Most federal election fights are about fraud. This one is about power.

A federal court just shut down the DOJ’s attempt to force Oregon to hand over its unredacted voter roll, including birth dates, driver’s license numbers, and the last four of Social Security numbers.

I’m not claiming DOJ can’t enforce election law. I’m claiming it cannot invent disclosure authority that Congress never granted.

The mechanism here matters more than the headline.

Here’s the actual machinery:

• States regulate and administer elections under the Elections Clause

• Congress can preempt, but only through “positive and clear statutes”

• NVRA (National Voter Registration Act) allows public inspection of list maintenance records, not sensitive personal data

• HAVA (Help America Vote Act) contains enforcement authority, but no disclosure provision

• Title III requires a written demand stating a factual basis and a voting-rights purpose. DOJ’s letter failed both

The court didn’t just say “no.” It said:

1. NVRA permits redaction of sensitive voter information 
2. HAVA has no disclosure hook 
3. Title III’s purpose is voting-rights enforcement, not generalized list audits 

And then this line, which should give everyone pause:

“The presumption of regularity… no longer holds.” 

That’s a federal judge saying the government doesn’t get automatic trust anymore.

Yes, states must maintain accurate rolls. That’s non-negotiable. But Congress did not authorize the DOJ to aggregate millions of Americans’ sensitive voter data into a centralized federal database absent clear statutory authority.

If the goal is election integrity, focus on statutory compliance mechanisms, not expansion-by-letterhead.

What evidence would justify compelling full unredacted voter files under the statutes as written?