Wisconsin's voter list protected by federal judge—decision explained

​By Erik Reinthaler, WJI Intern
​and Alexandria Staubach
​
A federal judge recently dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit to force Wisconsin election officials to produce the state’s unredacted voter registration list.

Peterson

In a narrow and technical ruling on May 21, Western District of Wisconsin Chief Judge James D. Peterson found that the unredacted list is not subject to disclosure under the Civil Rights Act of 1960. The judge did not address issues of voter privacy.
 
“While the judge didn’t rule on the privacy issues, the privacy issues that were voiced had a lot of merit as well,” said Law Forward’s Doug Poland on a call with Wisconsin Justice Initiative.  “One of the results dismissing it is that the privacy issues won’t be placed in jeopardy.”
 
Ryan Cox, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said in a press release that Peterson “affirmed what we already know to be true: confidential voter data is protected under the law, and the DOJ can’t just unlawfully order WEC to hand over that information for political purposes.”  (WEC is the Wisconsin Elections Commission.)
 
The lawsuit was one in a series of actions the federal government filed against 30 states and Washington, D.C., seeking production of statewide voter registration lists.
 
Wisconsin joins eight other states in which the lawsuits have been dismissed, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, cited in footnote 2 of Peterson’s opinion.
 
In four states, voter lists are either publicly available or the government had been instructed how to obtain them. Many Republican-led states (Texas, Florida and Indiana among others) have committed to or provided complete voter lists voluntarily.
 
The federal government sued WEC and its members after election officials refused to provide an unredacted version of the state’s voter registration list containing driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers. WEC cited Wisconsin privacy laws in declining the request.
 
According to the complaint, the DOJ contacted Wisconsin election officials in June 2025, referencing complaints it received about Wisconsin’s compliance with federal law governing election administration and voter registration systems. The DOJ requested both a copy of Wisconsin’s voter registration list and information regarding list maintenance procedures.
 
WEC directed the federal government to a publicly available portal containing a redacted version of the voter list and answered questions regarding maintenance procedures, but would not turn over the unredacted list.
 
Peterson’s ruling allows Wisconsin election officials to continue withholding unredacted voter registration data containing sensitive personal information.
 
In court, the DOJ argued that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 entitled the attorney general to inspect the records.
 
Peterson held that Title III applies to records election officials receive from outside sources, rather than records created and maintained internally by the state. Title III requires election officials to retain only records that “come into [their] possession,” Peterson said.
 
He relied heavily on two recent decisions from federal judges in Michigan and Arizona. Those judges similarly held that voter registration lists are not records covered by Title III.
 
Peterson noted that Title III’s examples of covered records—such as voter applications and poll tax records—are documents submitted by voters rather than internally maintained state databases.
 
Peterson said that Congress primarily sought to preserve records submitted by voters in order to prevent the discriminatory destruction of voter registration applications during the civil rights era.
 
He also described voter registration lists as “living documents” continuously updated under federal law. Two federal acts require states to regularly add eligible voters and remove ineligible voters from their databases.
 
Under the federal government’s interpretation, Peterson observed, election officials could potentially face liability under Title III for “altering” records even though federal law simultaneously requires them to modify registration lists.

The DOJ may still appeal Peterson's dismissal of the case.

---