On August 16, 2026, speaking with host Kristin Welker on "Meet the Press," U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said:

We're relying on a statute passed by Congress that allows us, in the right circumstances, to review and get those voter rolls. So, no, we're not going to stop doing what I think every American should expect us to do.

When asked if he might ask the Supreme Court for a ruling on the DOJ's 23-case losing streak to access state voter rolls, Blanche said:

We'll see what happens. Absolutely, it's a possibility.

Blanche went on to say:

Well, there's a big difference between saying we will always do our job and investigate any case and act independently of the White House. No, I'm not going to pledge that, and no attorney general should ever pledge that.

Note that in Michigan (and I assume all other states) the DOJ is seeking "all fields of Michigan's SVRL [Statewide Voter Registration List], including the HAVA-required identifiers — each registrant's Driver's license number or the last four of their Social Security number."

The statute that Blanche referred to is Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 which deals with federal election records. The Congress.gov website has the actual text of Title I through Title VII of the Act. The two sections of Title III in question are sections 301 and 303.

Section 301 reads (bold added for emphasis):

Every officer of election shall retain and preserve, for a period of twenty-two months from the date of any general, special, or primary election of which candidates for the office of President, Vice President, president elector, member of the Senate, member of the House of Representatives, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are voted for, all records and papers which come into his possession relating to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election, except that, when required by law, such records and papers may be delivered to another officer of election except that, if a State or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico designates a custodian to retain and preserve these records and papers at a specified place, then such records and papers may be deposited with such custodian, and the duty to retain and preserve any record or paper so deposited shall devolve upon such custodian. Any officer of election or custodian who willfully fails to comply with this section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Section 303 reads (bold added for emphasis):

Any record or paper required by section 301 to be retained and preserved shall, upon demand in writing by the Attorney General or his representative directed to the person having custody, possession, or control of such record of paper, be made available for inspection, reproduction and copying at the principal office of such custodian by the Attorney General or his representative. This demand shall contain a statement of the basis and the purpose therefor.

In it's official lawsuit filed against the state of Michigan, the DOJ cites not only these two sections of Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, but also Section 20501 and Section 20507 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), and Section 20901 and Section 21083 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). The DOJ cites other sub-sections in it's filing.

Portion of Section 20501 cited (bold added for emphasis):

(b) Purposes

The purposes of this chapter are-

(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;

(2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this chapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office;

(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and

(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.

Portion of Section 20507 cited (bold added for emphasis):

(a) In general

In the administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office, each State shall-

(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of-

(A) the death of the registrant; or

(B) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d);

Section 20901 deals with payments to states for activities to improve administration of elections. No specific text in this Section was cited.

Portion of Section 21083 cited (bold added for emphasis):

(a) Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements

(4) Minimum standard for accuracy of State voter registration records

The State election system shall include provisions to ensure that voter registration records in the State are accurate and are updated regularly, including the following:

(A) A system of file maintenance that makes a reasonable effort to remove registrants who are ineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters. Under such system, consistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) [now 52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.], registrants who have not responded to a notice and who have not voted in 2 consecutive general elections for Federal office shall be removed from the official list of eligible voters, except that no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.

(B) Safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not removed in error from the official list of eligible voters.

The DOJ filing states:

The public version (i.e., the list without crucial identifying information) [sent by Michigan instead of what the DOJ wants] does not include information that is necessary for the Attorney General to determine Michigan's compliance with the voter list maintenance requirements of both the NVRA and HAVA, thereby preventing the Attorney General's from exercising its statutory enforcement authority.

Secretary Benson, in her letter, claimed various nonapplicable exemptions as reasons for not providing this information...Secretary Benson, in her letter, also provided insufficient responses to questions regarding her state's EAVS [Election Administration and Voting Surveys] responses.

A June 30, 2026 article on the Brennan Center for Justice website entitled "Federal Courts Reject Trump Administration's Attempts to Obtain Private Voter Information" states:

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to empower federal intervention when states were actively blocking people of color from voting. The law is not a blank check for the federal government to overrun state election management.

The Civil Rights Act requires the government to provide a statement of "the basis and the purpose" for needing election records. A basis is a factual explanation of why it believes the state is violating federal law and a purpose is an explanation of how acquiring the requested information would help make that determination.

The department's purported basis is that states aren't removing enough people from the rolls as required by other federal laws. But it hasn't presented facts to support that assertion. As to purpose, the DOJ argues that any suspicion a state is violating any federal law suffices. The courts rejected this claim, noting that interpretation would give the DOJ unlimited authority over state elections.

In his ruling on one of the 23 voter rolls cases, U.S. Sixth Circuit of Appeals Judge Andre Mathis wrote:

Back then [1960], the government used this power to ensure that everyone who had the right to vote could freely exercise that right. But today, the government invokes Title III for an inverse purpose—to ensure that some people have not voted.

