In a big win for election integrity advocates, a federal judge has ruled that Maryland’s restrictions on accessing voter registration lists for investigative purposes violate federal law.
Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (“RITE”) sued Maryland in January of 2024 on behalf of two citizen activists, challenging a State Board of Elections (“SBE”) regulation that stopped them from conducting investigations into whether the state was removing non-residents, the deceased, and duplicate registrations.
RITE’s suit alleged Maryland’s law violated the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”), a federal law that requires states to provide the public access with records that reveal whether they are maintaining accurate and current voter registration records.
Conservatives are celebrating this decision as a victory for transparency and a critical step toward ensuring clean and accurate voter rolls.
The case was brought by Maryland voters Katherine Strauch Sullivan and David Morsberger against members of the Maryland State Board of Elections.
The plaintiffs argued that a regulation adopted by the board unlawfully restricted their right to use voter registration lists to investigate potential election irregularities.
Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland agreed with them. He ruled that Maryland’s regulation violated Section 8(i) of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
This section requires states to make all records related to maintaining accurate voter rolls publicly available. The judge found that the regulation was an obstacle to achieving the NVRA’s goals of election transparency and integrity.
What Was the Issue?
Maryland had introduced a rule in June 2023 that prevented voters from using registration lists for “investigations.”
The state required anyone requesting a voter list to sign an affidavit promising not to use the data to investigate illegal or suspicious voting behavior. If they did, they could face criminal charges.
Sullivan and Morsberger, who have a history of using voter lists to check for possible errors or violations, challenged the rule.
They wanted to continue canvassing and investigating voter lists to spot irregularities, such as voters registered at vacant lots or people who appeared to have voted more than once.
The court held that the SBE had violated federal law and enjoined its unlawful effort to suppress the plaintiffs’ work. In doing so, the court fully endorsed RITE’s position that the NVRA requires that states make voter history information available to the public, the most direct ruling from any court in the country on that issue to date.
“RITE’s win today is a significant victory for election transparency and the rule of law.” said RITE’s President & CEO Derek Lyons. “RITE warned Maryland that its regulation limiting public access to key registration records was illegal – and it is,”
“Today’s ruling enables citizens across the country, and in Maryland in particular, to conduct important investigative work that promotes clean voter rolls and safe, secure, and accurate elections.”
Why This Matters to Conservatives
For conservatives, the decision is a reaffirmation of the right to scrutinize election processes.
Many on the right believe that access to voter data is essential to finding and preventing voter fraud and maintaining trust in elections.
Groups such as Judicial Watch, which supported the plaintiffs, argue that transparency is a cornerstone of fair elections.
The court’s ruling emphasizes that federal law is clear: voter registration data should be open to the public, including for investigations into election integrity.
Judge Maddox wrote that the Maryland rule was “an obstacle to accomplishing and executing the full purposes and objectives of the NVRA.”
In a similar case last year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Maine’s restrictions on using voter registration lists. The Maryland ruling builds on that precedent, reinforcing that states cannot put up barriers that prevent the public from examining voter rolls.
What Critics Say
Opponents of the ruling, including Maryland election officials, argue that the rule was meant to protect voters from harassment.
They worry that allowing investigations using voter lists could lead to privacy violations or voter intimidation.
However, the court pointed out that Maryland already has laws against harassment and trespassing, which are more appropriate tools to address these concerns.
What’s Next?
While the ruling is a win for transparency advocates, it may not be the end of the story.
Maryland election officials could appeal the decision. However, given the strong language in the ruling and the legal precedent, conservatives are hopeful that the ruling will stand.
For now, Maryland voters who wish to analyze voter lists for election integrity purposes can do so without the threat of criminal charges. This decision could also influence similar legal battles in other states where access to voter data is restricted.
The ruling is more than just a legal win – it is a message that Americans have a right to keep an eye on how elections are run.
Conservatives see it as a victory for accountability, transparency, and the principle that every legal vote should count – and only legal votes should count.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
