SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
wisconsin
US Voters and DNC Fight Trump DOJ Efforts to Seize Sensitive Voter Data
"We must prevent this federal power grab and protect our democracy from these corrupt partisan stunts," said the ACLU of Wisconsin legal director.
Jan 09, 2026
Residents of Wisconsin and Washington, DC this week continued the legal fight against efforts by President Donald Trump's administration to gain access to confidential information about registered voters as the Democratic National Committee issued a related warning to 10 state governments.
The group Common Cause on Thursday highlighted its recent motion to intervene in United States v. Evans, a federal lawsuit brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) against the District of Columbia's Board of Elections, led by Monica Evans.
Lawyers from the ACLU National Voting Rights Project filed the motion in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Common Cause and two DC voters, Ruth Goldman and Chris Melody Fields, in late December.
As the filing notes, the Trump administration wants to obtain personal details about adults in DC and all 50 states "to build an unauthorized national voter database and to target voters for potential challenges and disenfranchisement."
The Republican administration has sued nearly half of US states plus DC in a bid to get their voter information.
"Handing over voter data without any parameters or protections in place is a huge violation of privacy and invites exactly the kind of errors that have historically led to eligible voters being wrongly purged or denied their right to vote."
Ethan Herenstein, staff attorney with the ACLU project, explained in a statement that "federal law does not authorize the Department of Justice to demand sweeping access to voters' most sensitive personal information."
"Handing over voter data without any parameters or protections in place is a huge violation of privacy and invites exactly the kind of errors that have historically led to eligible voters being wrongly purged or denied their right to vote," Herenstein warned.
Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, senior director of litigation at Common Cause, said that "voters in DC, and all voters, rightly expect the government to keep their personal information secure and only use it for its intended purpose of maintaining accurate records."
"We are committed to defending voters' rights and privacy in Washington, DC and nationwide, and this case is one of many where we are stepping in to ensure those protections are upheld," she continued.
The Trump administration's attempt to build a national voter database could be the catalyst for disenfranchising voters nationwide and putting our private data at risk.We're taking legal action to defend the states rightfully refusing to cooperate with the U.S. Justice Department's scheme.
[image or embed]
— ACLU (@aclu.org) January 6, 2026 at 11:29 AM
Demonstrating that commitment, Common Cause and the ACLU also partnered with attorneys from Law Forward and three Wisconsin voters—Melissa Adams, Amanda Makulec, and Jaime Riefer—on Thursday to file a motion to intervene in a similar suit the administration launched against the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), which has refused to hand over vote data.
"If provided this data, the Justice Department could easily manipulate the data to spread disinformation about voting and attempt to baselessly target eligible voters and remove them from the rolls," said Ryan Cox, legal director at the ACLU of Wisconsin. "We've seen this play out in numerous other states, and there is no reason to believe that this administration wouldn't weaponize Wisconsinites' private data toward those same ends. We must prevent this federal power grab and protect our democracy from these corrupt partisan stunts."
Eric Neff, the acting chief of the DOJ's Voting Section, said in federal court last month that Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and Wyoming—which all have Republican secretaries of state—have "complied voluntarily" with the department's data demand. He also said that several other states "have expressed with us a willingness to comply" based on an agreement called a memorandum of understanding (MOU) "that we have sent them." The DNC issued warnings to 10 of those states on Friday.
Daniel Freeman, the DNC's litigation director, sent letters to election leaders Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah "to address an imminent violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)," pointing to Neff's comments about the MOU.
Specifically, the letter warns that the MOU's 45-day removal demand "has the potential to violate two provisions of the NVRA: the notice and waiting provision governing removal based on a suspected change in residence... and the quiet period provision barring systematic voter list maintenance in the months before a federal election."
"This letter does not constitute written notice of violations of the NVRA," Freeman noted. "Rather, the DNC sends this letter in the hope that the imminent violations set out above may still be avoided. Nonetheless, the DNC stands ready to issue a formal notice should evidence of ongoing violations come to light."
