Demonstrators protest outside the immigration processing and detention facility this month in Broadview, Ill. President Donald Trump wants to deploy Texas National Guard members to the Chicago area but has been blocked by federal courts. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

As President Donald Trump prepares to send National Guard troops — from either Oregon, California or possibly Texas — into Portland, Oregon, entrepreneur Sarah Shaoul watches with deep concern.

A three-decade resident of the Portland area, Shaoul leads a coalition of roughly 100 local small businesses, including many dependent on foot traffic. Armed troops could spook customers and, she fears, trigger a crisis where none exists.

“I don’t want this to be a political conversation but, I mean, the fact you bring people from other states who maybe have different politics — I think it shows an administration that’s trying to pit people against other people,” Shaoul said.

Trump’s campaign to send the National Guard into Democratic-leaning cities he describes as crime-ridden has so far reached Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; Chicago and Portland. He has federalized — taken command of — hundreds of active-duty guard members to staff the deployments.

But in the two most recent attempted deployments to Portland and the Chicago area, the Trump administration has turned to out-of-state National Guard troops, the part-time soldiers who often respond to natural disasters.

National guards are usually under the control of state governors, with state funds paying for their work. But sometimes the troops can be called into federal service at federal expense and placed under the president’s control.

In addition to federalizing some members of the Oregon and Illinois National Guard within those states, the president sent 200 Texas National Guard troops to the Chicago area and plans to send California National Guard members to Portland. A Pentagon memo has also raised the possibility of sending some Texas troops to Portland.

Presidents who have federalized National Guard forces in the past, even against a governor’s will, have done so in response to a crisis in the troops’ home state. That happened to enforce school desegregation in Arkansas in 1957 and Alabama in 1963.

But the decision to send one state’s National Guard troops into a different state without the receiving governor’s consent is both extraordinary and unprecedented, experts on national security law told Stateline.

The cross-border deployments evoke concerns stretching back to the country’s infancy, when the Federalist Papers in 1787-1788 grappled with the possibility that states could take military action against one another. While the recent cross-state deployments have all included troops under Trump’s command, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has been an enthusiastic supporter of Trump ordering his state’s National Guard to Chicago.

The troop movements raise questions of state sovereignty and how far the president can go in using the militia of one state to exercise power in another. At stake is Trump’s ability to effectively repurpose military forces for domestic use in line with an August executive order that called for the creation of a National Guard “quick reaction force” that could rapidly deploy nationwide.

“It’s really like …  a little bit like invading another country,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania who studies military ethics and national security law.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to proceed with the Chicago-area deployment, which is currently blocked in federal court. On Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the deployment in Portland to move forward, overruling a district court judge, but additional appeals are expected.

The deployments come as Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to expand his ability to use the military for law enforcement. Presidents are generally prohibited from deploying the military domestically, but the Insurrection Act, which dates back to 1792, could be used to bypass restrictions and potentially allow National Guard members to make immigration-related arrests.

For now, Trump has federalized National Guard members under a federal law known as Title 10, which allows the president to take command of National Guard members in response to invasion, rebellions against the United States and whenever the president is unable to execute federal laws with “regular forces.”

He has characterized illegal immigration as an invasion and sought to station National Guard members outside of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, facilities and other federal property.

While Chicago and Portland fight Trump’s moves in court, other cities are bracing for the arrival of troops in anticipation that the deployments will continue to expand. Washington state went so far as to enact a new law earlier this year intended to prevent out-of-state National Guard members from deploying in Washington. The new state law doesn’t pertain to federalized troops, however, only to those that might be sent by another governor.

“I’m incredibly concerned but not necessarily surprised by the president’s method of operation, that there seems to be a theme of fear, intimidation, bullying without a clear plan,” Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said in an interview with Stateline.

Harrell, who is running for reelection to the nonpartisan office in November, said Seattle officials are monitoring what’s happening in other cities. Any deployment of guard members — whether they were from Washington or elsewhere — would be concerning, he said.

“At the end of the day, they would be following orders with some level of military precision, so my concern isn’t so much out-of-state or in-state. I just oppose any kind of deployment.”

