>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Instead of allowing the case to proceed, Carter dismissed the lawsuit outright. He ruled that the DOJ’s actions violated multiple federal statutes, including the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act.
In his ruling, Carter accused the Executive Branch of overstepping its constitutional authority and attempting to seize control of election administration, which is traditionally handled by the states.
Judge calls DOJ request “unprecedented and illegal”
Carter went even further, describing the DOJ’s request as extreme and unlawful. He claimed the federal government was attempting to centralize sensitive voter data in a way that could undermine public trust.
“The DOJ cannot go beyond the boundaries provided by Congress and use these legislative tools in a manner that wholly disregards the separation of powers provided for in the Constitution.
It is Congress’ role to determine the purpose and use of legislation. Should Congress want to enable the Executive to centralize the private information of all Americans within the Executive Branch, Congress will have to clearly say so.
There is an inherent level of trust that comes along with Americans voting locally.
This is why, since the founding of our nation, the Elections Clause has constitutionally prevented the centralization of election management in the Executive by affording states the power to determine the “times, places, and manner of holding elections.” U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 4, cl. 1.
State-run elections mean that voters recognize their neighbors who staff polling stations, trust their Secretaries of State—whom they voted for—to keep their personally identifying information safe, and believe that they will not be targeted because of what they look like or who they vote for.
The DOJ’s request for the sensitive information of Californians stands to have a chilling effect on American citizens, like political minority groups and working-class immigrants, who may consider not registering to vote or skip casting a ballot because they are worried about how their information will be used.
There cannot be unbridled consolidation of all elections power in the Executive without action from Congress and public debate.
This is antithetical to the promise of fair and free elections our country promises and the franchise that civil rights leaders fought and died for.”
Familiar judge, familiar controversy
For many conservatives, Carter’s ruling comes as no surprise.
This is the same judge who presided over legal disputes involving John Eastman and subpoenas issued by the January 6 committee. Carter previously made national headlines after writing that Donald Trump “more likely than not” committed crimes while challenging the 2020 election results.
Those comments were widely criticized at the time as judicial overreach and evidence of political bias from the bench. Conservatives argue that Carter has repeatedly used his position to advance partisan narratives rather than neutrally apply the law.
Election integrity concerns dismissed
The DOJ argued that its lawsuit was about enforcing existing federal law, not controlling elections. The goal, according to the department, was to ensure states are accurately maintaining voter rolls as required under federal statutes.
Carter rejected that argument, framing the effort as an attempt to intimidate voters and suppress turnout. He claimed that federal review could discourage Americans from registering or voting, particularly those in minority or immigrant communities.
Critics say that argument flips election integrity on its head. They contend that accurate voter rolls are a foundational requirement for fair elections, not a threat to them.
A growing battle over federal power
Carter’s ruling highlights a broader fight over who controls America’s elections. While the Constitution grants states authority over election administration, Congress has also passed laws requiring transparency and enforcement to prevent fraud and errors.
By blocking the DOJ entirely, opponents argue that Carter has effectively placed California beyond federal accountability.
With trust in elections already fragile, the decision is likely to fuel further legal battles and deepen partisan divisions. For conservatives, it is yet another example of how activist judges can shape national policy without voter input or congressional action.
