High Country Advocate Staff Report
The U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security ignored a December 1 deadline to respond to questions from ten Democratic secretaries of state about federal collection and use of voter data.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold issued a statement on December 2 criticizing the silence from Attorney General Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
“The Trump Administration’s requests for voter data are unprecedented,” Griswold stated. “Americans deserve to know that when they register to vote, the Trump administration will not misuse their information. As Secretary of State, I will always fight for Colorado’s voters and will continue to seek transparency from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Trump Administration.”
The federal response came later that same day—but not in the form Griswold expected.
The November 18 Letter
On November 18, ten Democratic secretaries of state sent a joint letter to Bondi and Noem demanding answers about federal handling of voter data. The signatories were Griswold and officials from Arizona, California, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—all Democrats.
The letter asked whether DOJ shared voter data with DHS, whether federal officials misled state officials about this sharing, and how DHS planned to use the data. They gave federal officials until December 1 to respond.
The letter followed reports that federal officials provided conflicting information about whether DHS received voter data from DOJ. In September, a DHS official told secretaries of state that DHS had not received voter data and would not use it. The next day, DHS confirmed to Stateline that it was collaborating with DOJ to “scrub aliens from voter rolls.”
On Halloween, DHS posted an administrative update indicating it was expanding a tool—previously used to verify immigration status for federal benefits—to check voting rolls.
The ten secretaries of state expressed “immense concern” that federal agencies misled them. But notice what they did not express concern about: whether non-citizens are registered to vote in their states.
The Federal Silence
December 1 came and went with no response from DOJ or DHS. Federal officials ignored the letter entirely.
This silence is significant. If DOJ and DHS were mishandling sensitive voter data or misleading state officials, that would be a serious federal violation worthy of investigation. But federal officials apparently concluded the letter was political posturing rather than a genuine legal concern requiring response.
The secretaries of state have no authority over federal agencies. Their letter carried no legal weight. It was a public relations document designed to frame the Trump administration as unresponsive and untrustworthy on election matters.
Federal officials called that bluff by simply not responding.
Griswold Complains About Being Ignored
On December 2, Griswold issued a press release complaining that federal agencies “did not reply” to the letter. Her statement framed this as federal disrespect for state election officials and lack of transparency.
But her complaint about lack of transparency is curious given Colorado’s own transparency problems.
In October 2024, Griswold’s office was caught with BIOS passwords for voting equipment in 34 of Colorado’s 64 counties posted online. The passwords had been accessible since June. Griswold called it a “serious mistake” but provided little transparency about how it happened, how long it actually remained online, who had access, or why no criminal charges were filed. The employee “no longer works there” was the extent of accountability.
When the public demanded transparency about that security breach, Griswold blamed a civil servant and moved on. When she demands transparency from federal agencies, she expects immediate compliance.
Federal Officials Respond—With a New Request
Later on December 2, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division contacted Colorado with a new request: enter an agreement to share unredacted voter data including full names, dates of birth, residential addresses, and complete driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers.
The timing reveals federal strategy. Instead of answering questions about transparency, federal officials demanded what federal law authorizes them to demand: voter registration data for inspection under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act.
DOJ essentially said: you want to know what we’re doing with voter data? Here’s what we’re doing—enforcing federal election law. Comply or face a lawsuit like the fourteen states we’ve already sued.
The response was a power move. Griswold complained about federal unresponsiveness in the morning. By evening, federal officials made an even bigger demand she would be forced to refuse publicly.
What DHS Is Actually Doing
The secretaries of state know exactly what DHS is doing with voter data—they just don’t like it.
DHS is using voter registration data to identify non-citizens potentially registered to vote. This is entirely appropriate federal law enforcement. Non-citizens cannot legally vote in federal elections. If they’re on state voter rolls, those rolls violate federal law.
The secretaries of state frame this as federal overreach and potential harassment of voters. But the real concern is political: if DHS finds substantial numbers of non-citizens on state voter rolls, that discovery undermines Democratic claims about election security and accurate voter registration.
Griswold’s statement said “Americans deserve to know that when they register to vote, the Trump administration will not misuse their information.” But non-citizens are not Americans and should not be registered to vote in the first place.
