US District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled on Friday that the Justice Department's attempt to use the SAVE immigration database to verify voter citizenship is unconstitutional. The decision, which follows a challenge by the watchdog group Common Cause, marks a significant legal setback for the Trump administration's efforts to expand federal oversight of elections.
Sooknanan's 78-page rebuke of federal election control
Judge Sooknanan, a Washington-based judge appointed by President Joe Biden, issued a 78-page decision siding with the plaintiffs. The ruling asserts that the federal government is attempting to decide who gets to vote, a power the Constitution reserves for individual states rather than federal agencies.
The decision highlights a growing tension between federal oversight and state-led election administration. According to the source, the judge found that the Justice Department downplayed the significant risk that its cross-referencing practices would result in the wrongful disenfranchisement of eligible US citizens.
How the SAVE database risks flagging naturalized citizens
The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database poses a significant risk of disenfranchising eligible citizens due to potential data inaccuracies. Because the database now includes citizenship data from the Social Security Administration, it may contain outdated information regarding naturalized citizens.
If the records are not updated in real-time, immigrants who have successfully become US citizens could be incorrectly flagged as non-citizens. the report notes that the Justice Department's strategy of using these potentially flawed records to demand the removal of voters could lead to widespread errors in registration lists.
The Justice Department's 26-case losing streak
The Justice Department has struggled to win legal battles against states that refuse to provide unredacted voter rolls. While 18 mostly Republican-led states complied with federal demands for sensitive information like Social Security numbers, many others have fought the mandate in court.
As the source reports, the DOJ has lost 26 of the cases it brought against 30 states and Washington, DC. this pattern of litigation underscores the intense legal resistance to the administration's push to obtain complete, unredacted voter data for federal review.
The 90-day rule and the November 3 midterms
Federal election law may limit the immediate impact of this ruling due to the 90-day restriction on systematic voter roll reviews. This law prohibits such reviews in the period immediately preceding a federal election , which could prevent the Justice Department from acting on this decision before voters head to the polls.
With the November 3 midterms approaching, the Justice Department is currently reviewing the decision, according to a spokesperson. While Ming Cheung, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), hailed the ruling as a victory for election protection, the upcoming election window may blunt the decision's immediate effect on the electoral landscape.
Comments 0