"The Letter requested a copy of Connecticut’s statewide voter registration list (“SVRL”) within fourteen days of the date of the letter." "On December 12, 2025, the Attorney General sent a written demand to Secretary Thomas for the production of specific election records pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 20703." "Wherefore, the United States respectfully requests this Court: A. Declare that Defendant’s refusal to provide the election records upon a demand by the Attorney General violates Title III of the Civil Rights Act as required by 52 U.S.C. § 20703; B. Order Secretary Thomas to provide to the Attorney General the current electronic copy of Connecticut’s computerized statewide voter registration list, with all fields, including each registrant’s full name, date of birth, residential address, and either their state driver’s license number, the last four digits of their Social Security number, or"

"On January 6, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Connecticut alleging that the state has failed to provide information about voter list maintenance procedures and electronic copies of statewide voter rolls." "The lawsuit alleges that Connecticut and its Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas violated the Civil Rights Act of 1960 by refusing to produce a current unredacted electronic copy of the state’s voter registration list." "Secretary Thomas expressed concerns over the rights and privacy of the citizens of Connecticut after the Department of Justice demanded unredacted voter list data, which would contain personally identifiable information, such as partial Social Security numbers."

(Hartford, CT)- Attorney General William Tong today won the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Trump Administration seeking to force Connecticut to hand over its statewide voter registration list. In the decision issued today, U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley dismissed the action, concluding that DOJ has no authority under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to require Connecticut to produce its statewide voter registration list. The court held that the list falls outside the statute because it is created by the Secretary of State.

"Federal law authorizes the Attorney General to demand voter registration records, but she cannot do so based on a misrepresentation." "The second letter also invoked Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (“Title III”), 52 U.S.C. §§ 20701–06, as authority for the demand and stated, “The purpose of this request is to ascertain Connecticut’s compliance with the list maintenance requirements of the NVRA and HAVA.”" "DOJ’s Title III claim seeking the complete, unredacted Connecticut voter file should be dismissed because the demand did not state “the basis and the purpose therefor.” 52 U.S.C. ... and not “the purpose” of a demand—and it does not—DOJ’s demand for the complete, unredacted Connecticut voter file is unrelated to “Connecticut’s compliance with the list maintenance requirements of the NVRA and HAVA.”

"There is no basis for this Court to order the Secretary to produce Connecticut’s [statewide voter registration list]." "[Connecticut’s] VRL is not subject to the CRA’s retention requirement; and (4) the CRA does not require production of records in the manner sought by DOJ." "A statewide VRL is not something “which come[s] into [the Secretary’s] possession.” The CRA requires states to preserve records that voters submit to"

"The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Secretary Stephanie Thomas (D) for refusing to turn over Connecticut’s complete, unredacted statewide voter registration list." "In December, the DOJ demanded the complete voter file — including voters’ full names, dates of birth, residential addresses, and either driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers — as part of a nationwide investigation into alleged non-compliance with federal voter list-maintenance requirements under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Help America Vote Act (HAVA)." "Jan. 8, 2026: The court issued a show cause order asking Connecticut to show why it should not be ordered to provide the DOJ with its statewide voter registration list."

Attorney General William Tong today won the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Trump Administration seeking to force Connecticut to hand over its statewide voter registration list. In the decision issued today, U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley dismissed the action, concluding that DOJ has no authority under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to require Connecticut to produce its statewide voter registration list. The court held that the list falls outside the statute because it is created by the Secretary of State.

"On Wednesday, a federal appeals court dismissed the Justice Department's request for Michigan to hand over confidential information from its voter registration databases, marking a significant defeat for the Trump administration in its quest to access and examine unredacted voter rolls from various states nationwide." "In the majority opinion authored by Circuit Judge Andre Mathis, it was stated that the civil rights law from 1960, which the Justice Department cited in its lawsuit to compel the release of the data, does not pertain to Michigan's consolidated voter file." "The statute grants the attorney general the power to request specific voting-related documents that “come into” the “possession” of election officials. However, the 6th Circuit, aligning with several other lower courts, determined that the voter registration files maintained by states are not included in the records specified by the law."

"Now, months later, that same Trump-appointed judge has denied DOJ’s demand for the state’s unredacted voter rolls." "U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley became the 16th judge Friday to rule against the DOJ’s nationwide campaign to obtain states’ sensitive voter registration data, with zero judges ruling for the government." "She concluded that Connecticut’s statewide voter registration list is not covered by Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the law the DOJ invoked to demand voters’ names, dates of birth, addresses and social security numbers." "“The SVRL is a record created by the state,” Dooley wrote. “It is not a record that comes into the state’s possession at all.”"

