Courts Limit DOJ Demands for States’ Voter Data—What Mullin’s SAVE Push Means
On July 17, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned states that skipping SAVE could bring fines, penalties or prison. Courts have limited DOJ access to voter data.
On July 17, 2026, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned states that they could face fines, penalties, or prison time if they do not participate in DHS’s SAVE-linked push. The warning landed as federal courts have already limited how far the Justice Department (DOJ) can go in demanding or using highly sensitive, unredacted state voter-file information.
Here’s what Mullin said, what the White House’s SAVE direction is trying to do, and the specific court “roadblocks” that could shape 2026 election administration.
What Mullin warned states on July 17
According to AP, Mullin said state officials who do not participate in SAVE could face “fines, penalties or prison time.” AP also reports that Mullin offered election-administration support tied to participation—saying DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency would release an updated election infrastructure plan within 30 days and provide cyber threat resources to election officials that participate.
AP further reports that a judge recently blocked use of the overhauled SAVE program, raising privacy concerns and allegations involving wrongful purges that could temporarily disrupt voters’ standing.
What the White House’s SAVE plan directs DHS to build
In a March 31, 2026 executive order, the White House directs DHS to compile and transmit a “State Citizenship List” to each state’s chief election official. The order says the list is to be derived from federal citizenship and naturalization records, Social Security Administration records, SAVE data, and other federal databases.
The order also sets timing: DHS is to update and transmit the State Citizenship List to state election officials no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled federal election, or promptly upon a state’s request for a special federal election. It adds procedures for individuals to access and correct their own records in advance of elections, and it emphasizes that being on the list does not automatically mean the person is properly registered under state law.
For enforcement, the executive order says the Attorney General and relevant agencies should take lawful steps to deter and address noncompliance, including withholding federal funds from noncompliant states and localities where such withholding is authorized by law.
The court-limited “roadblocks”
1) The 6th Circuit: DOJ can’t demand unredacted voter-file records in the way SAVE-linked enforcement attempted
In United States v. Benson, the 6th Circuit addressed DOJ’s attempt to demand sensitive, unredacted voter information from Michigan officials under federal election-record statutes. The court’s decision highlights two limits that matter for election administrators.
First, it concluded that Michigan’s “qualified voter file” is not the kind of record DOJ could obtain under the specific narrow statutory framework at issue. Second, it emphasized that the statute governing DOJ demands requires the demand to include a statement of both the basis and the purpose—and the court held the government did not comply with that statutory requirement in the way it sought the unredacted qualified voter file.
2) The D.D.C.: The “modified SAVE system” was vacated
In League of Women Voters v. DHS, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. (dated June 22, 2026) ruled that the “modified SAVE system” and the accompanying 2025 system-of-records notices (SORNs) were unlawful. The court’s remedy statement says the court must vacate the modified SAVE system and that federal defendants “must comply with the procedural requirements for new agency action”—meaning DHS cannot simply keep using the challenged configuration.
The opinion also describes what changed in the modified system. It says the update changed the categories of records to include collecting both full Social Security numbers and truncated Social Security numbers (last four digits). And it explains that the modified system added the capability to conduct bulk searches by uploading a file with a list of multiple cases.
What to watch next for 2026 election administration
- Whether participation changes anything in practice. Court limits mean election officials should not assume that all SAVE-linked access or data-sharing expectations from earlier versions will carry through unchanged.
- How DHS/DOJ frames future data requests. In court, DOJ’s ability to demand unredacted voter-file records depended on specific statutory requirements—especially the statutory demand content requirement discussed in Benson.
- Whether DHS revises SAVE to fit what the D.D.C. vacatur requires. The June 22, 2026 order signals that “new agency action” is required for any allowed modification, not continued reliance on the vacated setup.
Bottom line: Mullin’s July 17 warning escalates political pressure on states to engage with SAVE. But the practical 2026 question remains: what parts of SAVE (and what kinds of voter-data access) can proceed under the specific court limits already imposed.
Sources
- Associated Press: Mullin threatens states on election security / SAVE amid court limits
- White House executive action (March 2026): Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit: United States v. Benson (opinion PDF)
- U.S. District Court (D.D.C.): League of Women Voters v. DHS (memorandum opinion PDF re: SAVE modified system vacated)
- U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division: Appellate Section — Voting (case listing page)
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
