Linking Voter Data to Immigration Enforcement: The Election Interference Question

Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Minnesota’s Democratic governor on the same day federal Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti—a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident. The letter made three demands: Give us your complete voter registration files with nothing removed or hidden, including Social Security numbers and driver’s license data. Hand over six years of Medicaid and food assistance records. Repeal your sanctuary policies and let ICE operate freely in your state.

The letter arrived on Saturday, January 24, 2026. Hours earlier, federal agents had fired at least ten shots in five seconds at Pretti. Pretti was a lawful gun owner with no criminal record who was holding a phone in one hand with his other hand raised when agents confronted him.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon called it ransom. “It is deeply disturbing that the US Attorney General would make this unlawful request a part of an apparent ransom to pay for our state’s peace and security,” he said in a statement. The timing wasn’t subtle: comply with our data demands, or the federal occupation continues.

Bondi’s letter reveals something that’s never happened before in how America runs elections. The federal government is using its immigration enforcement apparatus as leverage to extract voter data that multiple federal judges have already said it has no legal right to demand.

What the Letter Demands

The three requests in Bondi’s letter form a package deal.

First: complete voter registration files with nothing removed or hidden for every registered voter in Minnesota. Full Social Security numbers. Driver’s license numbers. Dates of birth. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division says this is about verifying Minnesota’s compliance with federal voting laws, pointing to the Civil Rights Act of 1960 as their legal basis.

Second: detailed records from Minnesota’s Medicaid and SNAP programs for the past six years. The stated justification is investigating fraud, particularly the Feeding Our Future case—a pandemic-relief fraud scheme that federal prosecutors have called one of the largest of its kind in U.S. history.

Third: repeal what Bondi characterized as “sanctuary policies” that prevent Minnesota law enforcement from cooperating with ICE. This means allowing immigration officers to interview detainees in state custody, removing people without legal status, and treating federal immigration enforcement as a state responsibility.

The letter doesn’t say “do these things or the agents stay.” It doesn’t have to. Context does that work. Three thousand federal immigration agents had been deployed to Minnesota over the previous six weeks. Two U.S. citizens were now dead from federal shootings in less than a month. Governor Tim Walz had called it a “federal occupation.” He said agents had “brought chaos and destruction to our state.”

Then came Bondi’s letter, hours after the second killing, proposing “common sense solutions” to “restore the rule of law.”

The Broader Campaign: 44 States and Counting

Minnesota isn’t alone. The Department of Justice has requested complete voter rolls from 44 states and Washington D.C. as of late January 2026, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Only eleven states have voluntarily complied. All have Republican leadership.

Democratic officials lead most of the rest, though Republicans concerned about privacy and federal overreach are increasingly joining them. These states have cited state and federal privacy laws as barriers. When voluntary compliance failed, the DOJ filed lawsuits. Twenty-four states and counting are now being sued in federal court for refusing to hand over their voters’ personal information.

The lawsuits aren’t going well for the government. A federal judge in California, David O. Carter, dismissed the DOJ’s case with language that should alarm anyone paying attention. “The Department of Justice seeks to use civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose to amass and retain an amount of confidential voter data never seen before,” he wrote. “Democracy isn’t destroyed all at once; it is chipped away piece-by-piece until there is nothing left. The case before the Court is one of these cuts that imperils all Americans.”

A federal judge in Oregon has indicated a tentative inclination to dismiss the government’s request in that state, though the case remains pending and no final ruling has been issued.

The Legal Theory That Doesn’t Hold

DOJ has attempted to base its demands on three federal laws: the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

These laws do authorize some federal oversight of state election administration. They don’t authorize wholesale seizure of sensitive personal data on every registered voter in a state.

DOJ claims the Civil Rights Act of 1960 authorizes the Attorney General to inspect voter records when investigating possible violations of federal voting rights laws. Former DOJ civil rights attorneys who filed court briefs opposing the agency’s requests argue that DOJ has failed to provide adequate justification for its sweeping data demands. Nearly identical letters sent to nearly every state suggest no state-specific problems warranting access to all voter data.

The National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act require states to maintain accurate voter rolls and establish computerized lists. But as Judge Carter noted, DOJ could verify compliance through redacted data or information about list maintenance practices. It doesn’t need Social Security numbers for millions of individual voters to confirm a state is following proper procedures.

Multiple federal judges have found the legal basis weak. If you can’t get voter data through normal litigation, can you get it by threatening states with continued immigration enforcement operations?

