2026-03-26T13:40:00-0400 / CBS新闻
据直接了解该计划的消息人士向CBS新闻透露，美国司法部与国土安全部正接近敲定一项协议，允许联邦政府将敏感的选民登记数据用于移民和刑事调查。司法部备受争议的选民名单数据收集工作正面临数十个州的诉讼，而司法部尚未向任何法院披露其数据共享计划。
消息人士表示，司法部将与国土安全部移民与海关执法局（ICE）的国土安全调查局共享其民权司从各州收集的选民名单数据，以确定非公民是否非法登记或在以往选举中投票。
CBS新闻无法确定数据共享安排的具体细节，但正式的数据访问请求预计将来自现任ICE代理主任的高级官员托德·莱昂斯（Todd Lyons）。
一位消息人士补充称，这项安排可能需要建立一个系统，让官员能够提交查询，将司法部收集的选民登记数据与国土安全部的外国人数据库进行匹配。
美国司法部发言人在一份声明中表示：“司法部正投入大量资源确保选举自由、公平和透明。这包括通过诉讼确保选民名单维护，并明确致力于确保美国选举仅由美国公民决定。”
国土安全部发言人也在声明中称：“与司法部的合作将合法且关键地使国土安全部能够防止非法移民破坏我国共和国的民主进程，并进一步确保全国选举的完整性。”
消息人士补充称，尽管一些政府律师主张向国土安全部移交大量原始选民数据，但另一些人则试图将请求范围缩小到特定类型的信息，例如投票历史和验证选民资格的文件。
消息人士还表示，白宫也参与了与司法部和国土安全部官员关于数据共享安排的讨论。
CBS新闻无法立即确定白宫为何参与以及其具体角色。此前，白宫发布了一项行政命令，要求政府执行防止非公民投票的法律。
白宫发言人未立即回应置评请求。
根据司法部2月底最新的新闻稿，该部门的民权司仍在与28个州和哥伦比亚特区进行诉讼，这些州因隐私担忧拒绝移交包含社会保障号码等数据的未编辑选民名单。
消息人士补充称，在所有案件中，民权司的律师均未披露与国土安全部的待议数据共享协议，反而声称他们需要这些信息来确保遵守几项要求各州维护干净选民登记名单的联邦法律。
尽管《隐私法》要求政府在收集个人记录前提供公开通知和评论，但政府也未在《联邦公报》上发布任何正式通知，明确披露其收集私人选民登记数据的计划。
法律专家表示，司法部在法院文件中对与国土安全部为移民和刑事执法汇编大量选民登记数据的持续努力保持沉默，可能违反了执业律师必须遵守的职业道德规则。
美国律师协会的示范规则3.3（已被所有州律师协会广泛采用）禁止律师明知故向法院作虚假陈述。
普林斯顿大学公共事务与国际事务学院法律与公共政策项目主任黛博拉·珀尔斯坦（Deborah Pearlstein）表示：“如果律师明知在说谎或隐瞒信息……他们100%面临律师协会或法院的重大制裁风险。”
她补充称，如果在法庭上辩论的律师不知道这一点，而法院有任何疑虑，法官可以下令相关政府官员出庭作证。
CBS新闻无法确定民权司所有在法庭上参与案件的律师是否都知晓司法部与国土安全部之间关于数据共享安排的正在进行的谈判。
然而，消息人士称，至少有几名民权司高级律师和司法部其他部门的多名官员（包括副部长）已了解部分数据共享计划的讨论。
曾参与部分过往讨论的两名民权律师安德鲁·布拉尼夫（Andrew Braniff）和赫苏斯·奥塞特（Jesus Osete）目前正在处理三个单独案件的上诉，此前联邦法官拒绝了司法部移交选民名单的请求。
据知情人士透露，至少还有另外两人——代理投票部门主管埃里克·内夫（Eric Neff）和蒂莫西·梅利特（Timothy Mellett）——也参与了与国土安全部协调共享选民名单数据的讨论。
奥塞特、布拉尼夫、内夫和梅利特未回应置评请求。
准确性问题
司法部已对主要是蓝州和哥伦比亚特区提起30起诉讼，这些州拒绝共享部分社会保障号码和驾驶执照号码等敏感选民登记数据。
在所有这些民事投诉中，民权司的律师坚持称他们寻求选民名单数据是为了确保遵守两项联邦法律——《帮助美国投票法》（Help America Vote Act）和《国家选民登记法》（National Voter Registration Act），这些法律要求各州建立维护干净投票名单的项目，防止重罪犯或非公民等无资格选民投票。
民权司还声称，根据《民权法》的一项条款，他们有权获取这些记录，该条款要求各州在选举后保留选民登记记录长达22个月。司法部可以要求检查这些记录，但必须提供“请求的依据和目的说明”。
随着诉讼的进行，数据是否会与其他机构共享以用于执法或移民目的的问题多次出现。
3月3日明尼苏达州的一次法庭听证会上，联邦法官明确询问司法部民权司律师詹姆斯·塔克（James Tucker）是否有意使用这些数据进行移民执法。
塔克在转录的证词中表示：“据我所知没有，法官大人。”
他接着说，一些州自愿向国土安全部提供选民名单数据，以便其与自己的数据库比对，确保非公民未登记。他还表示，媒体报道称政府正在建立国家选民数据库是“混淆”了不同目的。
3月19日康涅狄格州的另一次听证会上，另一位法官询问是否有向国土安全部共享数据的计划。
塔克回答：“我认为这一决定尚未做出。”当被进一步追问时，他承认自己不清楚司法部长帕姆·邦迪（Pam Bondi）的未来计划。
他说：“截至今天，没有任何指示或指令表明非公开数据将被传输到任何其他机构。”
塔克未回应置评请求。
同样，该部门投票部门代理主管埃里克·内夫在康涅狄格州联邦法院的宣誓声明中也否认了媒体关于该部门正在汇编国家选民档案的报道。
内夫在3月13日提交给康涅狄格州联邦法院的文件中写道：“与被告通过第三方传闻声称的相反，美国寻求强制获取的记录并非旨在创建‘联邦选民数据库’。”
美国选举创新与研究中心执行主任、CBS新闻评论员大卫·贝克尔（David Becker）表示，内夫的声明表面上似乎存在问题。
他说：“至少有相当充分的理由认为内夫在向法院提交的声明中排除了关键事实。”
到目前为止，加利福尼亚州中部地区、俄勒冈州和密歇根州西部地区的三个联邦法院已分别驳回了司法部的诉讼。
在其中两个案件中，法官还公开质疑该部门寻求这些记录的真正动机。
美国加利福尼亚州中部地区联邦法官大卫·卡特（David Carter）写道：“法院不会轻易忽视司法部在本案中对其真实动机的混淆。”
在俄勒冈州，另一位法官也提出了类似担忧，并暗示民权司的请求只是“借口性的”。
法官还援引了司法部的可疑行为，包括司法部长帕姆·邦迪致明尼苏达州州长蒂姆·瓦尔兹（Tim Walz）的一封信，批评该州对移民执法的回应，并暗示允许民权司获取该州选民名单可能有助于恢复秩序。
美国俄勒冈州联邦法官穆斯塔法·卡萨布海（Mustafa Kasubhai）写道：“在这封关于移民执法的信件中提出的这一要求的背景，严重质疑了原告在本案及其他案件中寻求选民登记名单的真正目的，以及它打算如何使用这些数据。”
Justice Dept. close to finalizing deal to hand over states’ voter roll data to Homeland Security, sources say
2026-03-26T13:40:00-0400 / CBS News
The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security are close to finalizing an agreement that will allow the federal government to use sensitive voter registration data for immigration and criminal investigations, sources with direct knowledge of the plan told CBS News. The Justice Department’s controversial collection of voter roll data is being litigated in dozens of states, and the department has not disclosed its data-sharing plans to any of the courts.
