Independent New Hampshire Journalism · Northfield, NHCorrection and update, Sept. 19, 2026, 3:03 p.m. EDT: An earlier version of this article said New Hampshire is exempt from “certain” requirements of the National Voter Registration Act because it has had same-day registration “since before NVRA’s adoption.” The NVRA does not apply to New Hampshire at all: the law exempts states that, as of August 1, 1994, allowed voters to register at the polls on Election Day or had no registration requirement. That passage has been corrected. The article has also been updated to report that a federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s suit on June 29, 2026, and that the department’s appeal was pending before the First Circuit as of September 19, 2026.
Legal Battle: Trump vs. New Hampshire Over Voter Data Privacy
By Granite State Report
The federal government under President Donald Trump and the state of New Hampshire are in a court fight over access to New Hampshire’s detailed voter registration data. The U.S. Department of Justice sued Secretary of State David Scanlan on September 25, 2025, in United States v. Scanlan, No. 1:25-cv-00371 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. At its heart lie conflicting visions of election oversight, privacy, and federalism, with stakes that reach beyond New Hampshire.
Where the case stands
- September 25, 2025: The Justice Department filed suit in federal court, relying on Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and the Help America Vote Act.
- January 5, 2026: Four New Hampshire voters were allowed to join the case as defendants.
- June 29, 2026: U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante dismissed the suit. The court ruled that “because the Attorney General’s demand did not comply with Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA), and because he failed to allege a violation under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the court grants New Hampshire’s motion to dismiss.” Judgment entered June 30, 2026.
- July 6, 2026: The Justice Department appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (No. 26-1783).
- September 16, 2026: The First Circuit denied New Hampshire’s motion to dispose of the appeal summarily. The appeal remained pending as of September 19, 2026.
Sources: district court docket and memorandum order dismissing the case; First Circuit docket; Democracy Docket case file.
What’s going on
- The U.S. Department of Justice, in a suit filed in federal court, sought to force New Hampshire to turn over its full statewide voter registration database — including sensitive personal data (driver’s license numbers, portions of Social Security numbers, dates of birth) for both active and inactive voters.
- New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan has declined. He cites state law, RSA 654:45, VI, which makes the statewide voter database “private and confidential,” and explicitly prohibits its disclosure outside limited circumstances.
- The DOJ argued that federal law, specifically Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), gives it power to demand these records, and that federal law supersedes conflicting state rules.
- New Hampshire officials argue the request is legally barred (by state statute), that it risks privacy and cybersecurity, and that New Hampshire in fact has a unique status under federal election law that limits federal demands.
- This lawsuit is not unique to New Hampshire. The district court called it “one of more than two dozen lawsuits across the country” in which the United States sought a state’s voter registration list.
Legal and political fault lines
This dispute sits at the convergence of several legal and political fault lines. Below are the major ones:
| Issue | Trump/DOJ position | New Hampshire / opponents’ position | Key uncertainties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal authority vs. state law | DOJ claims that federal election statutes permit (or even require) that states produce these detailed voter records, and that such federal law preempts conflicting state statutes. | NH points to its state statutes that render the statewide voter database confidential and non-discoverable, and argues that New Hampshire’s exemption from certain federal election laws (due to its continuous same-day registration) limits DOJ’s authority. | Whether courts will accept DOJ’s view of preemption; how strongly NH’s protection of its database will be honored; whether the state’s unique federal status (exempt from the NVRA) carries weight. |
| Privacy, security, misuse risk | DOJ may argue that the records are necessary for oversight, for ensuring compliance in voter list maintenance, and for detecting irregularities (like noncitizen registration) — framing the move as a check on electoral integrity. | Opponents warn that handing over massive quantities of personal voter data creates substantial risks: identity theft, misuse, surveillance, political targeting, and eroding public trust. NH also expresses cybersecurity concerns about exposing internal systems. | How courts weigh the speculative risk of misuse vs. the asserted official need. Whether DOJ will provide binding assurances or protocols for data use and security. |
| Precedent & future impact | A court victory for DOJ could set a precedent permitting federal executive access to sensitive voter files across states — shifting the balance of power in future elections. | A successful defense by NH would reinforce the norm that states retain strong control over how voter data is handled, and that federal demands are limited. | The broader implications for federal-state relations in election administration, especially in battleground states. Whether other states’ resistances will hold or crumble. |
| Political motivations & optics | Critics of this effort (across the political spectrum) see part of the push as politically motivated: assembling large voter databases to assist future campaigns, or to lend legitimacy to claims of fraud. | Supporters argue it’s about enforcing accountability, rooting out fraud, and ensuring cleaner voter rolls. | Whether courts will probe the “why now” question: is this a genuine compliance push, or a politically timed effort? |
Historical & structural background
To understand why this fight is especially fraught, a few historical and structural facts matter:
- In 2017, Trump created a Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, which requested similarly sweeping voter data from states. Many states refused, citing privacy, state sovereignty, and procedural concerns. The commission was later disbanded amid controversy.
- The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA, 1993) is one of the federal laws that governs the maintenance of voter rolls and public access to them. However, the NVRA does not apply to New Hampshire. The law exempts states that, as of August 1, 1994, had no voter registration requirement or allowed voters to register at the polls on Election Day. New Hampshire is one of six such states, according to the U.S. Justice Department. This gives NH a somewhat unique status in how federal law applies there.
- The Help America Vote Act (HAVA, 2002) is another federal statute that regulates various aspects of election administration and was invoked by DOJ as a source of authority. The district court rejected that claim, noting that courts facing nearly identical suits found HAVA “has no disclosure provision.”
Why it matters — beyond the courtroom
This isn’t only a cryptic legal fight. It has broader implications:
- Voter trust and privacy: People may be chilled from participating in democracy if they fear their personal data will be aggregated by federal power.
- Power over election systems: If the DOJ can compel states to hand over deep data, federal influence over election administration — previously limited by states’ jurisdictions — could expand.
- Precedent for future demands: Whether this is an isolated incident or test case for sweeping federal demands in future elections, especially in swing states.
- Politicization risk: Given Trump’s history of making claims of fraud and seeking to challenge election results, skeptics will view such data collection as a tool for political surveillance or narrative-building.
What to watch next
- How the First Circuit rules on the Justice Department’s appeal, and how it weighs federal authority against state statutory protections.
- Whether DOJ provides binding guarantees on how the data will (or will not) be used and stored.
- Whether other states’ cases proceed in parallel, and whether those rulings influence the NH fight.
- Reactions in state legislatures or Congress: potential new state laws to further shield data, or federal legislation to clarify authority boundaries.
- Public opinion: how voters in New Hampshire (and nationwide) respond when they learn how much data is being fought over.
Corrections: Granite State Report corrects verified errors promptly and appends a dated note identifying what changed and when. The corrections policy and the corrections register are public, and correction notes are never removed.
