ACTIVIST JUDGE STRIKES AGAIN: Clinton-Appointed Judge Who Claimed Trump “Likely Committed Crimes” in Challenging 2020 Elections Now Blocks DOJ’s Voter Data Request — Calls It “Unprecedented and Illegal”

• California
• Delaware
• Maine
• Maryland
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• New Hampshire
• New Mexico
• New York
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Washington

The Department of Justice, under Trump administration, launched this legal battle to enforce “voter roll maintenance enforcement and compliance”.

The goal was clear: to investigate potential non-citizen voting and ensure that California’s voter lists are accurate and up to date. The DOJ requested standard data found in voter files, including names, voting history, and Social Security information, to verify eligibility.

Instead of allowing this crucial transparency, Judge Carter sided with the radical left. In his order, he characterized the DOJ’s attempt to verify voter eligibility as a nefarious plot to “abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots”.

Carter hysterically claimed that the DOJ “seeks an unprecedented amount of personal information related to California voters” and argued that the federal government is trying to “centralize the private information of all Americans.”

Carter wrote in his opinion:

“The DOJ cannot go beyond the boundaries provided by Congress and use these legislative tools in a manner that wholly disregards the separation of powers provided for in the Constitution.

It is Congress’ role to determine the purpose and use of legislation. Should Congress want to enable the Executive to centralize the private information of all Americans within the Executive Branch, Congress will have to clearly say so.

There is an inherent level of trust that comes along with Americans voting locally.

This is why, since the founding of our nation, the Elections Clause has constitutionally prevented the centralization of election management in the Executive by affording states the power to determine the “times, places, and manner of holding elections.” U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 4, cl. 1.

State-run elections mean that voters recognize their neighbors who staff polling stations, trust their Secretaries of State—whom they voted for—to keep their personally identifying information safe, and believe that they will not be targeted because of what they look like or who they vote for.

The DOJ’s request for the sensitive information of Californians stands to have a chilling effect on American citizens, like political minority groups and working-class immigrants, who may consider not registering to vote or skip casting a ballot because they are worried about how their information will be used.

There cannot be unbridled consolidation of all elections power in the Executive without action from Congress and public debate.

This is antithetical to the promise of fair and free elections our country promises and the franchise that civil rights leaders fought and died for.”

This is the same activist judge who presided over the John Eastman case regarding the January 6 committee subpoenas.

Carter is the one who famously wrote that President Trump “more likely than not” committed a crime by attempting to challenge the questionable results of the 2020 election.