The Justice Department will share voter roll data that its Civil Rights Division is collecting from states with Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations as part of an effort to determine whether non-citizens are unlawfully registered or have cast ballots in prior elections, the sources said.
CBS News could not determine the precise details of how the data-sharing arrangement will work, though the formal request for access to the data is expected to come from Todd Lyons, who is currently the senior official performing the duties of the acting director of ICE.
The arrangement could entail the creation of a system that would let officials submit queries to match voter registration data collected by the Justice Department with DHS alien databases, one of the sources added.
“This Department of Justice is devoting significant resources to ensure that elections are free, fair, and transparent. That includes litigation to ensure voter roll maintenance and a clear focus on ensuring that American elections are decided solely by American citizens,” a spokesperson for the Justice Department said.
A DHS spokesperson said in a statement, “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.”
While some government lawyers have advocated handing over large amounts of raw voter data to DHS, others have sought to narrow the request to specific kinds of information — such as voting history and documents to verify voter eligibility, the sources added.
The White House has also been involved in discussions with officials from both the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security about the data-sharing arrangement, the sources said.
CBS could not immediately determine why the White House is involved or what specific role it is playing. The White House previously issued an executive order tasking the government with enforcing laws which prevent non-citizens from voting.
A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The tentative agreement comes as the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division remains locked in litigation with 28 states and the District of Columbia, according to its most recent press release in late February, after they refused to hand over unredacted voter rolls with data such as Social Security numbers, due to privacy concerns.
While some government lawyers have advocated handing over large amounts of raw voter data to DHS, others have sought to narrow the request to specific kinds of information — such as voting history and documents to verify voter eligibility, the sources added.
Earlier this week, DOJ and Oklahoma settled its case, with the state’s attorney general saying the agreement will ensure privacy protections will be in place.
In all of the cases, the Civil Rights Division’s attorneys have not disclosed the pending data-sharing agreement with DHS and the Justice Department, claiming instead they need the information to ensure compliance with several other federal laws that require states to maintain clean voter registration lists.
