Voting wasn’t top of mind for Minnesotans on the bitter cold January morning when Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti. But Attorney General Pam Bondi had the state’s elections on her agenda. Her January 24 letter landed in St. Paul on the same day. In it, the attorney general suggested that all Gov. Tim Walz had to do to expedite the departure of ICE and immigration agents from Minneapolis after the shootings of Pretti and Renee Good, though she offered no assurances, was to follow her “common sense solutions”: Reverse sanctuary policies, allow immigration agents to track down undocumented people in the prisons and jails, and turn over the state’s Medicaid, food, and nutrition program records.
She also wanted Minnesota’s voter rolls. “Fulfilling this common sense request will better guarantee free and fair elections and boost confidence in the rule of law,” Bondi wrote.
It was a baffling request to bring up in the middle of the most intense period of civil unrest since the death of Minnesota resident George Floyd almost six years ago. Immigration agents have killed at least eight people and wounded nine more during their nationwide terror campaign, while causing at least 32 others to die in detention camps. Baffling, that is, until one plowed through that mental minefield and remembered the midterm elections and pending court cases that have the administration very nervous. The start of mail-in and in-person voting for the state’s August 11 primary is set for the end of July, and the state is already in litigation over the Justice Department’s earlier demands.
“The answer to Attorney General Bondi’s request is no,” said Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon in a bristling statement. He underscored that the state had already responded to the Justice Department and reminded Bondi about the pending litigation.
“It is deeply disturbing that the U.S. Attorney General would make this unlawful request a part of an apparent ransom to pay for our state’s peace and security,” he wrote. “More broadly, the federal government must end the unprecedented and deadly occupation of our state immediately. The tactics used by too many ICE agents have been dangerous, destabilizing, unnecessarily cruel, and counterproductive. They are tactics that often seem aimed at instilling fear more than protecting the public.”
Last year, President Trump issued an executive order that illustrated his interest in federalizing elections through a variety of mechanisms.
Bondi’s request added to the nationwide outrage over the Trump’s administration attempts to federalize a state’s election administration processes, this time with a quid pro quo. The basis for states’ opposition to Bondi’s demand is easy to explain. Election administration is laid out in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, of the Constitution, which reads, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof …”
“The federal government does not run our elections and the executive branch in particular has no role in running our elections,” says Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the Brennan Center’s voting rights and elections program. “It’s telling and it’s chilling that this administration through this letter from Attorney General Bondi has made explicit a connection between the kind of law enforcement abuses, immigration enforcement activities, and the things that are happening in places like Minnesota and the administration’s campaign to undermine elections.”
Last year, President Trump issued an executive order that illustrated his interest in federalizing elections through a variety of mechanisms: requiring voters to show proof of citizenship, adding additional paperwork requirements for military and overseas voters, mandating receipt of mail-in ballots by Election Day, and other elements—all tied to a possible loss of federal funding for noncompliant states. Federal courts have blocked several of the executive order’s provisions, including the proof of citizenship and mail-in ballot orders.
Minnesota is just one of many states, along with the District of Columbia, that have received Justice Department requests for their voter data. The department has filed lawsuits against 24 states and the District for noncompliance; 11 others plan to provide the data; and ten states have requested more information. Combating voter fraud has been one of the primary reasons for the request, but numerous researchers have found that voter fraud, and especially noncitizen voting, is practically nonexistent.
The states that agree to cooperate would be subject to a Justice Department memorandum of understanding. State officials would have to remove voters who fail to meet the federal department’s criteria for voting eligibility within 45 days of being notified. The Democratic National Committee has warned both Democratic and Republican states that agreeing to provide the voter information may violate the federal National Voter Registration Act.
Last October, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson announced that the Justice Department wanted state registration data and that federal officials refused to explain why. “Other secretaries of state—both Democrats and Republicans—have asked them that. They won’t tell us,” she said.
Federal courts have dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuits against California and Oregon. In the California case, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled that the department’s request was “unprecedented and illegal.” (A federal judge in Georgia dismissed a department lawsuit that had been filed in the wrong court; the suit has been refiled.)
Although it’s a federal crime for members of the military or armed federal forces to deploy or be present at polling places or other election sites or to interfere with the conduct of elections or with election officials, the federal government’s overreach has immigrants as well as citizens particularly worried about ICE agents at polling places.
Last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom warned that immigration agents and members of the military might patrol around voting places “all around the country.” (KQED, the San Francisco–area PBS station, reported that an ICE statement indicated that the agency had no plans to monitor voting locations unless they were tracking a “dangerous criminal alien” near such a site.)
In the 2020s, states have had to confront a pandemic, natural disasters, cybersecurity threats from malicious actors foreign and domestic, and voter and election official intimidation. In response, election officials have implemented a variety of procedures to protect voters, election workers, and property. However, the Minnesota crisis and new ICE activity in Boston and Portland, Maine, introduces a new dynamic that amplifies the debate over ICE excesses.
State and local election officials are not only gearing up for lawsuits, but for other disruptions. President Trump has encouraged an unprecedented midterm redistricting push designed to give Republicans electoral advantages in the House of Representatives. He’s also recently said that he regrets not seizing voting equipment in 2020 and would like to do away with the machines altogether. He now supports a ban on mail-in voting after encouraging the use of it in 2024.
Throughout this hyperpolarized era, most election officials across the country regardless of party affiliation have expressed strong interest in preserving the integrity of American elections. But in 2026, the most serious threat to free and fair elections originates in Washington. “What’s different about this election,” says the Brennan Center’s Morales-Doyle, “is that we actually have the president explicitly declaring that he has power over elections that he does not have and attempting to exercise that nonexistent power in all kinds of ways: through that executive order that he issued, these voter roll requests and lawsuits, and through the ransom note that AG Bondi wrote—and we will continue to see more of that heading into the election.”