The National Database Nobody Voted For

The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security have acknowledged they plan to consolidate voter data from multiple states and compare it with immigration databases. The stated purpose: identify non-citizens on voter rolls, remove them, and potentially subject them to immigration enforcement.

In October 2025, DHS announced substantial changes to a system called SAVE that checks immigration status for benefits. The changes included expanding data sources to include Social Security Administration information, allowing searching many voter records at once instead of checking them individually, and establishing agreements to share citizenship verification results with DHS for immigration enforcement purposes.

When announcing the changes, DHS linked the effort to identifying and removing alleged “non-citizen voters” from electoral rolls. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon stated the federal government had “checked 47.5 million voter records” and claimed there are “several thousand noncitizens who are enrolled to vote in federal elections.”

Voting rights experts have criticized that figure as speculative and unsubstantiated. More concerning: the error rates when states have tested the system.

In one Texas county, 15 of 84 voters flagged by SAVE as non-citizens were later determined to be American citizens—an 18% error rate for individual voters flagged. In a separate instance, nearly 300 of 1,657 searches returned errors due to duplicate data or incompatible data formats—an 18% system error rate. These aren’t small mistakes. They’re naturalized citizens and eligible voters who would be wrongfully removed from rolls if election officials relied on federal lists without extensive verification.

Now imagine that scenario playing out nationwide, coordinated from Washington, with federal immigration enforcement as the stick to compel state cooperation.

The Privacy Problem

When you consolidate Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, dates of birth, and addresses for tens of millions of people in a federal database, you create what security experts call an attractive target for hackers. Foreign adversaries and cyber criminals would love access to that kind of data.

DOJ has provided no detailed explanation of how it plans to secure this information. No explanation of what restrictions will apply to agency access. No explanation of what safeguards will prevent misuse.

The Welfare Fraud Angle and Who Gets Targeted

The second demand in Bondi’s letter—for detailed Medicaid and SNAP records—appears less directly connected to election interference. But it’s clear the government is focusing on a specific group of people.

DOJ has repeatedly cited the Feeding Our Future fraud case as justification. The criminal conduct warrants investigation and prosecution.

When the federal government’s response to a fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal agents includes requests for detailed welfare records, the connection to immigration enforcement becomes clearer. This isn’t about welfare fraud investigation in the abstract. It’s about using welfare data to identify and target a specific community.

The Sanctuary Policy Fight and Constitutional Limits

The third demand—that Minnesota repeal its sanctuary policies—raises different constitutional questions about how far the federal government can go in forcing states to assist with federal law enforcement.

Minnesota’s policies include state law and administrative directives establishing that state and local law enforcement agencies don’t have to cooperate with ICE requests. They don’t have to detain individuals based on immigration detention requests. They don’t have to share immigration-related information absent legal process.

DOJ calls these “sanctuary policies” that obstruct federal law enforcement. A constitutional principle established over time holds that the federal government generally can’t force states to assist in enforcing federal law.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a state law barring state law enforcement from sharing immigration-related information with federal authorities doesn’t violate the constitutional rule that federal law overrides state law. The reasoning: it reflects a permissible decision by the state not to assist in federal enforcement. Refusing to help isn’t the same as interfering.

Some courts have found that states can’t refuse to cooperate if doing so actually blocks federal law enforcement from doing its job. But what’s clear is that the federal government can’t demand that states change their laws and policies because Washington prefers different arrangements.

Unless you make compliance a condition for ending what the governor calls a federal occupation.

Is This Election Interference?

The question that animates the political response to Bondi’s letter: Does demanding voter data while conducting aggressive immigration enforcement operations constitute election interference?

Federal statutes prohibit specific conduct that could be characterized as election interference. Laws make it illegal to intimidate voters or interfere with their right to vote. The statutes provide criminal penalties for those who intimidate, threaten, or coerce voters, as well as for those who share voters’ personal information to prevent people from voting.

DOJ argues there’s no explicit threat to voters, no coercion of individuals, no intent to prevent people from voting. These are ordinary law enforcement requests for information relevant to verifying election administration and identifying non-citizen voters.

Voting rights experts see it differently. When the federal government consolidates voter data and uses it to identify and remove voters, with error rates that disproportionately affect naturalized citizens and voters of color, the result is that eligible voters get removed from rolls, whether that was the stated goal or not. When DOJ requests sensitive voter data while simultaneously threatening to prosecute election officials, deny federal funds, or conduct extensive immigration enforcement operations in states that refuse compliance, the practical effect is that it pressures people not to vote.

During a Monday hearing on Minnesota’s lawsuit seeking to halt federal immigration operations, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez asked directly whether the administration was “trying to achieve a goal through force that it can’t achieve through the courts.” She appeared unpersuaded by the government’s explanations.

