High Country Advocate Staff Report
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold issued a defiant response to the Trump administration on December 3, telling the Department of Justice to “take a hike” after federal officials requested unredacted voter registration data.
“We will not comply with the Trump Department of Justice’s request for Coloradans’ sensitive voting information,” Griswold stated. “The DOJ can take a hike; it does not have a legal right to the information. Colorado will not help Donald Trump undermine our elections and hurt the American people.”
The refusal marks the latest confrontation between Griswold and the Trump administration—a relationship that soured in December 2023 when Griswold supported removing Trump from Colorado’s 2024 ballot.
The Request
On December 2, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division asked Colorado to 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 request came under three federal laws that grant the Attorney General authority to inspect voter registration records: the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act.
Griswold claims the DOJ “does not have a legal right to the information.” But federal law says otherwise. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 explicitly grants the Attorney General authority to demand inspection of voter registration records. The National Voter Registration Act requires states to maintain accurate rolls and allows federal oversight. The Help America Vote Act establishes federal election administration standards.
The Trump Factor
Griswold’s history with Trump complicates this confrontation. In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Trump was disqualified from Colorado’s 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause. The court ordered Griswold not to certify his candidacy.
Griswold supported the ruling and prepared to implement it. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision on March 4, 2024, ruling that Congress, not states, is responsible for enforcing the 14th Amendment against federal candidates.
The episode positioned Colorado Democrats as Trump antagonists and cemented Griswold as a leading figure in the “resistance.” But it also ensured she would get no goodwill from a second Trump administration.
When the DOJ began requesting voter data from states in May 2025, Colorado was among at least 26 states contacted. Griswold provided only publicly available data—the same response she gave this week before refusing the December 2 request for unredacted information.
What Federal Agencies Want
The DOJ has been clear about its purpose: verifying state compliance with federal election laws that require accurate voter rolls. The Department of Homeland Security has confirmed it is using voter data to identify non-citizens potentially registered to vote.
Ten Democratic secretaries of state, including Griswold, sent a letter in November expressing “immense concern” that DOJ shared voter data with DHS. They cited conflicting information from federal officials.
In September, a DHS official told secretaries of state that DHS hadn’t received voter data and wouldn’t 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 federal government is using voter data to identify non-citizens who may be registered to vote. Non-citizens cannot legally vote in federal elections. If they are on state voter rolls, those rolls violate federal law.
Colorado’s Track Record
Griswold’s refusal comes as she campaigns for attorney general in 2026, after her gubernatorial ambitions collapsed when Senator Michael Bennet entered that race in April 2025.
But her refusal also comes after documented problems with Colorado’s election administration under her watch:
The Judicial Watch Settlement: In 2020, Judicial Watch sued Griswold’s office for failing to remove ineligible voters under federal law. After a federal judge refused to dismiss key claims, Griswold quietly settled in 2023, agreeing to annual reports on voter roll maintenance. The settlement forced continued federal monitoring—because the court found problems.
The Password Scandal: 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 filed no charges. The employee “no longer works there.”
The Peters Double Standard: Tina Peters sits in prison serving nine years for allegedly compromising election security. Griswold’s office actually posted passwords online for months—and no one faced charges.
If Griswold’s office can’t keep passwords secure and already lost a federal lawsuit over voter roll maintenance, why should anyone trust her claims about “gold standard” elections without federal verification?
Only Two States Complied
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, only Indiana and Wyoming have provided their complete voter registration databases to the DOJ. Out of at least 26 states contacted, most have either provided only publicly available data or refused outright.
The DOJ has now sued 14 states: California, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
Colorado hasn’t been sued yet, but Griswold’s spokesperson acknowledged “it certainly seems possible” given how many other states face litigation.
The pattern is clear: Democratic-controlled states are refusing federal oversight. All 10 secretaries of state who signed the November letter demanding answers from DOJ were Democrats. Of the 14 states DOJ has sued, all have Democratic governors or Democratic secretaries of state. The two states that fully complied—Indiana and Wyoming—are Republican-controlled.
Federal Authority vs. State Defiance
Griswold frames this as protecting voter privacy from federal overreach. But federal agencies routinely share sensitive data under Privacy Act protections that would apply to voter information.
The IRS shares tax information with state revenue departments. Social Security Administration data flows to state Medicaid programs. State DMVs provide driving records to insurance companies and employers. Law enforcement agencies share criminal databases across jurisdictions daily.
Federal law explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to inspect voter registration records under three separate statutes. States may have privacy laws that limit public access to voter data, but federal law supersedes state law when there’s a conflict—as established in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
If Griswold believes the DOJ lacks authority, she should make that argument in federal court. Instead, she makes it in press releases with inflammatory rhetoric about “undermining elections” and “hurting the American people.”
The Political Calculation
Griswold needs “resistance” credentials for her 2026 attorney general campaign. Democratic primary voters reward defiance of Trump. Every headline showing Griswold standing up to the Trump administration generates campaign coverage and establishes her as a progressive fighter.
But there’s a deeper calculation. If the DOJ finds problems with Colorado’s voter rolls—duplicates, deceased voters still registered, non-citizens on the rolls—that discovery undermines Griswold’s brand as guardian of “gold standard” elections.
She can’t afford federal scrutiny. Not after losing the Judicial Watch case. Not after the password scandal. Not with Peters’ prosecution highlighting the double standard.
And she certainly can’t give the Trump administration—which she tried to keep off Colorado’s ballot—any satisfaction.
What Comes Next
The DOJ will likely sue Colorado, as it has sued 14 other states that refused to provide voter data. A federal court will decide whether the Attorney General has authority under three federal statutes to inspect voter rolls.
The law appears clear. The Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act all grant the Attorney General enforcement authority that includes inspecting voter registration records.
The question is whether federal courts will enforce federal election law over state resistance—or whether Democratic secretaries of state can obstruct federal inspection through press releases and political theater.
Griswold told the DOJ to “take a hike.” The Trump administration, which Griswold tried to keep off the ballot, will likely respond with a lawsuit.
For Griswold, this confrontation serves her 2026 campaign regardless of the legal outcome. Win or lose in court, she gets headlines positioning her as a Trump fighter. That’s valuable currency in a Democratic primary.
For Colorado voters, the question remains: if the state maintains accurate voter rolls in compliance with federal law, why refuse federal inspection? Clean rolls would validate Griswold’s claims. Refusing inspection suggests something else is going on.
The DOJ apparently intends to find out—with or without Griswold’s cooperation.
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.
