The U.S. Department of Justice is demanding access to Minnesota’s voter rolls and proof of the state’s compliance with federal voting law, according to a letter obtained exclusively by Democracy Docket.
Friday, July 11
View in browser ([link removed] )
NL-Header_OTD-4 ([link removed] )
This week we launched a new, free resource available to all: a timeline tracking the Trump DOJ’s sharp turn against voting rights — scroll down for a preview! Our premium membership supports fearless, independent journalism like this. Become a member for $120/year. ([link removed] )
THIS WEEK
-
DOJ demands access to Minnesota’s voter rolls
-
DOJ files statement backing right-wing groups in Illinois voter roll lawsuit
-
Judge halts part of Florida law attacking direct democracy
MINNESOTA
DOJ demands access to Minnesota voter rolls
The DOJ’s voter roll crackdown is targeting another state: Minnesota.
The department is demanding ([link removed] ) access to Minnesota’s voter rolls and proof of the state’s compliance with federal voting law. That’s according to a letter ([link removed] ) obtained exclusively by Democracy Docket.
The new top voting lawyer ([link removed] ) at the department, Maureen Riordan, wrote to Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon (D) with a lengthy list of demands, including a request to share the state’s current statewide voter registration list. The department is giving the state 30 days to respond.
As Democracy Docket scooped ([link removed] ) last month, Riordan came to the DOJ from the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a right-wing group that specializes in pressuring states and counties to remove more voters from the rolls.
The letter further blurs the lines between the DOJ and far-right activist groups. PILF filed ([link removed] ) a lawsuit last year to gain access to Minnesota’s voter rolls. The litigation is ongoing.
The DOJ has also sent similar letters to Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin about their compliance with the Help America Vote Act. Read more about the DOJ letter here. ([link removed] )
NEW RESOURCE
Timeline: Tracking the Trump Justice Department’s Anti-Voting Shift
Timeline_001 ([link removed] )
Timeline_002 ([link removed] )
Read the full timeline ➪ ([link removed] )
ILLINOIS
DOJ files statement in Illinois voter roll lawsuit
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed ([link removed] ) a statement of interest Tuesday in a lawsuit brought by the right wing group Judicial Watch accusing the Illinois Board of Elections of failing to remove ineligible voters from the rolls.
According to Judicial Watch, some Illinois counties have no records of removing registrants over the past two years. The election board wrote in a letter to the group that they don’t have access to local governments’ list maintenance records. Now the DOJ is jumping in, arguing the board is responsible for making sure list maintenance is conducted uniformly statewide and “may be abdicating its statutory obligation.”
The DOJ’s statement in this Illinois case is just the latest move in a major shift ([link removed] ) in the department’s focus toward aggressively pushing states to purge their rolls. Now right-wing activist groups have the DOJ filing statements to back them up.
The pressure campaign on the Illinois election board comes as the DOJ is reportedly exploring ([link removed] ) whether they can bring criminal charges against election officials if the Trump administration finds that they aren’t doing enough to purge voters from the rolls. Read more about the Illinois lawsuit here. ([link removed] )
FLORIDA
Judge halts part of Florida law attacking direct democracy
A federal court temporarily blocked some parts of a new Florida state law aimed at making it much harder ([link removed] ) for residents to put citizen-led initiatives on the ballot. It’s the latest attempt from Florida Republicans to take away an important tool allowing voters to get around the legislature and make changes to state law on their own.
The new law requires petition circulators – the people who collect signatures – to be U.S. citizens and Florida residents, and it shortens the time period for delivering the signatures. It also includes steep fines and criminal penalties for violating the rules.
Several advocacy groups that were already working to put initiatives on the ballot in 2026 challenged ([link removed] ) the law, and this week’s federal court ruling is a major win for them.
However, thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling ([link removed] ) in Trump v. CASA, the court order only applies to groups involved in the lawsuit, not to anyone else. And because different groups challenged different provisions of the law, the order doesn’t even apply to all the groups. It’s an early example of how CASA has made it more complicated ([link removed] ) to challenge illegal actions, both in the voting sphere and elsewhere. Read more about the Florida lawsuit here. ([link removed] )
OPINION
30 Years, One Fight
Screenshot 2025-07-10 at 2.39.35 PM ([link removed] )
In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 to uphold party spending limits against a challenge from the Republican Party. Now, nearly a quarter of a century later, the court will consider another Republican challenge to the same limits.
Doomsayers are predicting the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the GOP this time, but Democracy Docket founder Marc Elias writes ([link removed] ) it’s essential not to give in to those assumptions.
“All I ask is that you reject the cool cynicism and fashionable fatalism that come with expecting Democrats — and democracy itself — to always lose before the current Supreme Court. Not only is it untrue, but it’s also hurting democracy,” Marc writes. Read more here. ([link removed] )
NEW VIDEO
The Supreme Court Said What? | Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance
Conservatives on the Supreme Court are bending over backwards to please Donald Trump. Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance joins the podcast to break down the Court’s recent high-profile decisions. Watch it on YouTube here. ([link removed] )
What We’re Doing
Democracy Docket reporter Jen Rice recently attended the People’s Parity Project UnF*ck the Law Annual Convening ([link removed] ) in Washington, D.C., which brought together progressive law students, attorneys and advocates who want to work together to fight threats to democracy. Luckily, Jen’s favorite panel discussion was a live recording of the 5-4 podcast analyzing the SCOTUS CASA ruling, and it’s now posted online ([link removed] ) , so everyone can get the experience.
Facebook ([link removed] )
X ([link removed] )
Instagram ([link removed] )
Bluesky_Logo-grey (2) ([link removed] )
YouTube ([link removed] )
Website ([link removed] )
TikTok ([link removed] )
This is one of our free weekly newsletters. If you were forwarded this email, you can subscribe to our newsletters here ([link removed] ) .
Unsubscribe ([link removed] ) | Manage Preferences ([link removed] ) | Donate ([link removed] )
Democracy Docket, LLC
250 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 400
Washington, D.C., 20009
