charges USDOJ with verification that states take “reasonable” action to maintain voters registration list(s) specific to removal of persons deceased or having moved out of the state.  HAVA specifically identifies the statutory requirement that states voter registration must include either a state issued Drivers License, or a Social Security number or a state issued administrative number assigned to and identifying the specific voter.  It also requires the state maintain and “electronic” voter registration list. 

Under NVRA, the USDOJ may investigate the states reasonable maintenance of its voters registration list.  To conduct such an investigation USDOJ is required to state the basis (data) and purpose (reason) for the data inquiry.  In addition, the court intimated that requesting detailed voter registration data beyond the specific statutory identifier used by the state is not the purview of the federal government.  In testimony USDOJ stated statistical data as their basis since Oregon is the fifth highest state in registered voters compared to residents eligible to vote at over 93% and in the lowest five percent of states with removals from the voters roles at 4,417 voters removed in 2024.  USDOJ failed to declare that or any other basis known in their filing with the court.  And they failed to provide a purpose such as why do those statistics (not data) imply that the Oregon voter registration list is not “reasonably maintained” by the state.  

USDOJ’s demand letter to the Oregon Secretary of State in August requested an unredacted Oregon voters registration list.  Oregon provides public access to the entire voter registration list on demand for a fee.  The list includes name, address, party affiliation, precinct, birth year, last 4 digits of the voter’s social security number, unique Oregon voter administrative number and the voter’s frequency of voting in previous elections.  That data is acquired, stored and made publicly available in accordance with Oregon voter privacy statute.  USDOJ non-redacted list demand exceeded their authorization to specific data under federal law and violates Oregon’s voter privacy laws.

Under the CRA, the USDOJ is obligated to protect voter privacy requirements.  Furthermore, there is case precedent that non-redacted voter registration data such as drivers license, full date of birth, full social security numbers has little relevance to the determination of “reasonable list maintenance."

There was ongoing discussion and inquiry of the many nuances and interplays between these federal and state statutes.  Essentially the court very methodically identified the very specific bounds of USDOJ authority to request data from states stemming from USDOJ’s authority to verify “reasonable maintenance” of the Oregon voter registration list.  There was reference to the LWVOR ‘s amicus brief claim that federal overreach in demand for unredacted voter registration data places a chill on eligible voter registration or voting.  U.S.DOJ dismissed that as a speculative risk. 

There may be some homework to do to determine metrics for measurement of that subjective element, since USDOJ is charged by statute to encourage full participation in voting.  So, at this time, Oregon voters rights claimed by the Oregon Secretary of State and Oregon Department of Justice have been upheld by this courts’ deliberations. 

Progress in defending democracy.