What you should know about the Trump administration's push to get California voters' private data

A federal judge heard arguments Thursday (Dec. 4) in a case to decide whether California should have to give the federal government sensitive data about its more than 23 million voters.

California is one of 14 states the U.S. Department of Justice has sued in recent months in a nearly nationwide effort to collect voter data, including sensitive information that typically is under state control and kept private.

The California case is further along than any other, so it serves as a kind of test that’s being closely watched by election officials, voting rights advocates and election integrity hawks. The U.S. Department of Justice has requested complete voter registration data from at least 40 states.

Here's a closer look at the legal showdown — and why it ultimately might be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Why does the government say it wants the data?

The U.S. Department of Justice says it needs the data to ensure “free and fair elections.” In court filings, the department says it wants to make sure states are complying with federal election law, specifically a requirement that states keep voter registration databases current, including by removing ineligible voters.

Why won’t states just turn it over?

Two states have, Indiana and Wyoming. But California, plus allied states and voting rights groups, says state and federal privacy rules prohibit the sharing of voters’ sensitive personal data, namely driver’s license and social security numbers.

Wait, doesn’t the federal government already have this info?

Yes and no. The Social Security Administration has your data. But there are rules and protocols about sharing that data — even with other government entities.

Driver’s licenses are issued by the state. A lawyer for California said in court that driver’s license information is connected to other state programs and, therefore, giving that information to the federal government would potentially give it access to a much broader range of private information.   

What are the deeper concerns?

For one thing, the U.S. Constitution delegates the running of elections to the states, and some critics worry this may be an effort to usurp some of that power. They say the federal government could use the data to cancel the registration of valid voters.

Others say that amassing the sensitive personal data of almost the entire voting population of the U.S. could have devastating consequences if hacked.

More than anything, lawyers arguing on the side of California and elections experts who spoke with LAist said they’re concerned about the fact that they don’t know what the government intends to do with the information.

“They haven't really told anybody, in particular the folks who they're asking for this data, the exact purposes to which the data will be used. And that’s the problem,” said Michael Alvarez, a Caltech political science professor who specializes in elections.

Media outlets have reported, however, that the Department of Justice is considering sharing voter information with the Department of Homeland Security for criminal and immigration-related prosecutions.

What happened at the hearing?

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter heard from lawyers for California, the NAACP and the League of Women Voters on why they think the case should get dismissed. Their main arguments are that the government hasn’t stated a valid purpose for wanting the data, such as to investigate a specific civil rights violation.

A lawyer for the Department of Justice said the government is “clearly entitled” to the voting records. He also said California was “maybe the most worrisome state in the nation” in terms of anomalies regarding its voter registration data and that it would be "irresponsible for the government to not come in at this point to ensure free and fair elections.” The attorneys for California disputed that characterization.

Carter indicated that whatever his ultimate decision, the issue likely would end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.