In two big wins for voters, federal courts have rejected the DOJ's demands for the unredacted personal data of Oregon and California voters, marking the first rulings on DOJ data grabs.
"We shouldn’t even have an election,” President Donald Trump said as he complained about the possibility of his party losing the midterms. The remark is just the latest to suggest the president views elections as an obstacle rather than a constitutional requirement.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump was “simply joking” when he said that "we shouldn’t even have an election," and claimed that the president was only praising his administration’s success.
Trump threatens to invoke Insurrection Act, deploy military to Minnesota
Trump threatened to send the military to Minnesota to end protests against the fatal Minneapolis ICE shooting. The threat comes after his administration flooded the state with federal law enforcement agents to conduct aggressive immigration raids in the region.
Court rejects bid for Oregon voter rolls in first ruling on DOJ data grab
In a big win for Oregonians’ privacy and the rule of law, a federal judge tentatively granted the state's request to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit seeking access to Oregon’s unredacted voter registration records, saying that states aren’t required to provide such data.
Soon after, federal judge dismisses DOJ’s request for California’s voter data
A federal judge dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit seeking access to California's full voter registration database, ruling the federal government has no legal authority to demand the sensitive personal information of nearly 23 million voters.
“The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose,” the judge wrote. “This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy.”
DOJ targets 3 more Dem lawmakers in investigation of ‘unlawful orders’ video
Three more Democratic lawmakers said they were contacted by the DOJ for reminding military members last year that they are obligated to refuse unlawful orders. The probes appear to violate department policy barring investigations based on protected speech.
Callais ruling may come too late to boost Trump in midterms
As voting rights experts anxiously await SCOTUS’ decision to uphold or weaken the Voting Rights Act, it’s becoming increasingly likely the wait will continue into the summer. But the delay could lead to last-minute gerrymanders as GOP states rush to appease Trump before the midterms.
Harvard Law professor and election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos joined Marc to break down the existential threat facing American democracy as aggressive gerrymandering and Supreme Court challenges put the Voting Rights Act on the brink.
They explain how we got here, what the Court’s next moves could mean for upcoming elections, and why this moment is a tipping point for free and fair elections—and how you can stay informed and defend democracy.
The first advertisement advocating for Virginia’s redistricting referendum is up and running.
It's a little troubling that the Trump-appointed judge who appears supportive of the administration's bid for Connecticut's voter rolls cited the wrong federal law in explaining the basis for the DOJ's lawsuit. But we appreciate that the court fixed the error after Democracy Docket reached out.
This is one of our free weekly newsletters. If you were forwarded this email, you can subscribe to our newsletters here. For questions or help with your subscription, please visit our Help Center.
-1.png?width=1120&upscale=true&name=image%20(1)-1.png)
.png?height=50&upscale=true&name=Bluesky_Logo-grey%20(2).png){kind=logo}
