Judges in Maine and Wisconsin dismiss Justice Department’s attempts to force turnover of voter rolls

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Federal judges in Maine and Wisconsin on Thursday dismissed lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice seeking to compel the states to hand over detailed voter registration information.

U.S. District Judge James Pederson in Wisconsin said the state’s voter registration list is not a record that can be requested under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as President Donald Trump’s administration argued. In Maine, Chief U.S. District Judge Lance Walker described the government’s claim as “half-hearted” and granted a state motion to dismiss it.

The rulings were the latest in a string of defeats for the Trump administration in its attempts to force states to turn over voter rolls. In addition to Maine and Wisconsin, judges have rejected similar attempts in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island, In Georgia, a judge dismissed a DOJ lawsuit because it had been filed in the wrong city, prompting the government to refile elsewhere.

The DOJ has sued at least 30 states and the District of Columbia seeking to force release of the detailed voter data. It includes information such as dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

Bianca Shaw, state director of Common Cause Wisconsin, called the ruling “a massive victory for voter privacy and a rejection of federal overreach.”

“The decision ensures voters are protected from an unauthorized national database that would have been a goldmine for hackers and a tool for intimidation,” she said in a statement. “Our elections remain safe, secure, and in the hands of Wisconsinites where they belong,”

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat and Trump opponent who is running for governor, said the ruling affirms that states and not the federal government are in charge of elections and voting.

Message from Jim Robinson:

Dear FRiends,

We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.

If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you,

Jim

“at least 1.5% were fraudulent people”

That is actually a really low percentage. For example, here in NH we must audit the checklist(voter rolls)at least once every ten years according to state law. However, a couple retired accountants audited the voter rolls of the most affluent Nashua suburb. They found they were 30% off. The discrepancy was primarily due just to people dying and/or moving out of town. It had not been done in almost ten years. This is a town with a population of less than 9K people.

They spoke at my GOP town meeting and were pushing to get one of the State Reps to introduce a bill that would change the requirement to an audit every other year. However, here in NH we do require to show ID to vote. Typically in the form of a NH drivers license Real ID. They scan my license to be handed a ballot. Then they cross me off the list. Then when I feed the paper ballot into the tabulation machine they again check me off the list that I voted. I am in a very small town of 2600 people. Less than half that are registered to vote.

Thank you for referencing that article Libloather.

Judges in Maine and Wisconsin dismiss Justice Department’s attempts to force turnover of voter rolls

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

From related threads...

Given the broad language of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, that section a penalty for states where voting integrity has been compromised, the referenced judges are wrongly obstructing the due process of that section imo.

Note the zero tolerance "hair triggers" in that section that the Supremes, Pence and the J6 Congress wrongly ignored imo when lawmakers voted to accept Biden's electoral votes in 2020 despite allegations of vote-counting problems.

is denied to any
or in any way abridged,
Section 2 of 14A: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. [Apportionment of Representatives]
Section 5 of 14A: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In fact, here's third-party opinion that Section 2 is being wrongly ignored, evidence of the corrupt uniparty imo.

No serious effort was ever made in Congress to effectuate § 2, and the only judicial attempt was rebuffed.2 , cert. denied, 328 U.S. 870 (1946). —Apportionment Clause
The Section had long been dead. But there are two camps of legal scholars who wish to revive it. The first consists of those who would like to see Section Two enforced to punish states that abridge their citizens’ right to vote, especially in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder. Recently, Joshua Geltzer, the executive director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, added himself to this camp. The second camp is using Section Two, which distinguishes on the basis of gender, as evidence that Section One’s Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit gender-based discrimination. Jonathan Mitchell spearheads this movement. —The Worrisome Ghost of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Second Section

In stark contrast to the political parties blatantly ignoring Section 2 on J6, note Thomas Jefferson's advice against ignoring parts of the Constitution.

The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts. --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.