In a Friday statement, DNC Chair Ken Martin accused Trump and US Attorney General Pam Bondi of a "big government power grab" aimed at gathering "sensitive personal information like driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, and party affiliation, opening the door to privacy concerns and further political retribution."
"The DNC won't stand idly by as the Trump DOJ tries to get access to voters' sensitive information and put eligible voters at risk of being wrongfully purged from voter rolls, which is why we are calling on secretaries of state and election officials across the country to stand up for voters and reject the Trump administration's illegal agreement," he said. "To be clear: Democrats stand ready to fight back and defend voters, and we're prepared to use the tools at our disposal to do so."
Some state officials have already publicly responded. Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen accused the DNC of "grandstanding" and said that he has no plans to sign an MOU but will send the state's registration list next month "unless barred by a court order," while a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's Office told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that the state sent its voter roll last month.
Others have been tight-lipped. The office of Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson—who gave the administration a public statewide voter registration list last year—told Deseret News on Friday that she doesn't have anything additional to add at this time. Mississippi Today reported that Secretary of State Michael Watson's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
TJ Lundeen, a spokeperson for the South Carolina Election Commission, told the Post and Courier that the agency's legal team is reviewing the DNC's letter. Lunden added that any deal with the DOJ will be presented and voted on during a public meeting.
Meanwhile, a DOJ spokesperson told Axios, which reported on the DNC letters, that "organizations should think twice before interfering in a federal investigation and encouraging the obstruction of justice, unless they'd like to join the dozens of states that are learning their lesson in federal court."
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson also weighed in, telling the outlet that "the Civil Rights Act, National Voting Rights Act, and Help America Vote Act all give the Department of Justice full authority to ensure states comply with federal election laws, which mandate accurate state voter rolls."
"President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered noncitizen voters," she added of the Republican leader who notably tried to cling to power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
The current fight over voter data dates back to Trump's controversial March executive order on US elections. In October, DC-based District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly permanently blocked the part that required proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms. The ACLU was also involved in that legal battle. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the group's Voting Rights Project, welcomed the ruling as a "clear victory for our democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wisconsin Judge's Case Is 'Far From Over,' Advocates Say After Conviction for Helping Immigrant at Courthouse
Judge Hannah Dugan's case is "not about one judge," said an advocacy group, but rather "the normalization of ICE operating in courthouses."
Dec 19, 2025
The case of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan "is a long way from over" said a lawyer for the judge after a jury found her guilty late Thursday of the felony charge of obstructing immigration agents who showed up at her courtroom in April with the aim of arresting an immigrant who was appearing before Dugan.
The jury deliberated for six hours before finding Dugan, a Milwaukee County circuit court judge, guilty of obstructing an official proceeding. The jurors acquitted her of a misdemeanor charge of concealing a person from arrest—a result her lawyer, Steve Biskupic, said he would question when he seeks to have the conviction thrown out by a court.
"While we are disappointed in today's outcome, the failure of the prosecution to secure convictions on both counts demonstrates the opportunity we have to clear Judge Dugan's name and show she did nothing wrong in this matter," said Dugan's legal team.
The Trump administration seized on the case in April after Dugan responded to FBI and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents' presence in the courthouse by telling the defendant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, to go out a back door of her courtroom after she had sent the agents to another part of the building.
FBI Director Kash Patel posted a photo of Dugan in handcuffs on social media in April, and Attorney General Pam Bondi attacked the judge in television appearances, accusing her of “protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime.”
The case began at Milwaukee County Courthouse in April, when Dugan was hearing a number of misdemeanor cases in one day. Flores-Ruiz, who had been deported in 2013 and had reentered the US without authorization, was facing battery charges.
