Judicial Watch Urges Supreme Court to Protect Public Access to State Voter Rolls

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) supporting the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s (PILF) petition for review of a Ninth Circuit decision that allows Hawaii to shield its statewide voter registration list from public disclosure. Judicial Watch is urging the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to the Ninth Circuit ruling and overturn the decision, citing federal law designed to foster transparency that allows the use of voting rolls to uncover fraud and errors. (Public Interest Legal Foundation petitioned the Supreme Court for review in July 2026.)

This brief comes in the case Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Scott T. Nago, in his official capacity as Hawaii’s Chief State Election Officer (No. 26-98). Judicial Watch urges the court to grant Public Interest Legal Foundation’s petition to have its case heard and resolve a conflict among the federal appeals courts over whether statewide voter registration lists must be made available under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

In 2023, Public Interest Legal Foundation requested Hawaii’s statewide voter registration list under the NVRA’s public disclosure provision. Hawaii refused. A federal district court dismissed the case, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Ninth Circuit held that Hawaii’s statewide voter registration list is not a “record concerning the implementation” of programs and activities designed to ensure accurate and current voter lists under Section 8(i) of the NVRA. The court instead directed Public Interest Legal Foundation to obtain voter-registration information from individual county clerks.

In its amicus brief, Judicial Watch points out that federal law requires states to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring that accurate voter registration rolls are maintained. The NVRA specifically provides the public access to records concerning state voter-list maintenance activities.

Judicial Watch points out that its public records requests are critical in evaluating NVRA compliance:

As a result of its use of the state’s voter registration list and other election-related information and records published by the Election Assistance Commission, Judicial Watch’s efforts have led to the identification and removal of over six million outdated and ineligible names from voter rolls across nearly a dozen states.

Judicial Watch argues that Congress deliberately used broad language in requiring disclosure:

[The NVRA] requires states to “maintain” and “make available” to the public “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”

Judicial Watch’s brief emphasizes that the plain language of Section 8(i) encompasses the official statewide voter registration list:

The plain meaning and ordinary terms of Section 8(i) clearly encompass the official list of eligible voters. It is the primary and ultimate end product that concerns the implementation of all state programs and activities to ensure an accurate voter registration list….

The Ninth Circuit [held] that the voter registration list is not a record that concerns the implementations of programs and activities to ensure an accurate voter list. This ruling is not only wrong, but it also threatens electoral transparency nationwide and undermines the purposes for which Congress passed the NVRA.

It also limits the ability of organizations such as Judicial Watch to enforce the list maintenance provisions of the NVRA. Judicial Watch often uses the statewide voter registration list to determine if jurisdictions are complying with the list maintenance requirements of the NVRA. The voter registration list is key to determining whether jurisdictions are properly inactivating and then cancelling registrants who have changed address. The voter registration list will show a voter’s status and whether a voter has been changed from active to inactive after receipt of a forwardable address confirmation notice. It can also find violations whenever a jurisdiction fails to cancel a registrant as required by the NVRA after notice and the passage of two general federal elections. The Ninth Circuit’s decision would allow states to withhold such critical records and to hide a failure to implement programs and activities necessary ensure an accurate list.

Judicial Watch argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with the First Circuit’s ruling that Maine’s statewide voter registration list is subject to disclosure under the NVRA:

[A] unanimous panel of the First Circuit had no problem finding that Maine’s statewide voter registration list was a record mandated to be disclosed by the NVRA. The Maine voter registration list “plainly relates to” the implementation of programs and activities for an accurate list since it “reflects the additions and changes made by Maine election officials … as part of Maine’s voter list registration and maintenance activities.”

The brief points out that Judicial Watch’s NVRA enforcement efforts focus predominantly on the change-of-address procedure under Section 8(d):

Oftentimes, jurisdictions will fail to timely mark a registrant inactive who received a confirmation notice, or will fail to remove the inactive registrant after the second general federal election of inactivity, leaving registrants who have long moved out of state on their rolls for years or sometimes decades. State voter registration lists then become filled with ineligible registrants and people registered in multiple states. As a result, “24 million voter registrations in the United States—about one in eight— are either invalid or significantly inaccurate.”

“Dirty voter rolls mean dirty elections,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Supreme Court should take up this case and make clear that the public has a right to see the voter registration lists that leftist-controlled states are trying to hide from the public, contrary to federal law.”

Judicial Watch is a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuits and legal actions have caused the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide, including from Oregon, Colorado, Kentucky and New York City. Judicial Watch legal pressure also resulted in voter roll clean-ups in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio.

In July 2026, Judicial Watch announced that records from the Virginia Department of Elections showed the commonwealth cancelled 6,531 “declared noncitizen” voter registrations between June 2024 and June 2026.

Also in July 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced its intention to file a motion to intervene in Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit filed on behalf of a California political candidate and a state political party against the State of California due to its failure to maintain accurate voter rolls as required by the NVRA.

A federal court in Illinois ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuit to force the cleaning of voter rolls may proceed in that state.

In January 2026, in a historic case filed by Judicial Watch, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

###

The post Judicial Watch Urges Supreme Court to Protect Public Access to State Voter Rolls appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Source: https://www.judicialwatch.org/public-access-to-state-voter-rolls/