The government has also not filed any formal notice in the Federal Register explicitly disclosing its plan to collect private voter registration data, even though the Privacy Act requires the government to provide public notice and comment before it collects records on individuals.
The Justice Department’s silence about its ongoing efforts with DHS to compile large amounts of voter registration data for immigration and criminal law enforcement in its court filings could potentially run afoul of the rules of professional conduct that licensed attorneys are required to follow, legal experts say.
The American Bar Association’s model rule 3.3, a version of which has been widely adopted by all state bar licensing offices, prohibits lawyers from knowingly making false statements to the court.
“If the lawyers know they are lying or know they are withholding information, … they are 100% in jeopardy of substantial sanctions either by the bar or by the court,” said Deborah Pearlstein, the director of the Princeton program in law and public policy at Princeton University School of Public and International Affairs.
She added that if the lawyers arguing the cases do not know about it and the court has any doubt, then the judges can order relevant government officials to come and testify.
CBS News could not determine whether all of the lawyers from the Civil Rights Division who are arguing the cases in court are aware of the ongoing negotiations between the Justice Department and DHS about the data-sharing arrangement.
However, at least a handful of senior attorneys from the Civil Rights Division have been privy to some discussions about the data-sharing plan, sources with knowledge say, in addition to multiple officials in other Justice Department offices, including the deputy attorney general.
Two civil rights lawyers who were involved in at least some of the past discussions — Andrew Braniff and Jesus Osete — are currently handling appeals in three separate cases, after federal judges denied the Justice Department’s request to hand over the voter rolls.
At least two others — Acting Voting Section Chief Eric Neff and Timothy Mellett — have also been involved in some discussions about coordinating with DHS to share voter roll data, according to sources with knowledge of the matter.
Osete, Braniff, Neff and Mellett did not respond to requests for comment.
Questions of accuracy
The Justice Department has filed 30 lawsuits against primarily blue states and the District of Columbia, after they balked over demands to share sensitive voter registration data such as partial Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers.
In all of those civil complaints, attorneys from the Civil Rights Division have insisted that they are seeking voter roll data to ensure compliance with two federal laws — the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act — which require states to establish programs for maintaining clean voting lists so people ineligible to vote, such as convicted felons or non-citizens, do not cast ballots.
The Civil Rights Division also claims it is entitled to the records under a provision in the Civil Rights Act, which requires states to retain voter registration records for up to 22 months after an election. The Justice Department can demand to inspect those records, but it must provide “a statement of the basis and the purpose” for the request.
The question of whether the data will be shared with other agencies for law enforcement or immigration purposes has come up on multiple occasions as the litigation proceeds.
In one court hearing in Minnesota on March 3, a federal judge explicitly asked Justice Department Civil Rights Division attorney James Tucker if the department had any “intention to use this data to conduct immigration enforcement.”
“Not to my knowledge, your honor,” Tucker said, according to a transcript.
He went on to say that some states are voluntarily providing the voter roll data to DHS so that it can run the names against its own databases to ensure that noncitizens are not registered. He added that media reports suggesting the government is building a national voter database are “conflating” different purposes.
During another hearing in Connecticut on March 19, Tucker was asked by a different judge if there was a plan to share the data with DHS.
“I don’t believe that’s a decision that’s been made,” he said. When pressed further, he conceded that he does not know about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s future plans.
“As of today, there has been no directive or instruction that the data — the non-publicly available data — is going to be transmitted to any other agency,” he said.
Tucker did not respond to requests for comment.
Similarly, the acting chief of the division’s voting section, Eric Neff, in a sworn declaration in federal court in Connecticut also denied media reports suggesting the department was compiling a national voter file.
“Contrary to what the defendants contend through third-party hearsay, the records the United States is seeking to compel…are not intended to create ‘a federal voter database,’” Neff wrote in a March 13 filing submitted to a federal court in Connecticut.
David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and a CBS News contributor, said Neff’s declaration on its face appears problematic.
“At a minimum, there is a pretty sound basis for arguing that Neff excluded key facts from a declaration with the court,” he said.
So far, three federal courts in California’s Central District, Oregon and the Western District of Michigan have each dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuits.
In two of those cases, judges have also openly questioned the department’s true motives for seeking the records.
“The Court does not take lightly DOJ’s obfuscation of its true motives in the present matter,” wrote U.S. District Judge David Carter for the Central District of California.
In Oregon, another judge raised similar concerns and suggested the Civil Rights Division’s requests were merely “pretextual.”
The judge went on to cite suspicious behavior by the department, including a letter Attorney General Pam Bondi sent to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz criticizing his state’s response to immigration enforcement, and suggesting he could help restore order in part by allowing the Civil Rights Division access to its voter rolls.
“The context of this demand within a letter about immigration enforcement casts serious doubt as to the true purposes for which Plaintiff is seeking voter registration lists in this and other cases, and what it intends to do with that data,” wrote U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai.
（德米特里厄斯·弗里曼/《华盛顿邮报》）