La campagne électorale du ministère de la Justice touche le mur du palais de justice

The Department of Justice (DOJ) faces mounting legal setbacks in its effort to obtain sensitive voter information from states, according to recent rulings by federal judges. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer, a George W. Bush appointee, dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit against Colorado’s secretary of state with prejudice, rejecting the administration’s claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 granted it sweeping authority to access voter records. The records in question included registrants’ driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of their Social Security identifiers. Brimmer ruled that compelling the release of the state’s voter list did not fall within the DOJ’s legal authority. This decision adds to a growing trend of judicial resistance to the administration’s broader campaign to secure voter data. The DOJ has sued 30 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., arguing that the information is necessary to combat alleged voter fraud and ensure election integrity. However, federal judges have consistently rejected these requests. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 20 cases involving the DOJ’s voter data campaign have resulted in adverse rulings. In California, a judge called the request “unprecedented and illegal.” In Rhode Island, a Trump appointee referred to the demand as a “fishing expedition.” These decisions reflect a bipartisan skepticism toward the DOJ’s approach, even among judges appointed by the current administration. The DOJ’s strategy has faced challenges beyond the courtroom. While more than a dozen states have agreed to share the requested data, others have limited cooperation to publicly available information. The administration’s claims that millions of unauthorized immigrants are on voting rolls in key states have not been substantiated by the Department of Homeland Security, which has released figures for four states that refused to turn over voter records. These numbers have raised questions among election officials, as noted by NPR. President Trump continues to press for legislative action, particularly through the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove citizenship before casting ballots. However, the bill’s prospects in the Senate remain uncertain. Additionally, Trump’s push to restrict mail-in voting has encountered legal hurdles, potentially leading to a Supreme Court showdown. Despite these challenges, the administration has found alternative avenues to gather voter-related data. For instance, ICE investigators accessed individual voter files in at least two counties, Texas and North Carolina, and the FBI recently obtained the IP address of someone who registered to vote online in South Carolina. Meanwhile, allegations of voter fraud have emerged in Texas, complicating the political landscape ahead of the November election. State Representative James Talarico, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate, has been scrutinized for voting in five elections using his parents’ address after purchasing a home nearby. ProPublica and The Texas Tribune revealed that Talarico listed his parents’ address on his voter registration in November 2021, despite owning a home in Austin since June 2022. He did not update his registration until September 2024, though the new address is redacted. Talarico’s campaign has declined to comment on his residency and voting history, citing credible threats from right-wing groups. These revelations come amid ongoing scrutiny of Attorney General Ken Paxton, Talarico’s opponent in the Senate race. Paxton has long championed strict enforcement of election laws, including targeting individuals who allegedly used false addresses to cast ballots. His campaign asserts that he is a “lawful, registered Texas voter” but has avoided answering detailed questions about his own residency and voting history. Legal experts suggest that proving intentional fraud is challenging, given the ambiguity of Texas law regarding voter residency. Nevertheless, Paxton’s aggressive pursuit of alleged violations has drawn accusations of hypocrisy, especially following reports that he voted using an address where he has not resided for two years. As the November election approaches, tensions surrounding voter eligibility and election integrity continue to escalate. Both the DOJ’s legal battles and the unfolding controversies in Texas underscore the complex and often contentious nature of electoral politics in the United States.