Courtroom fights

Whether the out-of-state status of National Guard members matters legally is up for debate. Experts in national security law are split over whether sending federalized troops across state lines poses constitutional and legal problems, even as they broadly agree the move is provocative.

Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the left-leaning Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, doubts the cross-state deployment of federalized troops is itself a legal issue.

Still, he criticized the decision to send in out-of-state National Guard and, speaking about Chicago, called the underlying deployment unlawful and unjustified. In ordering troops to Illinois, Nunn said, Trump was abusing his presidential power, regardless of the servicemembers’ home state.

“It is unnecessarily inflammatory,” Nunn said of that choice. “It is, I think, insulting to say we’re going to send the National Guard from one state into another.”

Democrats, especially in cities and states targeted by Trump, condemn the deployments as an abuse of presidential power, regardless of where the troops are from. Republicans have largely supported or stayed silent about Trump’s moves, though Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who chairs the National Governors Association, has criticized the sending of Texas troops to Illinois.

Abbott wrote on social media in early October that he had “fully authorized” Trump to call up 400 Texas National Guard members. Abbott’s office didn’t respond to Stateline’s questions.

“You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,” Abbott wrote on X.

In the Chicago area and in Portland, the Trump administration wants the National Guard outside ICE facilities where small protests have taken place in recent weeks. Dozens of people have been arrested in Portland since June, but there’s been no sign of widespread violence. A Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau and federal crime data found that Trump’s National Guard deployments have not, with a single exception, targeted the nation’s most violent cities.

For weeks federal courts have kept National Guard troops off the streets of Portland and the Chicago area as legal challenges play out, but that could be changing. The Trump administration on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area. If the court sides with the administration, the decision could clear the way for additional deployments elsewhere.

In the Friday filing to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote: “This case presents what has become a disturbing and recurring pattern: Federal officers are attempting to enforce federal immigration law in an urban area containing significant numbers of illegal aliens. The federal agents’ efforts are met with prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance that threatens their lives and safety and systematically interferes with their ability to enforce federal law.”

The U.S. Department of Defense didn’t directly answer questions from Stateline about whether further cross-state deployments are planned, saying only that it doesn’t speculate on future operations.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut wrote in an order blocking deployment of the National Guard in Portland that a handful of documented episodes of protesters clashing with federal law enforcement during September were “inexcusable,” but added that “they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces.”

But on Monday, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump had “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” to deploy Oregon National Guard servicemembers to Portland. Lawyers for Oregon and Portland are seeking a review by the full appeals court, a move that would put the case in front of 11 appellate judges.

Shaoul, the Portland business leader, said the presence of troops would itself risk creating “drama” at the expense of taxpayers.

“Tell me how that’s helping anybody to go in and intimidate a bunch of people who are dressed up in friggin’ costumes, playing music,” Shaoul said. “I mean, if nothing else illustrates what a joke this is, that should tell you right there.”

10th Amendment concerns

Top Republicans have long telegraphed their desire to use the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement.

In December, before Trump took office, 26 GOP governors — at the time, every Republican governor except Vermont’s Phil Scott — signed a statement promising to provide their national guards to help.

Since Trump’s inauguration, at least 11 Republican governors have ordered National Guard members to help ICE, typically by providing logistical support. At least four states — Florida, Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia — have entered into federal agreements that allow ICE to delegate some immigration enforcement duties, potentially including arrests, to National Guard members.

Trump’s decision to federalize National Guard members goes further, placing troops under the president’s command. The cross-state deployments represent the next step in testing his authority to command guard members.

Finkelstein, the national security law professor, said sending one state’s National Guard into another state raises serious legal issues under the 10th Amendment. The amendment reserves for the states or the people powers not specifically granted to the federal government — the idea at the core of federalism.

A president and governor may reasonably disagree about whether federalization is necessary to help their state, Finkelstein said, but “even that fig leaf” isn’t available when troops are sent to another state. California gets nothing out of the deployment of its National Guard to Oregon, she said. And unless it’s California’s governor — rather than the president — making the choice to deploy guard members elsewhere, it’s a “very real problem” that undermines state autonomy, she said.

Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh, who chairs the Washington State Republican Party, has been monitoring the attempted deployment in Portland, as well as the possibility of a deployment to Seattle. He said Trump has broad discretion under federal law to federalize National Guard members.

Still, Walsh said federalizing the National Guard gives him pause and is something that a hypothetical president — “leave this one out of the equation” — might overuse. But he argued state and local leadership in cities where the National Guard has been deployed have brought the situation on themselves by allowing a breakdown in law and order.

Asked about cross-state deployments, Walsh largely dismissed any legal concerns.

“I guess they would know the area better,” Walsh said of troops deployed in their home state. “But this is kind of a specious argument. … The president, whoever he or she is, can federalize National Guard units.”

Walsh said he doesn’t see a situation at the moment that would necessitate a Guard deployment within Washington state.

But Seattle isn’t taking any chances.

Harrell, the Seattle mayor, signed two executive orders in October, one that pushes back on the practice of federal agents making immigration arrests while wearing masks, and another that seeks to maintain control over local law enforcement resources if the National Guard is deployed in the city.

“I’m critically concerned about what can occur as a reaction,” Harrell said. “That’s exactly what Trump’s goal is, to raise tension and create chaos and to use blue cities as scapegoats.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the year, 1957, that President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized National Guard troops to enforce desegregation in Arkansas. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Demonstrators protest the suspension of the "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" show outside the El Capitan Entertainment Centre, where the show is performed, in Los Angeles earlier this month. While Kimmel has returned to the air, dozens of public workers have been fired across the country for comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Hours after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Suzanne Swierc shared two thoughts on her private Facebook page — that the killing of the right-wing activist was wrong, and that his death reflected “the violence, fear and hatred he sowed.”

The post upended her life.

Indiana Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita soon obtained a screenshot of the post by Swierc, an administrator at Ball State University, and added it to an official website naming and shaming educators for their comments about Kirk.

Libs of Tik Tok, a social media account dedicated to mocking liberals, shared her comments with its 4.4 million followers on X. A week after the post, the university fired her.

“The day that my private post was made public without my consent was one of the worst days of my life,” Swierc told reporters this past week. She said she received calls, texts and other harassing messages, including one suggesting she should be killed, that left her terrified.

A wave of firings and investigations has swept through academia and government in the wake of Kirk’s death, as state agencies, colleges and local school districts take action against employees over comments perceived as offensive or inappropriate. Dozens of workers in higher education alone have lost their jobs.

A Texas State University student was expelled after he publicly reenacted Kirk’s assassination; Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republicans had called for the student’s expulsion. Clemson University in South Carolina fired one worker and removed two professors from teaching. The University of Mississippi fired an employee. An Idaho Department of Labor employee was terminated.

The purge is driven in part by Republican elected officials who are encouraging Americans to report co-workers, their children’s teachers and others who make comments seen as crossing the line. They have been egged on by the Trump administration, with Vice President JD Vance urging listeners of Kirk’s podcast to call the employer of anyone “celebrating” his killing.

President Donald Trump has threatened to expand the crackdown beyond Kirk, warning falsely in the Oval Office last week that negative press coverage of him is “really illegal,” despite constitutional protections for freedom of the press.

Trump headlines Arizona memorial service for Charlie Kirk at packed stadium

At Kirk’s memorial service, Trump said, “I hate my opponent.” His choice to lead the Federal Communications Commission threatened ABC over comments about the reaction to Kirk’s death made by the late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel and the network pulled his show for several days.

Mark Johnson, a First Amendment attorney based in Kansas City, Missouri, who has been practicing law for 45 years, said he had never seen a moment like the current one.

“Not even close,” Johnson said. “What’s been happening in the last month is astonishing.”

In Indiana, Rokita is using his office’s “Eyes on Education” webpage to publicize examples of educators who have made controversial remarks about Kirk. The page, billed as a transparency tool, housed a hodgepodge of submitted complaints about teachers and schools in the past. Now, it also includes 28 Kirk-related submissions as of Thursday afternoon.