If Colorado’s voter rolls contain only eligible citizens, federal inspection validates that compliance. If rolls contain non-citizens, Colorado should want to know and fix the problem. Resisting inspection suggests Colorado fears what inspection might reveal.
The Coordinated Democratic Strategy
This is not a Colorado-specific issue. It’s a coordinated strategy among Democratic state officials to resist federal election integrity enforcement.
All ten secretaries who signed the November 18 letter are Democrats. Of the 14 states DOJ has sued for refusing to provide voter data, all have Democratic governors or Democratic secretaries of state. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, only Indiana and Wyoming—both Republican-controlled—have fully complied with federal requests.
The partisan pattern is unmistakable. This is not about protecting voter privacy. Federal agencies routinely share far more sensitive data under Privacy Act protections that would apply to voter information. This is about Democratic officials resisting Trump administration enforcement of federal election law.
The November 18 letter was part of this strategy. Ten Democratic secretaries sent a joint complaint about federal “transparency” while simultaneously refusing to provide the data federal law authorizes the Attorney General to inspect.
Federal Law vs. Political Theater
The secretaries of state claim DOJ and DHS are overreaching. But three federal statutes explicitly grant the Attorney General authority to inspect voter registration records.
The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was designed to prevent states from disenfranchising eligible voters through discriminatory practices. But it also requires states to maintain accurate rolls—which includes removing ineligible voters.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to conduct regular voter roll maintenance programs. The Attorney General has enforcement authority.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 establishes federal election administration standards. The Attorney General has enforcement authority.
Griswold claims the DOJ requests are “unprecedented.” But federal agencies have routinely shared exactly this type of sensitive data for decades. Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, state DMVs share driver’s license data—including photos, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and identifying information—with federal agencies including DHS for law enforcement and national security purposes. This sharing has occurred for 20 years under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
The DOJ is not requesting anything beyond what these statutes authorize, and the data sharing follows established federal practices. The question is whether states will comply with federal election law or whether Democratic officials can obstruct enforcement through press releases and coordinated resistance.
Griswold’s Political Needs
The timing of Griswold’s complaint is revealing. She’s running for attorney general in 2026 after her gubernatorial campaign collapsed when Senator Michael Bennet entered that race in April 2025.
Democratic primary voters reward “resistance” to Trump. Complaining about federal unresponsiveness and demanding transparency from the Trump administration generates campaign coverage and establishes Griswold as a progressive fighter.
But Griswold also has a practical reason to resist federal inspection. In 2023, she settled a federal lawsuit with Judicial Watch over voter roll maintenance failures. Her office was already under federal monitoring because a court found problems with Colorado’s voter roll maintenance.
If DOJ inspection finds more problems—including non-citizens on the rolls—that discovery undermines her brand as guardian of “gold standard” elections.
Griswold can’t afford that discovery before her 2026 campaign. So she demands “transparency” from federal agencies while blocking their statutory authority to inspect Colorado’s voter rolls.
What Happened Next
The December 2 complaint about federal unresponsiveness set up the December 3 confrontation. After DOJ made its new request on December 2, Griswold responded on December 3 with her now-famous line: “The DOJ can take a hike.”
The sequence reveals the theater behind this standoff. Griswold complained federal agencies weren’t answering her questions. Federal agencies responded by demanding what federal law authorizes them to demand. Griswold refused with inflammatory rhetoric.
Each press release generates campaign coverage. Each confrontation with the Trump administration boosts her standing with Democratic primary voters. Win or lose in federal court, Griswold gets the political benefit of appearing to fight Trump.
Meanwhile, the substantive question remains unanswered: does Colorado’s voter roll contain non-citizens? If not, federal inspection proves it. If so, shouldn’t Colorado want to fix the problem?
Federal agencies apparently decided that answering questions from Democratic secretaries of state was less important than enforcing federal election law. They ignored the November 18 letter and instead made demands backed by statutory authority.
Griswold complained about the lack of response. Federal officials responded by demanding compliance with federal law. Now Colorado faces the choice fourteen other states face: comply or explain to a federal judge why states should be exempt from federal election integrity enforcement.
The complaint about transparency was political theater. The federal response was law enforcement. The question is whether Colorado’s federal court will side with the Attorney General’s statutory authority—or with a secretary of state who demands transparency from others while refusing to allow federal inspection of her own voter rolls.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent.
