The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has accused the Trump administration of misleading the public regarding its attempts to access detailed voter registration data in Oregon. This claim was presented to a federal judge in Oregon by the DNC.

On Tuesday, the DNC submitted a 17-page amicus brief, asserting that the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent lawsuit, which is framed as a voting rights issue, is both deceptive and legally unfounded. The brief challenges the legitimacy of the DOJ’s actions.

The Department of Justice initiated legal action against Oregon on September 16, citing three alleged violations: the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1960.

The lawsuit urges U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, appointed by President Joe Biden, to compel Oregon to hand over its comprehensive, computerized voter registration records. This request includes detailed personal information such as full names, birth dates, residential addresses, and identification numbers like state driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers.

In its brief, the DNC contends that the DOJ’s approach involves a deliberate “deception” that undermines the legitimacy of the administration’s demands.

“Federal law authorizes the Attorney General to demand voter registration records, but she cannot do so based on a misrepresentation,” the filing begins. “[T]he Department of Justice suggests it is engaged in routine enforcement of federal civil rights laws. In fact, the Justice Department intends to transfer the personal identifying information and partisan affiliation of every registered voter in Oregon to the Department of Homeland Security and is reportedly consolidating state databases into a national voter file.”

In its 22-page lawsuit, the DOJ accuses Oregon of violating “federal voting laws” by “failing to provide information necessary” for DOJ to assess the state’s compliance with multiple provisions of NVRA and HAVA. Specifically, the government alleges Oregon has failed to maintain “accurate and current voter registration rolls” and, closely related, has failed to conduct routine removals of “ineligible” voters. To that end, the Trump administration is trying to use Title III of the Civil Rights to force Oregon into providing the requested documents.

The state, for its part, says Title III – which does, in fact, have a document production provision – cannot be used by the government in this way because its lawsuit has nothing to do with civil rights.

“[T]he stated purpose falls outside the scope of the CRA,” Oregon’s 30-page motion to dismiss reads. “The CRA’s text and history limit Title III to investigations of civil rights violations, namely, efforts to prevent eligible voters from voting or registering to vote for illegal reasons like racial discrimination.”

The DNC’s amicus brief somewhat tracks Oregon’s broader argument to support the state’s dismissal bid, saying the Trump administration’s actual purpose in filing the lawsuit is not simply inapposite but also being obfuscated in its formal briefs before the court.

To hear the amici tell it, “DOJ has provided Oregon and its citizens less than a half-truth” because the “true basis and purpose” for the Title III demand is to share the voter information with the Department of Homeland Security and compile “a national voter file for its own use.”

And such uses have nothing to do with voting rights enforcement, the motion argues.

From the friend-of-the-court brief, at length:

DHS has broad authority over counterterrorism, emergency management, immigration, and border protection, but its powers do not extend to NVRA and HAVA enforcement. Even if DOJ were only interested in comparing Oregon’s voter registration records with DHS data—which would not require transferring Oregon’s voter file to DHS custody—such database matching would not advance NVRA and HAVA enforcement…

Rather, the Democratic Party’s longest-existing membership organization argues, the NVRA’s maintenance prong “concerns only deceased registrants and those who have moved outside the jurisdiction of a local registrar” while the relevant HAVA language only requires a “reasonable effort” to remove ineligible voters.

“Federal data concerning deaths and changes of address are held by the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service respectively, not DHS,” the motion goes on. “Thus, DHS data is not relevant to NVRA and HAVA enforcement.”

The amici also say DOJ’s invocation of HAVA for the document demand “is at best puzzling” because the statute “contains neither subpoena authority nor a public records provision,” essentially arguing the government has cited the wrong laws in its efforts to pry open Oregon’s voter rolls.

“A Department of Justice that cannot be honest with state officials cannot be trusted with the personal information of every registered voter in Oregon, including nearly a million voters identified as Democrats on Oregon’s voter registration rolls,” the amicus brief argues. “The Democratic National Committee submits this amicus brief to protect the privacy interests of its members and the interests of its candidates and campaigns in free and fair elections; it respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”