Wisconsin Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden threatened to strip an entire town of federal funding after a high school math teacher noted on her personal Facebook page that Kirk had in the past said some gun deaths are worth it to have the Second Amendment. The teacher has been suspended.

Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters, who is leaving his job next month to head up a conservative teachers organization, has launched investigations of school employees in response to tips submitted to Awareity, an online platform that allows parents and others to report concerns. Last week the Oklahoma State Department of Education said it had received 224 reports of “defamatory comments.”

Florida Republican U.S. Rep. Randy Fine has urged people with information about anyone celebrating Kirk’s death who works in government in Florida to contact his office. And South Carolina Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace wants federal funding cut off for any school that fails to fire or discipline staff who “glorify or justify” political violence.

“It’s at a scale never before seen and I think it’s completely unhinged,” Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said of the rush to fire higher education faculty.

Free speech consequences?

Kirk, who founded the campus conservative activism organization Turning Point USA and was close to Trump, was a hero to many Republicans. They saw a charismatic family man and a Christian unafraid to take his hard-right vision onto liberal college campuses.

But many Democrats and liberals experienced Kirk as a provocateur with a record of incendiary remarks about people of color, immigrants and Islam. While many of Kirk’s opponents have condemned the assassination, some have also emphasized their disagreement with his views or suggested his death arose out of what they saw as his hateful rhetoric.

“I have faculty who are getting fired, who have tenure and are getting fired, for saying things like ‘I condemn political violence but the words that Charlie Kirk used, he sort of reaped what he sowed,’” Wolfson said. “All things told, I may not agree with that statement, but that’s a perfectly reasonable thing for somebody to say. Certainly not something to be fired for.”

MSUN professor on leave as influencers targeted Montanans in wake of Charlie Kirk’s death

Some Republicans have long denounced what they view as past Democratic censorship, including Biden administration efforts to pressure social media companies to censor content during the COVID-19 pandemic. They have also criticized firings and pushed back on perceived political correctness run amok during the height of the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, moments of ascendant progressive influence.

But as the current round of terminations plays out, some conservatives argue public employees who speak out about Kirk are facing the consequences of their actions. Oklahoma state Rep. Gabe Woolley, a Republican, said individuals in a taxpayer-funded role who work with children should be held to a high level of accountability.

“I think the most important factor to consider … is that these people chose to enter the public square on public social media accounts and to mock and celebrate the death of an American patriot who was a Christian martyr who was killed for his faith doing what God called him to do,” Woolley said.

Woolley added that “if you choose to make something public, you should not be shocked or surprised by any type of public pushback.”

Swierc described a relatively restricted Facebook account. It was private and couldn’t be found by searching for her name; only individuals with mutual Facebook friends could request to add her as a friend. She did not list her employer on her profile.

Swierc’s post on Kirk could only be seen by her Facebook friends. At some point, someone — Swierc doesn’t know who — made a screenshot of the post. It was then circulated publicly and ended up on Indiana’s “Eyes on Education” page.

On Sept. 17, Ball State University President Geoffrey Mearns fired Swierc, who had been director of health promotion and advocacy within the Division of Student Affairs. In a letter informing Swierc of her termination, Mearns wrote that many current students had written to the university to express concern and that her post had caused unprecedented disruption.

Swierc filed a federal lawsuit against Mearns on Monday, alleging he violated her First Amendment rights. Swierc, who is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, wants a court to order Mearns to expunge her termination from her Ball State University personnel file, along with unspecified damages.

“I do not regret the post I made, and I would not take back what I said,” Swierc said during a virtual news conference organized by the ACLU of Indiana. “I believe that I, along with every person in this country, have First Amendment rights to be able to speak on a number of things.”

Ball State University declined to answer Stateline’s questions, citing the lawsuit. In an unsigned public statement on the day of Swierc’s firing, the university said the post was “inconsistent with the distinctive nature and trust” of Swierc’s leadership position and had caused significant disruption to the university.

Swierc’s lawsuit is one of a growing number of legal challenges to firings and employee discipline over comments about Kirk. On Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the University of South Dakota to reinstate an art professor who had placed on administrative leave after calling Kirk a “Nazi” but later deleted the post and apologized.