"Conn.), the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut issued an Order to Show Cause requiring the Connecticut Secretary of State to explain why she should not be ordered to produce the Statewide Voter Registration List and related records demanded by the Attorney General under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960."

A federal judge in Connecticut has become the 16th straight district court judge to reject the Justice Department's attempt to obtain a state's complete voter registration list under Title III of the Civil Rights Act. In Friday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley concluded that Connecticut's statewide voter registration list is not a record covered by the statute the DOJ relied on, denied the government's motion to compel production, and dismissed the case. The decision adds to a growing series of federal court rulings rejecting the DOJ's legal theory in similar lawsuits against states seeking access to statewide voter rolls.

On January 7, Plaintiff filed an associated Motion to Compel Production of Records pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1960. The following day, the Court ordered the Secretary to show cause why she should not be ordered to provide Connecticut’s VRL to Plaintiff by January 20, 2026. Later, upon the Secretary’s request, the Court clarified that its Order was not a determination on the merits of Plaintiff’s Title III claim, but instead reflected only the Court’s expectation that the dispute shall be fully briefed followed by a hearing at which oral argument shall be had. Thereafter, the Court will decide the issues presented as may be necessary to a resolution of this matter.

"In January 2026, DOJ sued Connecticut, seeking a copy of the state’s complete and unredacted voter roll." "In the lawsuit, DOJ claimed that Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas violated Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 by refusing to provide the requested records." "The ACLU is representing the Connecticut Democratic Party in opposing DOJ’s demand for the unredacted voter list, arguing that the department’s request would violate voters’ privacy and exceed the scope of Title III."

"Finally, the Justice Department contends in all of its lawsuits to date that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 requires states to disclose their complete, unredacted voter registration lists." "Title III of the 1960 Act requires election officials to retain “all records and papers which come into [their] possession relating to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election.” It also authorizes the Attorney General to inspect and copy such records upon written demand stating its “basis and purpose,” and it provides a mechanism to compel disclosure in federal court." "The Justice Department contends that modern statewide voter registration lists fall within Title III’s preservation and disclosure requirements. To date, however, no federal court has squarely addressed Title III’s applicability to such materials."

Now, months later, that same Trump-appointed judge has denied DOJ’s demand for the state’s unredacted voter rolls. U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley, who Trump himself appointed back in 2018, denied the Justice Department’s demand outright. Dooley found that Connecticut’s voter registration list doesn’t fall under the law the DOJ was using to justify its demand, which is Civil Rights Act provision from 1960. That law, Title III, covers records the state receives and has to preserve. The voter roll isn’t that.

On Tuesday, January 6, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Connecticut, demanding the state’s full statewide voter registration list, including sensitive personal information such as voters’ full dates of birth and driver’s license and Social Security numbers. Connecticut has declined to provide that information because: - Federal and state law prohibit its disclosure. - The federal government lacks a basis for this broad request of an entire voter database. The case is now before a federal court. The court will decide whether federal law requires Connecticut to turn over the requested voter data.

Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 is entitled “Federal Election Records.” Section 301 of the Act provides that the retention and production requirements apply to “all records and papers which come into [the] possession” of state election officials relating to “any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election.” Courts interpreting § 20701 have concluded that Congress meant what it said in the statute. It does not exclude any voting record that State Defendants maintain, despite their argument that the SVRL is excluded because they “created” it.

The court concludes that a voter registration list is not a record that can be demanded under Title III. Accordingly, the government’s demand for Wisconsin’s voter list fails as a matter of law. The court agrees that a voter registration list is not a record subject to production under Title III, so it will dismiss the complaint on that ground without considering defendants’ other arguments. In sum, this court joins Benson and Fontes in concluding that voter registration lists are not documents subject to production under Title III.

Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 requires that certain records come into the possession of an officer or employee of state or local government pursuant to their duties as such an officer or employee, and that relate to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election must be preserved for 22 months and produced to the Attorney General upon demand. The Sixth Circuit held that Michigan's voter file is not a record that came into the possession of the Secretary of State within the ordinary meaning of that phrase — because the Secretary of State did not receive the voter file from anyone. She created it. She established it. She maintains it. It is a database that the Secretary of State assembled and manages. That means it is categorically outside the class of records that Title III covers, which are records generated by applicants and voters in the process of exercising their voting rights — not the aggregate database that officials compile from those submissions.

Oregon’s Secretary of State declined to produce the statewide voter registration list with all fields, declaring federal authorities do not have the authority to compel Oregon to disclose an unredacted voter registration list. The court’s order addresses the Attorney General’s demand for Oregon’s “statewide voter registration list, with all fields,” made under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960. The opinion discusses whether a statewide voter registration list is a "record" that has come into the possession of state officials within the meaning of Title III.

