The federal government, through Attorney General Pam Bondi, requested Minnesota grant access to state voter rolls and public assistance data, alongside calls for increased cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the repeal of "sanctuary" policies. Minnesota officials, including Governor Tim Walz's office and Secretary of State Steve Simon, rejected these demands, citing legal and privacy concerns. This request occurred within a broader federal campaign by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain sensitive voter data from approximately two dozen states, often encountering resistance and legal challenges, while also facing scrutiny over the use of such data and its connection to immigration enforcement.
Federal Demands in Minnesota
Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a three-page letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz requesting federal access to the state's voter rolls and public assistance data. The letter, dated the same day Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen, was shot and killed by immigration officers, urged Minnesota to:
- Eliminate "sanctuary" policies.
- Fully cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including providing ICE agents with access to local jails and honoring requests to detain individuals.
- Provide access to state voter roll data to "confirm that Minnesota's voter registration practices comply with federal law."
- Provide records related to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, to "efficiently investigate fraud."
Bondi stated these measures would "help bring back law and order to Minnesota and improve the lives of Americans," and accused state officials of "anti-law enforcement rhetoric" and "putting federal agents in danger."
The Trump administration has focused on alleged fraud within Minnesota's public assistance programs, particularly among immigrants of Somali descent, as a reason for its immigration enforcement efforts. Federal officials had also suggested that immigration operations in the state might be scaled back if more authority to enter detention facilities was granted to pursue individuals accused of being in the U.S. illegally.
Minnesota Officials Reject Demands
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon rejected Bondi's request for voter data. Simon described the letter as "an outrageous attempt to coerce Minnesota into giving the federal government private data on millions of U.S. Citizens in violation of state and federal law."
He characterized the request as "deeply disturbing" and part of an "apparent ransom," asserting that the law does not grant the federal government authority to obtain this private data.
Simon also noted that the Governor lacks a formal role in election management or voter registration and that the specific data request is subject to ongoing litigation.
Governor Walz's office urged the Trump administration to engage in discussions about ending the "federal occupation." A statement from Walz's office criticized the conduct of federal immigration agents, referencing two shooting incidents involving federal officers which resulted in the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good. The statement concluded that the federal actions and Bondi's letter were not consistent with "common sense, lawful immigration enforcement." State corrections officials indicated existing cooperation with ICE, with variations at the county level, and state officials maintained that federal claims about their cooperation with ICE were inaccurate.
Broader Federal Campaign for Voter Data
The Justice Department has initiated a broader campaign to obtain sensitive voter data, filing lawsuits against Minnesota and approximately two dozen other states, primarily those lost by Donald Trump in the 2020 election. The DOJ states it needs this data to enforce federal election law and assist states in "cleaning" their voter rolls of ineligible voters. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, the civil rights chief at the DOJ, has spearheaded these demands.
The data sought includes non-public information such as Social Security numbers, driver's license ID numbers, full birth dates, and current addresses. The DOJ asserts its entitlement to registration records under the 1960 Civil Rights Act.
State Resistance and Concerns:
- At least six Republican-led state election offices have refused the DOJ's request for non-public voter data, citing concerns that requests conflicted with state laws prohibiting the disclosure of sensitive voter information.
- Some Republican election administrators provided sensitive data but refused to sign a proposed agreement requiring states to remove voters deemed ineligible by the Justice Department.
- GOP election officials questioned the administration's reasons for seeking the data and objected to the federal government leading the task of removing ineligible voters, rather than state or local officials.
- Election officials in states like Oklahoma and Missouri cited state privacy laws as reasons for not providing personal voter information without a court order.
- The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has warned 10 states about potential legal issues if they agree to proposed federal scrutiny of their voter rolls, arguing that a suggested 45-day deadline for states to "clean" rolls could conflict with federal laws governing voter removal procedures.
As of recent reports, only two states, Alaska and Texas, have signed the federal memorandum of understanding. Approximately a dozen more states are providing data without entering the agreement, while only 14 states have fully complied or are in the process of complying with the federal demands.
Legal Setbacks and Judicial Scrutiny
No court has upheld the Justice Department's argument for its entitlement to full registration records under the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and at least two courts have rejected it.
- A federal judge in California dismissed the department's voter-roll lawsuit against the state, criticizing what was described as an "unbridled consolidation of all elections power in the Executive without action from Congress and public debate."
- Judges in Oregon and Georgia also dismissed similar cases, finding the DOJ's legal arguments insufficient.
- The specific data request in Minnesota is subject to ongoing litigation. A district judge overseeing a separate challenge to the administration's immigration tactics raised concerns about Bondi's demand being linked to the unrest, questioning if the executive branch was attempting to achieve a goal through force that it could not achieve through the courts. A DOJ attorney responded that the administration was "trying to enforce federal law."
Demands for Public Assistance Data
Beyond voter rolls, the federal government has also sought public assistance data.
- Minnesota is among over 20 states that have not complied with a U.S. Department of Agriculture demand to provide personal information of SNAP benefit applicants or recipients from the past six years. These states argue the demand is unlawful, and a federal judge in California has indicated they are likely to succeed in this claim.
- Minnesota was also among 22 states that sued to prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from sharing sensitive Medicaid data with the Department of Homeland Security for immigration enforcement. In December, a federal judge in California permitted limited data sharing, including addresses and immigration status, to proceed.
The SAVE Program and Voter Roll "Cleaning"
The Justice Department has indicated its goal is to help states "clean" their voter rolls by comparing state lists with the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which contains immigrant data.
- The SAVE system, historically used to verify immigration and citizenship status for government benefit applicants, was updated last year by a Department of Homeland Security division to include access to Social Security and U.S. passport data.
- The Trump administration has encouraged states to upload voter files to the enhanced SAVE system to identify potential non-citizens on their voter rolls.
- Concerns have been raised regarding the accuracy of the system. Previous comparisons have shown high rates of false positives, misidentifying naturalized citizens as ineligible voters due to outdated federal data.
- For example, in one Texas county that used SAVE, at least 15 out of 84 flagged voters were false positives. After running over 18 million voters through the SAVE system, Texas election officials identified 2,724 potential non-citizens on their rolls, though a detailed review in Travis County showed that 11 of 97 voters initially flagged had already provided proof of citizenship.
- While millions of records have been processed, no evidence of widespread voter fraud has emerged.
Conflicting Perspectives on Federal Intentions
The White House stated that the Justice Department possesses "full authority" to ensure states comply with federal election laws, aiming for accurate voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters.
However, skepticism about the sole objective of voter roll maintenance has been expressed by voter advocates, former Department of Justice attorneys, and a federal judge.
Some officials have questioned whether the stated goal of compliance with the National Voter Registration Act was a pretext, suggesting the data might be used for other purposes, such as immigration enforcement or to influence perceptions of election results. An election law expert also suggested the actions indicated an intent to create political disruption and exert pressure on states.