Aggressive state attorney general

Swierc didn’t name Rokita, the attorney general, as a defendant in her lawsuit, but the official has loomed over the situation.

Two days after Kirk’s assassination, Rokita urged his followers on X to submit to him any evidence of educators or school administrators celebrating or rationalizing the killing. He wrote that they must be held accountable and “have no place teaching our students.”

But Rokita has also said the Indiana Attorney General’s Office isn’t investigating individuals submitted to his “Eyes on Education” page — suggesting the effort is mainly intended to generate public pressure against employers. Each example on the page lists contact information for the school’s leadership and in some instances information about the next local school board meeting.

“For a government official, especially of that caliber, to be creating a database and doing this has an incredibly chilling effect on speech,” said Ashkhen Kazaryan, a senior legal fellow at The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think tank located at Vanderbilt University that promotes the values of free speech and free expression.

Rokita didn’t agree to an interview. “Our goal is to provide transparency, equipping parents with the information they need to make informed decisions about their children’s education,” Rokita said in a news release.

On Monday, Rokita sent a six-page letter to school superintendents and public university administrators, providing guidance on the legal authority to fire and discipline teachers for speech related to Kirk. The letter suggested that speech occurring on social media is a factor that weighs in favor of the authority to fire an employee because it carries the risk of being amplified and disrupting school operations.

Rokita also analyzed comments about Kirk by a U.S. history teacher in Indiana who had said the assassinated activist can “suck it” and referred to comments made by Kirk in 2023 that some gun deaths every year are the cost of Second Amendment rights. The district’s employer had chosen not to terminate the teacher, but Rokita laid out a legal justification for firing the employee.

He concluded the letter by writing that many schools would be within their legal authority to fire teachers “who have similarly contributed to the divisive and, for many, painful eruption of controversial discourse on social media and elsewhere concerning Charlie Kirk.”

Joseph Mastrosimone, an employment law professor at Washburn University, said private employers have broad discretion to fire workers over speech. But the government is different, he said, with the First Amendment providing at least some level of protection to employees.

Decades of court cases have established the core principle that if a public employee is speaking in their capacity as a citizen on a matter of public concern, then the government can only take action if the speech causes significant disruption to the delivery of the public service and that disruption outweighs the employee’s interest in the speech, he said.

Mastrosimone said if a teacher’s message made in his or her own time is causing community outrage and pandemonium, “that’s probably going to count as some disruption.”

“And there might be sufficient disruption to outweigh whatever interest the employee has in the speech,” Mastrosimone said. But the closer the teacher’s message is to core political speech — such as voicing support for a candidate for office — the more the scales tip in favor of the employee being able to speak without fear of discipline.

“It is certainly a matter of public concern, what’s going on here with the Charlie Kirk assassination. The interests are probably pretty high, I would think,” Mastrosimone said.

Push to honor Kirk

As some Republican officials have called for action against public employees who have made comments about Kirk, they have often drawn a line at what they see as celebrating or glorifying his assassination. Walters, the outgoing Oklahoma state superintendent, has gone further and is investigating districts for “refusing to honor his memory.”

The Oklahoma State Department of Education last week said in addition to reports on individual teachers, it was investigating 30 reports of schools that didn’t observe a moment of silence. Three reports alleged schools weren’t flying their flags at half-staff.

On Tuesday, Walters announced an official push to start a Turning Point USA chapter in every Oklahoma high school. Later that day, he announced he would resign as superintendent to become CEO of the Teacher Freedom Alliance, a new group that casts itself as a conservative alternative to teachers’ unions.

Walters’ Turning Point effort comes after Oklahoma state Sen. Shane Jett, a Republican, filed three pieces of legislation to honor Kirk, including one that would establish “Charlie Kirk Free Speech Day” and another requiring public colleges and universities to develop a “Charlie Kirk Memorial Plaza” on their campuses.

Walters and Jett didn’t respond to interview requests.

“Charlie Kirk inspired a generation to love America, to speak boldly, and to never shy away from debate. Our kids must get involved and active,” Walters said in a news release on Tuesday. “We will fight back against the liberal propaganda, pushed by the radical left, and the teachers unions. Our fight starts now.”