The administration is faring better in Connecticut, where U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley, a Trump appointee, has ordered the state to 'show cause' why it has defied the attorney general's request. Judge Dooley’s order directing Connecticut to explain its refusal came before her later decision dismissing the case and rejecting the Justice Department’s legal theory. Her subsequent ruling, as reported elsewhere, denied DOJ’s motion to compel and held that Title III did not entitle the Attorney General to the statewide voter registration list.

In relief, the DOJ sought a declaration that Secretary Thomas’s refusal violated Title III of the CRA, and an order compelling Secretary Thomas to provide Connecticut’s statewide voter registration list, “with all fields.” On January 7, 2026, the DOJ also filed a motion to compel the aforementioned records. Judge Dooley noted in her order that the parties “disagree as to the appropriate procedural posture of this case,” but it is the court’s view that “the [Civil Rights Act of 1960] gives the district court jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate applications by the Attorney General seeking to enforce the disclosure obligations provided for therein.”

"A federal court of appeals has blocked the Trump administration from accessing unredacted voter rolls in Michigan." ""[T]he Court's conclusion that the voter registration list is not subject to disclosure is based on the statutory text," Jarbou wrote. "HAVA, the NVRA, and the CRA do not allow the United States to obtain the records at issue in this case."" "In sum, the appellate court finds the case to hinge upon what Title III actually commands — specifically, what the statute means when it says records and papers subject to the law must be "made available for inspection, reproduction, and copying" if DOJ makes a "demand in writing" that specifies "the basis and the purpose" for the inspection. In the present case, the court determined the records are not subject to Title III because — citing another relevant section of the operative statute — they did not "come into [Benson's] possession."

U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich sided with Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, finding that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 doesn't grant the Justice Department the power to demand that Arizona produce its statewide voter registration list. "This case presents a legal question: is the Attorney General entitled to the SVRL under Title III," the Trump-nominated judge wrote. "It does not present a political question: should the Attorney General be entitled to the SVRL." Judge Brnovich held that Arizona’s statewide voter registration list is not a record subject to disclosure under Title III.

If you have further questions about the laws surrounding Connecticut’s Voter Rolls and how state and local election officials are working to make sure those lists are accurate, please contact us at LEAD@ct.gov or at (860) 509-6100. [Page describes Connecticut’s voter rolls generally as the statewide voter registration list maintained by the Secretary of the State’s office and local election officials, which is at issue in litigation over federal demands for unredacted voter data.]

CONNECTICUT (WTNH) — The U.S. Department of Justice has initiated legal action against the state of Connecticut, alleging that it has not provided complete voter registration lists when requested, as announced by the department on Tuesday. The DOJ is seeking Connecticut’s full statewide voter registration list, including details such as voters’ full dates of birth and other identifying information, under provisions of federal election laws including the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Connecticut officials have argued that state privacy laws and limits in federal law bar disclosure of the unredacted voter rolls.

To build this unauthorized and unprecedented federal list, DOJ has demanded that Connecticut—along with at least forty-seven other States—turn over its full, unredacted voter registration list, even though it has no actual authority to make such a demand and despite the fact that Connecticut law does not allow disclosure of sensitive voter information like driver’s license numbers and social security numbers. DOJ filed this suit on January 6, 2026, seeking to compel Secretary Thomas to turn over Connecticut’s statewide voter registration list. The Court should deny DOJ’s motion to compel and hold that the Secretary need not produce Connecticut’s voter registration list. … [requested relief:] not order Secretary Thomas to produce Connecticut’s unredacted voter registration list to DOJ.

NEW: A federal judge has ordered a swift explanation from Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas on why Connecticut continually refuses to produce its updated voter rolls in compliance with a DOJ order. The January 8 ruling demands the explanation from SotS Thomas by January 20. The order cites the Justice Department’s request for Connecticut’s statewide voter registration list under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and related federal election statutes.

The DOJ doesn’t have the authority to get voter files using the statutes it’s claiming,” said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University and another former DOJ attorney. “And more than that, I think that the DOJ is affirmatively precluded from getting the voter files that they’re seeking, including the voter files that they may have received already.” Derek Clinger, senior staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School, pointed to Carter’s comprehensive discussion of the 1960 Civil Rights Act (CRA), and the DOJ rarely-invoked demands under it for access to voter registration records.

Section 301 of Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 requires election officials to “retain and preserve” for twenty-two months “all records and papers” relating to any “act requisite to voting” in federal elections. The Department of Justice has argued in multiple recent lawsuits that statewide computerized voter registration databases are “records” within the meaning of Section 301 and therefore must be made available to the Attorney General. Several federal district courts, including the recent decision by Judge Kari Dooley in Connecticut, have rejected this interpretation and held that statewide voter registration lists created and maintained by states fall outside the scope of Title III.