As the 2026 midterms draw closer, it has become clear the election will take place under unprecedented federal interference with state-run election infrastructure. This series tracks how these actions affect political technology—the tools campaigns, advocacy groups, and civic organizations use to organize, communicate, and mobilize. Each post examines a specific development and its implications for practitioners building or using political tech in 2026 and beyond. Our goal is to help the political tech community understand the changing operating environment and build infrastructure that remains effective, secure, and trusted under disrupted conditions.
The Voter Roll Crisis
Hours after federal agents fatally shot U.S. citizen Alex Pretti on a Minneapolis street—only weeks after killing Renée Good—Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a three-page letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Among her demands was a request to turn over Minnesota’s complete voter registration records, including Social Security numbers (SSN) and driver’s license information, to the Trump administration.
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon’s response was a swift “no”, calling it “an outrageous attempt to coerce Minnesota into giving the federal government private data on millions of U.S. citizens” and “an apparent ransom to pay for our state’s peace and security”.
An equally concerning situation has unfolded in Georgia, where President Trump has deployed Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents to seize ballots and voting records from the 2020 elections in Fulton County. This is a district at the heart of Trump’s election conspiracy rhetoric and is a Democratic stronghold with a plurality Black population. The evidence FBI relied on to obtain this warrant is based on the same conspiracy theories officials have repeatedly debunked. This move is as much about future elections—and America’s capacity to facilitate them freely—as it is about the past election.
These are not isolated incidents. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has now sued at least 24 states demanding unredacted voter data, many of which cases the DOJ has lost. What makes this different is that Bondi explicitly linked the demand to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts, confirming that voter data collection and authoritarian control are no longer separate concerns. All of this has happened despite the federal government already having escalated and lost various attempts to access Minnesota’s voter rolls.
What Bondi Is Demanding–and Why It’s Different from What Political Organizations Use
To understand what’s at stake, here’s the difference between the voter file that political organizations use for reaching out to voters and what the DOJ is demanding.
What campaigns use: When you’re phone banking or canvassing, you’re typically using a commercial voter file from vendors such as TargetSmart or Catalist. These start with publicly available voter data (name, address, voting history, party registration where available), then add consumer data, phone numbers, email addresses, and predictive models. Critically, they don’t include SSN or driver’s license information. That sensitive data is stripped out by state privacy laws before it gets to the commercial providers.
What the DOJ is demanding: The complete, unredacted Secretary of State voter files—the authoritative source that includes voters’ date of birth, address, and either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of an SSN (depending on state practices). It is highly unusual to centralize this voter data at the federal level, not only because state privacy laws specifically protect this information, but also because elections are administered at the state level. Concerningly, these voter files may also include voting history (whether you voted, not who you voted for) and party affiliation, if the state collects that information.
The DOJ isn’t requesting enhanced campaign data, nor is it seeking information campaigns already hold on registered voters. They’re demanding the state’s voter rolls—sensitive government records that could be used to develop more false allegations of noncitizen voting. With federal databases’ plentiful historical inaccuracies, it is expected the false positives of people with similar names flagged would cause chaos for campaigns, election officials, and ultimately individual voters trying to vindicate their rights. This would also enable monitoring of political participation, cross-reference individuals across databases, and identify people for intimidation, investigation, or targeted enforcement. Not only is this a privacy issue, it also opens the doors to surveillance that’s tied to political behavior, with real consequences for whether Americans feel safe registering to vote, engaging civically, or freely participating in elections.
The Pattern Behind the Demand
Minnesota isn’t an exception. As of February 2026, the DOJ has filed lawsuits against at least 23 states and D.C. for their unredacted voter rolls. Federal courts in California, Georgia, Michigan, and Oregon dismissed DOJ efforts to compel disclosure.
The administration has indicated it would use Department of Homeland Security (DHS) systems, such as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE)—a database known to be riddled with inaccuracies—to verify eligibility, raising concerns that the government could repurpose this data for immigration-related targeting. But consider the pattern:
- Many of the jurisdictions resisting are Democratic-led, while several Republican-led states have signaled their willingness to comply and hand over their data
- Elections are constitutionally administered by states; federal centralization of voter data is unprecedented
- The DOJ offers vague “memoranda of understanding” that would let federal officials identify voters for removal
- Voter data already shared has been transferred to DHS for immigration screening
Is this really about election integrity?
Connecting Political Tech and Democracy Tech
For those of us in political technology, this moment creates a tension between the tactics essential to our work and our broader goal of protecting our democracy. The Bondi demand makes clear that political tech and democracy tech have always been intertwined. We need to understand that overlap and respond accordingly.