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

American flags hang alongside the official agency flag at the U.S. Department of Justice building in Washington, D.C., in August. The Justice Department is sharing state voter roll data with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Photo by Jonathan Shorman/Stateline)

The U.S. Department of Justice is sharing state voter roll information with the Department of Homeland Security in a search for noncitizens, the Trump administration confirmed.

The data sharing comes after Justice Department attorneys this summer demanded that election officials in nearly two dozen states turn over their voter lists, alarming some Democratic state secretaries of state and election experts. They have voiced fears about how the Trump administration planned to use the data. Even some Republican secretaries of state have declined to provide their full voter lists.

Homeland Security in an unsigned statement to Stateline called information sharing essential to “scrub aliens from voter rolls” and said the federal government was “finally doing what it should have all along — sharing information to solve problems.”

“This collaboration with the DOJ will lawfully and critically enable DHS to prevent illegal aliens from corrupting our republic’s democratic process and further ensure the integrity of our elections nationwide. Elections exist for the American people to choose their leaders, not illegal aliens,” the statement reads.

The Justice Department said in its own statement that state voter roll data provided in response to requests from the department’s Civil Rights Division is “being screened for ineligible voter entries.”

Noncitizen voting is extremely rare. One study of the 2016 election placed the prevalence of noncitizen voting at 0.0001% of votes cast.

The data sharing marks a next step in President Donald Trump’s efforts to exert more federal influence over state-administered elections. Trump signed an executive order earlier this year that sought to require individuals to provide proof-of-citizenship documents to register to vote, a rule quickly blocked in federal court. He has also threatened to sign another executive order attempting to restrict mail ballots.

At least 10 states have either provided publicly available data or given the department directions on how to request public data. On Friday, Indiana Secretary of State Diego Morales, a Republican, confirmed to reporters that he had provided the Justice Department with all voter information requested, including driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers — making Indiana the first known state to have supplied personally sensitive data.

While the administration didn’t describe how Homeland Security will use the voter rolls to search for noncitizens, the agency operates a powerful program, Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, that can identify the immigration or citizenship status of an individual.

SAVE was originally intended to help state and local officials verify the immigration status of individual noncitizens seeking government benefits. But U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of Homeland Security, this spring refashioned it into a platform that can scan states’ voter rolls if officials upload the data.

In the past, SAVE could only search one name at a time. Now it can conduct bulk searches, allowing officials to potentially feed into it information on millions of registered voters. SAVE checks that information against a series of federal databases and reports back whether it can verify someone’s immigration status.

Since May, it also can draw upon Social Security data, transforming the program into a tool that can confirm U.S. citizenship because Social Security records for many, but not all, Americans include the information.

As the Justice Department has sought state voter rolls this summer, letters from the department’s attorneys to state officials in many instances have demanded full lists of registered voters that include sensitive personal information such as driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. At least 22 states were asked for some data, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which is tracking the requests.

Some states have turned over publicly available voter files or offered directions on how to request them. Others have flat-out refused the requests.

“The Department of Justice hasn’t shown any good reason for its fishing expedition for sensitive voter information on every American,” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, said in a news release Monday announcing that her office had rejected the Justice Department’s second request for her state’s voter data.

Justin Levitt, who served as senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House and is now a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, said that he has no confidence that Homeland Security would act carefully with any data received.

Levitt, speaking with Stateline on Wednesday before the data sharing was confirmed, voiced concern that the Justice Department was “serving as a stalking horse” for other entities within the government.

“The fact that they’re having to sneak through the back door rather than knocking on the front door tells you that there’s improper procedures going on,” Levitt said.

This story was updated to add information from Indiana Secretary of State Diego Morales confirming his state shared voter roll information with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Indiana Capital Chronicle’s Whitney Downard contributed reporting. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

An analysis of shifts in election officials published Tuesday found nearly 41% of election officials administering the 2024 election were different than those in 2020. Turnover has accelerated over the past two decades, rising from about 28% in 2004 to…

The department has sent letters to Pennsylvania and at least eight other states in recent months asking for information related to voter list maintenance in the states under the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.