Emails presented in Dugan's case this week showed she had tried to push Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley to make an official policy regarding how judges should handle the arrival of federal agents at a time when President Donald Trump's rapid escalation of his mass deportation campaign was sending ICE officers to courthouses across the country. Courts had previously been treated as protected areas where immigration enforcement could not take place.
"We reject a system that uses prosecution and brute force to advance a far-right, anti-immigrant agenda and criminalizes those who stand up against this assault on our human and constitutional rights."
Without official guidelines in place, the court clerk who notified Dugan of the ICE agents' presence, Alan Freed, testified that he had been "upset and a little bit outraged" that the officers were there.
Dugan confronted the agents, who were sitting in the hallway and waiting to arrest Flores-Ruiz, and told them to go down the hall to Ashley's office.
An FBI special agent testified that Dugan "seemed to be angry" when she confronted the officers.
Dugan then returned to her courtroom and told Flores-Ruiz's lawyer she would find a new date for his hearing. She spoke privately to a court reporter saying Flores-Ruiz could leave the room through a side door that was not open to the public.
“I’ll get the heat," Dugan said.
The side door led to a stairwell and also to another door that opened into a public hallway where the federal agents were. Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer went through the door and an agent followed and then chased the defendant, arresting him outside the courthouse. Flores-Ruiz was deported last month.
Prosecutors said during the case that Dugan had intended for Flores-Ruiz to escape the agents by going down the stairwell—even though he did the opposite.
An attorney on Dugan's legal team said during closing arguments that she "never acted corruptly in doing her job as a judge in the middle of a stressful, new, and confusing situation."
Dugan could serve up to five years in prison and will likely be barred from serving as a judge, as the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits people convicted of felonies from holding public office.
Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, also emphasized that the case is "far from over."
"Substantial legal and constitutional issues remain unresolved, and they are exactly the kinds of questions appellate courts are meant to address. Higher courts will have the opportunity to determine whether this prosecution crossed the lines that protect the judiciary from executive overreach," said Eisen.
Milwaukee-based advocacy group Voces de la Frontera emphasized that Dugan's case "is not about one judge," but rather "the normalization of ICE operating in courthouses and the expansion of immigration enforcement into spaces meant to guarantee fairness, safety, and access to justice."
"By validating this prosecution, the verdict blurs the line between the courts and executive enforcement power, signaling that the law will be enforced aggressively against immigrants and those who dare to defend their rights, while the privileged and powerful continue to evade accountability," said the group, calling Dugan's case "a political prosecution that criminalized the exercise of judicial independence and the defense of due process."
Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Vocesde la Frontera, said the verdict "tells judges, court staff, and our communities that defending due process comes with consequences."
"That is not justice, it is intimidation," she said. "We reject a system that uses prosecution and brute force to advance a far-right, anti-immigrant agenda and criminalizes those who stand up against this assault on our human and constitutional rights. We stand in solidarity with Judge Hannah Dugan as her legal defense moves forward to clear her name, and we stand with the immigrant community in calling for ICE out of our courtrooms."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As AI Data Centers Disrupt US Cities, Wisconsin Woman Violently Arrested After Speaking Out
"Police should not be allowed to violently detain a person who is nonviolently exercising their free speech. This used to be something all Americans agreed on," said one state senator.
Dec 05, 2025
Public opposition to artificial intelligence data centers—and the push by corporations and officials to move forward with their construction anyway—were vividly illustrated in a viral video this week of a woman who was arrested after speaking out against a proposed data center in her community in Wisconsin.
Christine Le Jeune, a member of Great Lakes Neighbors United in Port Washington, spoke at a Common Council meeting in the town on Tuesday evening. The meeting was not focused on the recently approved $15 million "Lighthouse" data center set to be built a mile from downtown Port Washington—part of a project developed by Vantage Data Centers for OpenAI and Oracle—but the first 30 minutes were taken up by members of the public who spoke out against the project.