If federal judges have consistently rejected your legal theory for demanding voter data, can you get the same data by making states afraid of what happens if they refuse?

The Timing You Can’t Ignore

Alex Pretti was holding a phone in one hand with his other hand raised when Border Patrol agents confronted him. Video footage contradicts the Department of Homeland Security’s initial account that Pretti “approached” agents with a handgun. After agents wrestled Pretti to the ground, one agent pulled a gun from Pretti’s waistband—Pretti was a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry—before another agent fired the first shot.

Federal agents fired at least ten shots within five seconds. They continued firing even after Pretti was on the ground.

Pretti had no criminal background. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara confirmed Pretti was a lawful gun owner. Pretti was a nurse. Pretti was 37 years old. Pretti was a U.S. citizen.

His death marked the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis in less than one month. Renée Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, had been killed by an ICE agent over two weeks earlier.

Bondi’s letter arrived the evening of Pretti’s death.

The timing looks bad, whether intentional or not: hours after federal agents kill a U.S. citizen during immigration enforcement operations, the Attorney General sends a letter demanding voter data, welfare records, and policy changes, framing it as proposing solutions to “restore the rule of law” in Minnesota.

Governor Walz characterized the federal operations as bringing “chaos and destruction” to the state. Federal agents had “fatally shot two people and wounded another; detained children as young as two years old; racially profiled off-duty officers; broken into the home of an elderly U.S. citizen and dragged him outside in freezing temperatures; and made children afraid to go to school.”

The letter arriving in that context looked less like ordinary federal-state cooperation and more like using violence and chaos as leverage.

What Happens Next

Multiple legal challenges are now in progress. Minnesota has filed a lawsuit seeking to halt the federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis (called Operation Metro Surge), arguing that it violates states’ constitutional right to govern themselves. The League of Women Voters of Minnesota, Common Cause, and individual Minnesota voters have filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit seeking to block DOJ’s demand for voter data.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has stated that if Maine receives a similar letter, she won’t comply and will challenge any demand in court. Other state officials are watching closely.

In Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has announced that Democrats plan to block a funding package for the Department of Homeland Security if it lacks restrictions on the department’s activities. One hundred twenty House Democrats have sponsored a bill to impeach DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

Federal judges have already begun expressing skepticism. Beyond Judge Carter’s dismissal of the California case, judges in Oregon have rejected or signaled they would reject the government’s voter data requests. The District Court for the District of Columbia has ordered fast-tracked court hearings on challenges to the overhaul of the SAVE citizenship verification system.

The outcome will likely depend on how consistently federal courts reject DOJ’s legal theories. If courts keep saying no, DOJ may escalate its use of coercive tactics—exactly what the Bondi letter appears to represent. If courts begin accepting DOJ’s arguments about federal authority to demand voter data with nothing removed or hidden, the implications for state election administration autonomy would be severe.

The Larger Question

American elections have always been administered primarily by state and local officials, with federal authority limited to enforcing specific voting rights statutes. That arrangement reflects how the Constitution was set up and what works in practice: having states and local areas run elections instead of the federal government makes it harder for any single actor—including the federal government—to manipulate or control electoral outcomes.

What DOJ is attempting represents a fundamental shift in that arrangement. A centralized federal database containing sensitive personal information on all registered voters in the country, combined with the stated commitment to using voter lists to identify alleged fraud, creates a system that could be used to challenge election results or remove eligible voters based on inaccurate information.

When announcing the SAVE system changes, DHS linked the effort to identifying and removing alleged “non-citizen voters” from electoral rolls, using language that echoed false claims about widespread illegal voting.

The federal government is using its immigration enforcement authority as leverage to gain access to voter data that multiple federal judges have said it has no legal right to demand. It’s doing so in the context of aggressive enforcement operations that have resulted in the deaths of U.S. citizens. And it’s framing compliance with data requests as a condition for ending what state officials characterize as a federal occupation.

That’s not normal federal-state cooperation. That’s coercion.

The question for the coming months: Will federal courts consistently reject this approach? Will states continue to resist despite the pressure? And will Congress act to restrict the ability to use immigration enforcement and other federal powers as leverage for electoral objectives?

The answers will shape not only the 2026 midterm elections but the trajectory of American democracy for years to come. Once you establish that the federal government can use its enforcement powers to extract voter data that courts say it can’t legally demand, you’ve created a precedent that won’t be limited to this administration or this particular set of requests.

You’ve shown that threatening states works when courts say no.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.