Earlier this month, U.S. Department of Justice officials requested an electronic copy of Maine’s statewide voter registration list under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). In her official reply, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows rejected the request, citing state law and concerns about personal information. Unfortunately, her memo misstates constitutional authority, misapplies case law, misinterprets both state and federal requirements, and ignores concerning electoral figures.
Misreading the Constitution’s Elections Clause
On page one of her letter, Bellows repeats the claim that “Under Article I of the Constitution, the administration of federal elections is entrusted to the States.” That statement omits the second half of the Elections Clause, the very following sentence: Congress has explicit authority to “make or alter” state rules for federal elections at any time. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), “the Constitution allotted to the States the power to make laws regarding national elections, but provided that, if Congress became dissatisfied with the state laws, Congress could alter them. A newly created national government could hardly have been expected to survive without the ultimate power to rule itself and to fill its offices under its own laws.”
By framing federal oversight as an overreach, Bellows ignores decades, arguably centuries, of precedent confirming that Congress and, by extension, the DOJ, may review and enforce compliance with federal election law.
The NVRA Requires Disclosure, With Safeguards
The DOJ’s request cites 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i), which requires states to make available “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities” to maintain accurate voter rolls. The law includes lists of voters contacted for confirmation and their response status, and it applies to public inspection unless the information falls under specific exceptions.
Bellows claims that state law (21-A M.R.S.A. § 196-A) prevents her from complying. But § 196-A explicitly allows disclosure to “governmental or quasi-governmental” entities, which obviously includes the DOJ. The First Circuit’s decision in Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Bellows, which she cites to support her position, concerned requests by a political party, not a federal agency. That case addressed exceptions B and J of § 196-A, not the governmental exception in paragraph E.
Even the PILF ruling acknowledged that “proper redaction of highly sensitive information can be accomplished without an undue burden on the State.” If the concern was personally identifiable information, Maine could have complied by redacting protected data rather than refusing the request outright.
Privacy Act Concerns Are Misplaced
Bellows asks the DOJ to explain how its request aligns with the Privacy Act of 1974 and the E-Government Act of 2002. But the Privacy Act’s § 552a(e)(3) notice requirement applies when an agency collects data directly from individuals, not when it obtains information from another government entity. Once in government hands, the data would remain subject to statutory restrictions on use and disclosure. Raising the Privacy Act as a barrier to providing the list is unfair and unreasonable. Furthermore, her concerns about the federal government disclosing private information are disproven by the very laws she cited, which clearly prohibit the government from doing so.
Maine’s Registration Numbers Are a National Outlier
The Secretary also disputes that Maine’s 92.4% voter registration rate is unusually high. In reality, Census Bureau data show Maine’s registration rate is nearly 20 percentage points higher than the national registration rate of 73.6%. We also reject far fewer voter applications (0.26%) compared to the nationwide total (2.5%), and our turnout rate exceeds the national average by over 10%. These are all statistical outliers, precisely the kind of indicators that justify closer scrutiny under the NVRA. While Secretary Bellows’ argument that the DOJ making this request of all fifty states may be a strong argument in a state without these statistical outliers, that is not the case in Maine.
The Bigger Picture
Federal oversight of state election administration is not political intrusion; it is the Constitution’s design. Congress empowered the DOJ to ensure uniform compliance with voter registration and list maintenance requirements. Maine’s refusal to provide the requested records rests on a flawed reading of both federal and state law.
The NVRA provides a straightforward path: give the DOJ the voter list, redact any truly sensitive details, and maintain transparency with the public. That’s not a heavy lift, but Secretary Bellows’ refusal fits a pattern.
From her failed attempt to remove the sitting president from Maine’s 2024 ballot, to her current bid for governor, this fight over basic compliance seems less about the law and more about manufacturing a political flashpoint for her campaign.
