The U.S. Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are nearing an agreement that would enable federal agencies to share sensitive voter registration data for immigration and criminal investigations, according to sources familiar with the matter. This development comes amid ongoing litigation in dozens of states over the Justice Department's broad efforts to collect detailed voter roll information-a practice that has sparked significant privacy concerns and legal challenges.
At the heart of this emerging arrangement is the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which has been actively collecting voter registration data from states. Under the proposed agreement, this data would be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) unit. The goal is reportedly to identify non-citizens who may be unlawfully registered to vote or who may have cast ballots in previous elections. While the precise mechanics of the data-sharing system remain unclear, one source said it could involve establishing a platform that allows officials to cross-reference voter registration records with DHS's alien databases.
Todd Lyons, currently serving as the senior official performing the duties of the acting director of ICE, is expected to formally request access to the data as part of this process. A Justice Department spokesperson defended the effort, stating that the department is dedicating significant resources to ensure elections are "free, fair, and transparent," emphasizing their focus on making sure elections are decided solely by American citizens. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the agreement.
Internally, there have been differing views among government lawyers about the scope of data to be shared. Some have advocated releasing substantial amounts of raw voter data to DHS, while others have pushed to limit the data to specific categories, such as voting histories and eligibility verification documents. The White House has also been involved in discussions with both the Justice Department and DHS about the data-sharing plans, though the reasons for its involvement and the specific role it plays are not publicly known. The White House has previously issued an executive order directing agencies to enforce laws preventing non-citizens from voting, which aligns with the stated goals of this initiative.
This potential data-sharing arrangement unfolds against a backdrop of intense legal battles. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is currently engaged in litigation with 29 states and the District of Columbia, many of which have refused to provide unredacted voter rolls containing sensitive information such as partial Social Security numbers. These states cite privacy and security concerns as reasons for withholding the data. Despite these objections, the Justice Department has insisted that it needs the information to ensure compliance with federal laws that mandate states maintain accurate and up-to-date voter registration lists.
Importantly, in none of these ongoing court cases has the Justice Department disclosed the proposed or pending data-sharing agreement with DHS. Instead, Civil Rights Division attorneys have framed their data requests solely as efforts to enforce compliance with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Both statutes require states to maintain clean voter rolls to prevent ineligible individuals, including non-citizens and convicted felons, from voting. The Civil Rights Division also cites provisions of the Civil Rights Act, which compel states to retain voter registration records for up to 22 months after an election and permit the Justice Department to inspect those records with a stated purpose.
Legal experts have raised concerns about the Justice Department's failure to disclose its collaboration with DHS in court. According to Deborah Pearlstein, director of the Princeton Program in Law and Public Policy, attorneys are bound by professional ethics rules that prohibit knowingly making false statements or withholding material information from the court. If lawyers are aware of the data-sharing plans and fail to inform judges, they may face sanctions from courts or bar associations. Conversely, if lawyers are unaware of these plans, judges may require government officials to testify about the issue.
It remains unclear whether all Civil Rights Division lawyers handling the voter data cases are fully informed about the negotiations with DHS. However, sources indicate that several senior attorneys within the division, as well as officials in other Justice Department offices including the deputy attorney general, have been involved in discussions about the data-sharing arrangement. Among those named are Andrew Braniff and Jesus Osete, who are managing appeals in three cases after courts denied the Justice Department's requests for voter data. Acting Voting Section Chief Eric Neff and Timothy Mellett have also reportedly participated in conversations about coordinating data sharing with DHS. None of these individuals responded to requests for comment.
The Justice Department's litigation strategy has involved filing 30 lawsuits against primarily Democratic-leaning states and the District of Columbia after they resisted demands to disclose voter registration data containing sensitive personal information such as partial Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. In court filings, the Civil Rights Division has emphasized its reliance on federal laws like HAVA and NVRA to justify obtaining the data, maintaining that its purpose is to ensure that voter rolls are accurate and that ineligible voters are not casting ballots.
Throughout the litigation, questions have repeatedly arisen about whether the data might be used for immigration enforcement. In a March 3 court hearing in Minnesota, a federal judge directly asked Civil Rights Division attorney James Tucker if the department intended to use the data for immigration enforcement. Tucker responded, "Not to my knowledge," but acknowledged that some states voluntarily provide voter roll data to DHS to run matches against immigration databases. He also denied media reports characterizing the government's efforts as an attempt to create a national voter database, calling those claims a conflation of different purposes.
Similarly, during a March 19 hearing in Connecticut, Tucker was questioned about plans to share data with DHS. He said no decision had been made and that he was unaware of any directive to transmit non-public data to other agencies. In a sworn court declaration, Eric Neff, acting chief of the Civil Rights Division's voting section, also denied that the department was compiling a national voter file, refuting claims made by defendants in one case.
However, election experts and legal observers have expressed skepticism about these denials. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and a CBS News contributor, called Neff's court declaration "problematic," suggesting it omitted important facts. The lack of transparency and apparent contradictions have fueled doubts about the department's true intentions.
So far, three federal courts-in California's Central District, Oregon, and the Western District of Michigan-have dismissed the Justice Department's lawsuits. In two of these cases, judges openly questioned the government's motives. U.S. District Judge David Carter of California criticized the Justice Department for "obfuscation of its true motives." In Oregon, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai described the Civil Rights Division's requests as "pretextual," pointing to a letter sent by Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minnesota's governor that linked voter roll demands to immigration enforcement efforts. The judge wrote that the context of the letter raised serious doubts about why the Justice Department was seeking voter registration lists and how it intended to use the data.
The controversy surrounding the Justice Department's attempts to collect sensitive voter registration information and share it with immigration enforcement highlights ongoing tensions between election integrity efforts, privacy rights, and immigration policy enforcement. As the Justice Department and DHS move closer to finalizing their data-sharing agreement, legal battles over the scope and legality of these actions are expected to continue. Meanwhile, questions remain about the transparency of the government's approach and the protections afforded to voter privacy in the process.
© 2026 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.