Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
US Midterms 2026
26JUL

A third circuit takes the voter-file fight

2 min read
10:41UTC

Legal desk

PoliticsDeveloping
Key takeaway

Three circuits now hold live appeals, which is the department's only route to a precedent.

The Justice Department opened a civil appeal in the Second Circuit on 28 July, docketed as 26-2060, in United States v. Board of Elections of the State of New York. The electronic index was filed in lieu of the record that afternoon, and the district court decision under appeal is dated 10 July.

Counting dismissals has stopped being informative. What the docket adds is geography: the programme now has appeals live in three federal circuits at once, having already lost on the merits at panel level in the Sixth.

Appellate courts do not have to agree with one another, and that is the department's remaining route. A single circuit accepting that the government need not name its statutory authority would give the programme a precedent no district court has been willing to supply. Three simultaneous appeals mean three chances at it, and a split between circuits would put the question where the department has fared better.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The federal government has asked states to hand over their complete voter registration lists, and has sued the ones that refused. District courts have thrown out those suits repeatedly, mostly because the government has not said which law gives it the right to demand the data. Losing in a district court is not final: the government can appeal to a regional appeals court, and it has now done so in three different regions.

What could happen next?
  • Precedent

    A single favourable circuit ruling would give the programme the statutory-authority precedent no district court has supplied.

  • Risk

    Adverse rulings in multiple circuits would foreclose the programme far more comprehensively than district court dismissals have.

First Reported In

Update #15 · Trump's pick is being outspent in a safe seat

South Carolina State Election Commission· 4 Aug 2026
Read original →
Different Perspectives
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
DOJ appealed to the 9th Circuit after Judge David O. Carter did not rule by a noon deadline on 22 October that DOJ itself had set, seeking to have California set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 listed voters. Its case is that ineligible votes cancel lawful ones; the panel dismissed the appeal 2-1 on 26 October.
Lower Costs Now
Lower Costs Now
Lower Costs Now reported $7.37m in Kansas on 24 and 25 October, part of $65.65m in Senate races since its first independent expenditure on 1 October, including $17.21m for Josh Turek in Iowa. Its FEC filings show $50.18m raised by 14 October.
MAGA Inc
MAGA Inc
MAGA Inc, the super PAC aligned with Donald Trump, filed $7.20m against James Talarico on 22 October, taking its Texas spending to $37.65m. Of that, $30.12m is against Talarico and $7.53m is for Ken Paxton, the Republican nominee.
Senate Majority PAC (SMP)
Senate Majority PAC (SMP)
SMP's pre-general report shows it spent $108.70m from 1 to 14 October, including $65.0m to WinSenate and $10.0m to Texas Forever, and ended with $32.72m. Texas Forever has reported $19.40m against Ken Paxton since 1 October.
Senate Leadership Fund (SLF)
Senate Leadership Fund (SLF)
SLF's pre-general report shows $88.42m in cash on 14 October and $18.98m raised in the fortnight, none of it from Elon Musk. It has since reported $12.07m against Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and its $2.7m to Plains PAC preceded that committee's first Kansas buy on 25 October.
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)
The NRSC's pre-general report shows nothing spent with Ashley Hinson in Iowa, or with its nominees in six other states, from 1 to 14 October, after $5.54m with Hinson in September. It took no new loan and ended the fortnight with $25.20m in cash and $20m of debt.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.