This morning, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division filed six new lawsuits, against states that have refused to give DOJ copies of the voter file complete with sensitive information like SSN digits (and, not for nothing, data on individuals’ party registration). The litigation was filed against California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania (the complaints are linked in the press release) — joining suits filed a few days ago against Maine and Oregon.

As with Maine and Oregon, while nobody likes getting sued, I think this litigation is likely to be a good thing — now there will be federal judges carefully examining the claims that DOJ has made about its authority under specific statutes, and truly putting them to the test. I also think the breadth of the litigation is likely to be a good thing, as it enables that conversation in the context of the DOJ’s reported attempt to acquire a national voter file – having eight states sued at once makes that context more present.

I’ve not been shy about my feelings about the merits of the DOJ’s demands under HAVA or the NVRA or the CRA, or about what I still think are grievously unanswered questions about Privacy Act lapses subjecting DOJ officials to criminal liability. (See, for example, here, here, and here.) Now there are eight opportunities for federal judges to decide whether those concerns are right or wrong — and eight reasons for other states to wait for the courts rather than rush to comply with an unwarranted demand — and I think that’s also a good thing. (And even if the states lose, having disclosure driven by court order — including the potential for court-supervised confidentiality protections otherwise unavailable in just responding to a DOJ letter — also seems like a win.)