The White House has pushed federal agencies to accelerate a review of voter-registration records from at least 47 states as the Department of Homeland Security searches for potential noncitizens on voter rolls.
An internal September 1 DHS email reviewed by Reuters shows that hundreds of officers from immigration and security agencies have been assigned to what the department calls its Unlawful Voter Initiative. The email also indicates White House involvement in pressing agencies to advance the work.
The programme raises legal questions about election administration, federal authority, data accuracy and the safeguards applied before registered voters face further investigation.
States play the primary role in administering congressional elections, including registration, but the Constitution’s Elections Clause also gives Congress authority to make or alter rules governing federal elections. Federal legislation including the National Voter Registration Act therefore places requirements on state voter-list maintenance for Supreme Court Strikes Down Spending Limits in NRSC v. FEC .
It remains unclear how DHS obtained all 47 voter rolls referenced in the internal email.
The Trump administration has sought unredacted voter records from nearly every state. At least 16 states have provided complete, unredacted rolls, according to figures cited by Reuters from the Brennan Center for Justice, while most states have declined to do so.
Where public voter lists omit information such as Social Security or driver’s-licence numbers, DHS has supplemented the records using Accurint, a commercial data service owned by LexisNexis.
Federal investigators are comparing the resulting records with databases held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the State Department and Social Security Administration to help verify US Supreme Court Backs Trump v. Barbara – Lawyer Monthly
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said 1,620 cases were under investigation and that the number was increasing. DHS said its investigations were being carried out professionally and in accordance with the law.
The accuracy of those database matches is likely to be a central legal and administrative issue.
The internal email said some voter records lacked identifying information such as a year of birth. Reuters reported that referrals have included false positives, including US citizens with names similar to immigrants and citizens born outside the United States.
The email said DHS had only some degree of confidence that people flagged by the review were noncitizens who had registered or voted.
Nevada demonstrates the verification problem. DHS initially identified 15,903 people on the state’s voter rolls as potential noncitizens. After Nevada sought supporting evidence, DHS said the number was preliminary and that 185 cases had been verified, according to the Nevada Secretary of State’s office.
Reuters separately reported that administrative and software errors may have resulted in more than 30,000 noncitizens being added to voter rolls nationwide since 2000, although it was unclear how many had actually voted. The US has approximately 170 million registered voters.
For election lawyers, the next issue is what authorities do with potential matches.
The National Voter Registration Act requires states to conduct reasonable voter-list maintenance while placing limits on systematic removals close to federal elections. Its 90-day provision generally requires programmes designed to systematically remove ineligible voters to be completed at least 90 days before a federal primary or general election.
The federal review therefore raises questions extending beyond whether noncitizens appear on registration lists. Data reliability, information sharing, privacy, CNN, MS NOW and Politico Sue Over White House Press Ban – Lawyer Monthly and the procedures used before removing or investigating voters could all become significant if authorities act on the results.
As the initiative continues, its legal consequences will depend not simply on the number of initial database matches, but on how reliably those matches can be verified and what enforcement or voter-list action follows.