State’s Election Integrity At Stake Over Ineligible Voters
by Mark Uncapher of Free State
A U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against the Maryland State Board of Elections marks an essential development in the ongoing debate over the accuracy and transparency of Maryland’s voter registration system. Filed this week, the complaint alleges that the State Board, led by Administrator Jared DeMarinis, failed to provide DOJ with an unredacted, full-field copy of the statewide voter registration list, a dataset that federal law entitles the Justice Department to review.
While the case has already generated headlines, it also reflects a broader and more persistent challenge: whether Maryland is properly maintaining voter rolls in accordance with federal law and whether citizens and federal authorities have meaningful access to evaluate that compliance.
Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), states are required to “conduct a general program to make a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters” when registrants die or move.
Additionally, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) reinforces federal oversight authority, permitting the DOJ to obtain the full statewide voter list for compliance review. Such audits are not unusual; they serve a basic administrative function—determining whether list-maintenance procedures are effective and whether outdated or erroneous registrations remain.
In July, the DOJ requested Maryland’s complete, electronic voter database, including traditional fields such as voter name, birthdate, home address, and voting history, as well as identifiers such as driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of Social Security numbers. According to the complaint, the State Board declined to provide these fields, instead directing DOJ to the public-facing version of the list, which is redacted and incomplete for audit purposes.
By August, when DOJ reiterated that the request was grounded in federal law, DeMarinis again did not comply.
This refusal led to the present litigation.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit is not an isolated enforcement action. Instead, it follows a decade-long pattern in which external efforts, whether by federal officials, nonprofit organizations, or Maryland voters, have encountered substantial institutional resistance when attempting to evaluate the accuracy of the state’s voter rolls.
Judicial Watch has previously sued the Maryland State Board of Elections, alleging inadequate list maintenance. In that case, the state adopted a restrictive regulation in June 2023 through COMAR, limiting how Maryland residents could use voter rolls obtained through public records requests. The rule required individuals to sign an affidavit swearing that any use of the list was “related to the electoral process,” a broad and ambiguous standard that effectively discouraged investigation or third-party review.
In Sullivan v. Maryland State Board of Elections, Judge Maddox ruled that the regulation conflicted with NVRA’s transparency provisions. His decision held that the Maryland rule “presents an obstacle to accomplishing and executing the purposes and objectives of the NVRA and is therefore preempted.”
The ruling underscored a critical principle: NVRA relies on public oversight—not merely internal state assurances—to ensure that voter rolls are appropriately maintained.
From a policy and administrative standpoint, voter roll accuracy is essential. Inaccurate rolls—containing deceased individuals, duplicate registrations, or outdated addresses—introduce vulnerabilities, particularly in jurisdictions with large-scale mail-in or absentee ballot programs. While isolated errors do not imply widespread fraud, they create conditions that make fraud easier to commit and harder to detect.
The Justice Department’s most recent request sought not only voter-level data but also documentation outlining Maryland’s list-maintenance procedures, including when and how the State Board cross-checks death records, address changes, and other indicators of ineligibility. This information is indispensable for determining whether Maryland is meeting its obligations under federal law.
The State Board’s refusal to provide the materials, even after formal written requests, raises significant governance concerns. Transparency in list maintenance supports public trust, reinforces the legitimacy of election outcomes, and aligns with conservative principles of accountable and efficient government administration.
Maryland is one of several states subject to recent DOJ inquiries into election administration and compliance with voter registration systems. In public statements, DOJ has emphasized its statutory authority to review state voter rolls as part of its enforcement of the NVRA’s list-maintenance mandate.
In prior communications, DOJ made clear that the Maryland dataset might also be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to identify ineligible noncitizen registrations. Maryland’s refusal to release unredacted data, according to the DOJ’s suit, undermines these oversight efforts.
As this case proceeds, Marylanders may finally gain a clearer understanding of how well the state has fulfilled its list-maintenance responsibilities—and whether legislative or administrative reforms are needed to strengthen public confidence in the state’s election system.