Source:

Mock, Brentin. (August 17, 2026) "Even after 23 straight losses, Trump DOJ keeps appealing its voter roll cases". Democracy Docket. Retrieved 2026-08-18.

Mock, Brentin. (August 16, 2026) "Attorney General Blanche says taking state voter rolls case to Supreme Court is a 'possibility'". Democracy Docket. Retrieved 2026-08-18.

Rivas, Younior. (August 8, 2026) "22 courts have rejected Trump DOJ's voter roll crusade. DOJ says they're all just wrong". Democracy Docket. Retrieved 2026-08-18.

Marc Elias (Democracy Docket) posted a 34-minute video entitled "Trump's Desperate DOJ Eyes Supreme Court to Get Your Voter Data After Losing 22 Times" where he breaks down what Blanche said. At the 10:29 timestamp Elias does a fact-check of Blanche's legal claims.

Elias notes that Blanche said "in the right circumstances." Elias says that because 22 (now 23) courts have rejected the DOJ claims, it's clear that those claims are not "the right circumstances." Elias also notes that the records the DOJ is seeking haven't come into the possession of election officials (referring to the actual verbiage in Section 301), but instead were created by those election officials.

Elias goes on to say:

But the more important point is this is not the right circumstance. This is an administration that wants to access these records for all the wrong reasons and has been unable to satisfy federal courts that there is a good reason, a good basis and purpose [required by Section 303] for getting them.

But then Todd Blanche goes on and he says that, you know, these 22 losses are not going to dissuade him and the Department of Justice from pressing forward because they, in Todd Blanch's words, uh, want to make sure that we quote have elections that are fair. I mean, come on. I mean, I don't know who he thinks is actually going to believe that. I mean, let's like break the public into several sections. Nobody who's paying attention believes that Donald Trump's Department of Justice wants to access the voter records, the most sensitive, unredacted voter records across the country because he wants to make sure that we have elections that are fair. That's Todd Blanche's words. Make sure that we have elections that are fair. Like, nobody who's paying attention thinks that's true. People who care about democracy know that they want to access these records because Donald Trump wants to demagogue the elections.

And frankly, I don't even think many of the Republicans, the people who Donald Trump is trying to help, I don't even think they believe that the Department of Justice is trying to get these records to have fair elections. They want, they want Donald Trump to get the records to put a thumb on the scale, to put a hand on the scale, to put an alarm on the scale, right? They want there to be unfair elections because as the polling is showing, if there were fair elections, Republicans are going to lose control of the House. Republicans are going to lose control of the Senate.

Commentary:

As I see it, here are the crucial legal points of this debate.

First, Section 301 defines "registration" as one form of "all records and papers." It seems pretty clear that voter registration records qualify, and those are the records that the DOJ is after.

Second, Section 303 clearly states that the Attorney General has the authority to inspect, reproduce, and copy this information.

The DOJ has been demanding that states submit their voter rolls to the federal government. Section 303 explicitly states that inspection, reproduction and copying be done "at the principal office" of election officials. So, on that point the DOJ's requests fail. However, I'm sure the DOJ would have absolutely no problem sending their representatives to the states in question to obtain the desired information.

Third (the most critical point), Section 303 states that the demand "shall contain a statement of the basis and the purpose therefor."

The "basis," as I see it, is the list of allegations in the Michigan (as an example) DOJ filing, which include:

• a lack of timely response to DOJ requests
• Michigan EAV (Election Administration and Voting Survey) data is "out of step" with national averages
• Secretary Benson provided only the public version of voter data
• Secretary Benson provided non-applicable exemptions as reasons for not providing information
• Secretary Benson provided insufficient responses to questions

According to the Michigan DOJ filing, it needs full state voter rolls is to fulfill its "statutory enforcement authority." As I see it, this is the DOJ's purported "purpose" for its lawsuit.

At present, 23 out of 23 courts have rejected the DOJ lawsuits, yet Blanche and the DOJ continue to push forward.

If this was any other, normal administration, I might be inclined to give some credence to the claims set forth in the Michigan lawsuit. But we know from everything that's happened since the "rigged" 2020 presidential election that Trump and his MAGA sycophants are "hell-bent" on perpetuating the "Big Lie." I'm sure that Trump and MAGA would swear up and down, backwards and sideways that their efforts are sincere, but in reality this is just a ruse — a legal argument being made to justify "weaponization" of the federal government to unduly influence the upcoming mid-term elections. Trump and his sycophants know they can't win on Trump's second term record, so instead they have executed a "full court press" to help tip the upcoming election in their favor.

The underlying motivation for getting access to state voter rolls is election denial. Period. End of story.

The fact that Blanche wouldn't pledge that hid DOJ will act independently of the White House is confirmation that he is doing Donald Trump's bidding.

Todd Blanche is just another election-denying Trump sycophant. The fact that he was recently confirmed by the Senate as U.S. Attorney General is an abomination.

It's clear from what Blanche said that the DOJ will appeal to the Supreme Court.