As CNBC reported last month, more than 1,000 people signed a petition calling on Port Washington officials to obtain voter approval before entering into the deal, but the Common Council and a review board went ahead with creating a Tax Incremental District for the project without public input. The data center still requires other approvals to officially move forward.
"We will not continue to be silenced and ignored while our beautiful and pristine city is taken away from us and handed over to a corporation intent on extracting as many resources as they can regardless of the impact on the people who live here," said Le Jeune. "Most leaders would have tabled the issue after receiving public input and providing sufficient notice. But you did nothing, and you laughed about it."
Le Jeune spoke for her allotted three minutes and went slightly over the time limit. She then chanted, "Recall, recall, recall!" at members of the Common Council as other community members applauded.
Police Chief Kevin Hingiss then approached Le Jeune while she was sitting in her seat, listening to the next speaker, and asked her to leave.
She refused, and another officer approached her before a chaotic scene broke out.
Last night, the Port Washington Police Department used excessive force to arrest a woman for speaking up against the Vantage data center.
We are thankful that this local advocate is safe, and we condemn the Port Washington PD’s actions in the strongest possible terms. SHAME! pic.twitter.com/35dhEKvojL
— Our Wisconsin Revolution (@OurWisconsinRev) December 3, 2025
City officials had told attendees not to speak out of order during the meeting, and Le Jeune acknowledged that she and others had spoken out of turn at times.
But she told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that she had been surprised by the police officers' demand that she leave, and by the eventual violence of the incident, with officers physically removing her from her seat and dragging her and two other people across the floor.
The two other residents had approached Le Jeune to protest the officers' actions.
"I never expected something like that to happen in a meeting. It was very strange," she told the Journal Sentinel. "Suddenly this police chief showed up in front of me, and all I was thinking was: 'Wait, what is going on? Why is he interrupting her speech? ... It felt like [police] were kind of primed tonight to pounce."
State Sen. Chris Larson (D-7) said that "police should not be allowed to violently detain a person who is nonviolently exercising their free speech. This used to be something all Americans agreed on."
William Walter, executive director of Our Wisconsin Revolution, filmed the arrest and told ABC News affiliate WISN, "I've never seen a response like that in my life."
"What I did see was a lot of members of the Port Washington community who are really frustrated that they're being ignored and they're being dismissed by their elected officials," he said.
AI data centers, he added, "will impact you. They'll impact your friends, your family, your neighbors, your parents, your children. These are the kinds of things that are going to be dictating the future of Wisconsin, not just for the next couple of years but for the next decade, the next 50 years."
After Le Jeune's arrest, another resident, Dawn Stacey, denounced the Common Council members for allowing the aggressive arrest.
"We have so many people who have these concerns about this data center," said Stacey. “Are we being heard by the Common Council? No we’re not. Instead of being heard we have people being dragged out of the room.”
“For democracy to thrive, we need to have respect between public servants and the people who they serve," she added.
Vantage has distributed flyers in Port Washington, which has a population of 17,000, promising residents 330 full-time jobs after construction. But as CNBC reported, "Data centers don’t tend to create a lot of long-lasting jobs."
Another project in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin hired 3,000 construction workers and foresees 500 employees, while McKinsey said a data center it is planning would need 1,500 people for construction but only around 50 for "steady-state operations."
Residents in Port Washington have also raised concerns about the data center's impact on the environment, including through its water use, the potential for exploding utility prices for residents, and the overall purpose of advancing AI.
As Common Dreams reported Thursday, the development of data centers has caused a rapid surge in consumers' electricity bills, with costs rising more than 250% in just five years. Vantage has claimed its center will run on 70% renewable energy, but more than half of the electricity used to power data center campuses so far has come from fossil fuels, raising concerns that the expansion of the facilities will worsen the climate emergency.
A recent Morning Consult poll found that a rapidly growing number of Americans support a ban on AI data centers in their surrounding areas—41% said they would support a ban in the survey taken in late November, compared to 37% in October.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular