The Trump administration is intensifying its efforts to address the presence of noncitizens on state voter rolls, a practice that federal law prohibits. This strategy is particularly crucial as the 2026 midterms approach. It operates on three fronts: seeking cooperation from Republican-led states, filing lawsuits against various blue and purple states, and pushing Congress to implement stricter national voting regulations.
Despite setbacks in federal courts, the administration is not backing down. Although federal judges have dismissed some of its legal demands, the Justice Department continues to broaden its campaign as Election Day nears. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at Advancing American Freedom, emphasized the urgency of this issue. “Voter rolls are a central focus ahead of the midterms because of the concerns that noncitizens are on them and could end up voting,” he stated. It’s illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.
The Justice Department (DOJ) has made significant demands for voter roll data, including sensitive information like voters’ partial Social Security numbers and dates of birth. Michigan’s Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, recently pushed back against these requests. She argued that the federal government is not entitled to access the personal information of more than 7 million voters beyond what is publicly available. In her ruling, Judge Hala Jarbou pointed out that the laws the DOJ cited do not grant them the rights they claimed. “The Court concludes that HAVA does not require the disclosure of any records,” Jarbou said.
Other judges in states like Oregon and California have also rebuffed the DOJ’s lawsuits. The department has the option to appeal these decisions, but it has already found allies among several red states. States such as Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi have signed a “Memorandum of Understanding,” allowing them to share the information sought by the DOJ.
In Minnesota, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s efforts to obtain voter rolls sparked anger among Democrats. Bondi urged the state’s governor to comply, suggesting that it would help restore order amid federal immigration actions. Democrats condemned this approach as an infringement on states’ rights. The political tensions were palpable, with one state lawyer likening Bondi’s request to a “ransom note.” The DOJ pushed back against these claims, calling them unfounded.
The legislative landscape shows a push toward tighter national voting requirements. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act seeks to mandate that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. This includes requirements for in-person verification, such as presenting a birth certificate or passport. The measure has garnered substantial support among Republicans, passing the House with bipartisan backing. However, it remains stalled in the Senate, requiring 60 votes to advance, a barrier that currently appears insurmountable.
Von Spakovsky pointed to the SAVE Act’s provision allowing private citizens to file lawsuits if election officials fail to enforce the proof of citizenship requirement. This stipulation could encourage citizens to take action against noncompliance, particularly in states that may resist federal directives.
Former President Trump has consistently argued that noncitizen voting threatens the integrity of elections. Asserting the need for immediate action, he hinted at the possibility of imposing identification requirements via executive order if Congress does not act. On Truth Social, he emphasized, “This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW!” He expressed confidence in the legal basis for such measures, promising to provide details shortly.
Meanwhile, a broader legislative push, the Make Elections Great Again Act, is making its way through the House. This ambitious proposal aims not only to enforce documented proof of citizenship for voters but also to eliminate universal mail voting and ranked-choice voting. Additionally, it seeks to ban the acceptance of ballots postmarked by Election Day if they arrive later than that day. Should it pass, it would significantly alter voting practices in 14 states and Washington, D.C.
As these developments unfold, the administration remains adamant in its commitment to safeguarding election integrity, facing both pushback and support across the political spectrum. The coming months will be critical as various strategies come to the forefront, all centered on the pivotal issue of voter eligibility and verification.
"*" indicates required fields