Here’s the reality: when campaigns and organizations do the essential democratic work of registering new voters and mobilizing turnout, we’re ultimately building the very state voter files the federal government is now demanding. Every successful voter registration drive adds names to the Secretary of State databases. Every door we knock, every person we help register, strengthens the official voter rolls that are now targets for federal seizure.
To be absolutely clear: campaigns and organizations don’t collect Social Security numbers or driver’s license information, and we never would. The commercial voter files we use are fundamentally different from what the DOJ is demanding. But the core work of democratic organizing—registering voters and turning them out—feeds the state databases that contain sensitive information.
This situation creates a painful tension. Registering and mobilizing voters is how democracy functions. It’s how we build power, win elections, and create change. We can’t and won’t stop doing this essential work. But we must now do so while recognizing that state voter files—which we help build through successful organizing—are at risk of federal seizure and misuse.
The solution isn’t to stop organizing. It’s to fight like hell to protect state voter files from federal overreach while continuing the work of democracy. The federal government is attempting to centralize control over election administration—a power constitutionally reserved to the states—mirroring tactics used by authoritarian regimes worldwide. State privacy protections are being challenged in court. The infrastructure that enables free elections is under direct assault.
This convergence means those building campaign tech must now think like democracy defenders. Data security isn’t just about protecting strategy; it’s about protecting the democratic infrastructure itself. Our work isn’t just about winning elections; it’s about preserving the systems that make free elections possible.
What This Means for Progressive Infrastructure
At Higher Ground Labs, we invest in the technology infrastructure that campaigns and organizations rely on to operate. Through our next fund, we’ll be backing companies building:
- New campaign strategies that reach voters beyond traditional channels and echo chambers to provide factual information, resist harmful misinformation, and stay in the loop about safety and security
- Civic infrastructure that strengthens democratic institutions and provides healthy civic experiences year-round, not just during election season. Empowering civic experiences tend to increase participation in all parts of civic life, including elections
- Core political tools like next-generation CRMs and advocacy platforms that citizens and social movements depend on to organize and speak up
Higher Ground Institute programs take this further by supporting the broader ecosystem: convening practitioners, sharing intelligence, and building the culture and frameworks that enable political tech to exist.
The voter roll crisis validates a core insight: we can’t separate “political tech” from “democracy tech” anymore. The platforms we invest in must be built to withstand authoritarian pressure, not just to improve campaign efficiency. Data sovereignty, encryption, and distributed architectures are no longer nice-to-have features; they are requirements for operating in an environment of active government hostility.
What Political Tech Practitioners Need to Know
If you’re working in political technology, here’s what this moment demands:
On security: Audit where voter data lives and who has access. Implement encryption, strict access controls, and a strict data retention policy. Review vendor relationships—understand their obligations to comply with federal requests. Much of federal law enforcement takes place through administrative subpoenas and voluntary inquiries to companies for people’s data, rather than through mandatory processes like a judicial warrant or subpoena.
Companies can be pressured to not extend the courtesy of voluntary compliance with those requests. It’s worth asking every vendor what their policy is for responding to federal requests for information when the company is not legally required to comply.
On legal prep: Expect subpoenas. Know your state’s privacy laws and document your compliance. Connect with voting rights organizations and other campaigns for coordinated legal resistance. Don’t fight these battles alone.
On strategy: Minimize data retention. Explore distributed architectures that make comprehensive seizures harder. Plan for continuity if primary systems are not available. Document everything—your security measures, legal compliance, and decision-making.
The stakes are clear: campaign infrastructure must now be built to withstand federal hostility, not just win elections.
The Path Forward
The 2026 midterms will determine whether Democrats can adapt fast enough and whether democratic institutions can withstand this assault. We can’t wait until the next election cycle to build resilient infrastructure.
Resilient campaign infrastructure that can withstand legal challenges, data seizures, and platform shutdowns. Open-source alternatives, encrypted communications, and distributed storage.
Protected civic tech that keeps voter registration, GOTV tools, and election protection systems operational even under federal pressure.
Data sovereignty solutions that give campaigns real control and the ability to resist federal demands.
State-level protections supporting legislative efforts to protect voter privacy and create legal frameworks for secure campaign operations.
2026 readiness that helps progressive campaigns win while preserving democratic infrastructure.
The threat is real. So, it is an opportunity to build infrastructure that protects democracy for the long term. That’s our focus for 2026: helping progressive campaigns win while safeguarding the systems that make those wins meaningful.
Higher Ground Labs invests in political technology infrastructure that enables progressive campaigns to win. Higher Ground Institute supports the broader ecosystem through convening, research, and experiments. We’re building the resilient infrastructure democracy needs.
