MN SOS Simon on DOJ’s Request for Voter Information: “No”

A Clear Refusal From Minnesota’s Top Election Official

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon has drawn a firm line in the ongoing debate over voter privacy and federal oversight. Responding to a request from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking access to Minnesota’s voter information, Simon’s answer was simple and unequivocal: “No.”

The DOJ’s request, which sought access to detailed voter registration data, immediately raised alarms among state officials, election advocates, and privacy experts. Simon argued that complying with the request would violate both state and federal privacy protections and undermine public trust in Minnesota’s election system.



What the DOJ Requested — and Why It Matters

According to statements from Simon’s office, the DOJ asked Minnesota to provide expanded access to voter registration records, including non-public data. While voter rolls do contain some information that is publicly accessible, much of the data—such as dates of birth, identification numbers, and contact details—is protected by law.

Simon emphasized that Minnesota already complies with federal election requirements and regularly shares publicly available voter information when legally appropriate. However, the DOJ’s request went further, seeking data that state law explicitly shields from disclosure.

Election officials argue that handing over such sensitive information could expose voters to identity theft, harassment, or misuse, especially in an era of rising cybersecurity threats.




State Authority vs. Federal Oversight

At the heart of the dispute is a longstanding constitutional question: Who controls elections—the states or the federal government?

Under the U.S. Constitution, states are primarily responsible for administering elections. Minnesota has long maintained its own election infrastructure, security protocols, and voter protection standards. Simon’s refusal underscores the belief that states—not federal agencies—are best positioned to manage voter data responsibly.

Simon has stated that while cooperation with federal authorities is important, it must happen within legal boundaries. Without a clear legal mandate or court order, he argues, Minnesota has no obligation to provide non-public voter data.




Privacy Concerns Take Center Stage

Voter privacy has become a central issue in modern elections. As misinformation and political polarization grow, election officials worry that expanded access to voter data could be used to intimidate or target voters.

Simon’s office has repeatedly emphasized that protecting voter information is essential to maintaining confidence in the democratic process. If voters fear their personal data could be freely shared with federal agencies, participation in elections could decline.

Advocacy groups and civil rights organizations have echoed these concerns, warning that excessive data sharing may discourage vulnerable communities from registering or voting.




A Broader National Pattern

Minnesota is not alone in pushing back against similar federal requests. Across the country, several states—led by secretaries of state from both major political parties—have resisted efforts to expand federal access to voter rolls.

These states argue that existing election laws already provide mechanisms for oversight without compromising privacy. In some cases, courts have sided with states, reinforcing the principle that voter data protections cannot be overridden without clear statutory authority.

The dispute highlights growing tensions between federal agencies seeking uniform standards and states determined to preserve local control.




Political Context and Timing

The DOJ’s request comes at a politically sensitive moment, as national debates over election integrity, immigration enforcement, and federal authority intensify. In Minnesota, recent federal actions have already sparked controversy, making the timing of the request particularly contentious.

Simon has avoided framing the issue in overtly partisan terms, instead focusing on legality and voter protection. Still, the refusal has become part of a broader political conversation about government power, transparency, and accountability.




What Happens Next?

Legal experts say the standoff could eventually end up in federal court if the DOJ decides to pursue legal action. Such a case could have nationwide implications, potentially shaping how voter data is handled across the United States.

For now, Minnesota remains firm in its position. Simon has reiterated that his office will continue to provide transparency where allowed by law, while refusing requests that threaten voter privacy or exceed federal authority.




Why This Issue Matters to Voters

For everyday Minnesotans, this debate may seem abstract—but its consequences are real. How voter data is handled affects trust in elections, personal privacy, and the willingness of citizens to participate in democracy.

Simon’s refusal sends a clear message: protecting voters means not only ensuring fair elections but also safeguarding the personal information of those who take part in them.




Conclusion

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon’s rejection of the DOJ’s request for voter information reflects a broader national struggle over privacy, federal power, and election administration. By standing firm, Simon has positioned Minnesota as a defender of voter data protections and state authority.

As the legal and political landscape continues to evolve, this dispute may shape future policies around voter information and election oversight. For now, Minnesota’s answer remains unchanged—and unambiguous: No.