this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2026
202 points (100.0% liked)

politics

27178 readers
2510 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Officials ask at least 43 states for sensitive details as critics fear effort to sow doubt about midterm election results

Alarm as Trump DoJ pushes for voter information on millions of Americans

Officials ask at least 43 states for sensitive details as critics fear effort to sow doubt about midterm election results Sam Levine in New York Thu 15 Jan 2026 07.00 EST

The justice department is undertaking an unprecedented effort to collect sensitive voter information about tens of millions of Americans, a push that relies on thin legal reasoning and which could be aimed at sowing doubt about the midterm election results this year.

The department has asked at least 43 states for their comprehensive information on voters, including the last four digits of their social security numbers, full dates of birth and addresses, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Eight states have voluntarily turned over the information, according to the Brennan Center, and the department has sued 23 states and the District of Columbia for the information.

Many of the states have faced lawsuits after refusing to turn over the information, citing state privacy laws. Some of the states have provided the justice department with voter lists that have sensitive personal information redacted, only to find themselves sued by the department. Nearly every state the justice department has sued is led by Democratic election officials.

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 39 points 2 days ago (2 children)

i give basically 0% chance of there not being martial law declared before these elections, which, if they happen at all, will be an absolute sham. unless some miracle happens

[–] Red_October@piefed.world 21 points 2 days ago

Somewhere in that sack of shit there's a blood clot longing to break free. We can always hope.

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

martial law and trying to cancel elections is my red line. like out in the streets embracing 2nd amendment rights red line. like not giving a fuck what happens afterwards red line.

[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

out in the street is where they want you. don't give them what they want

no matter how overwhelming or advanced an invader thinks they are, they'll never beat organized guerilla tactics fighting on their home turf. see vietnam, afghanistan

[–] karashta@piefed.social 32 points 2 days ago (2 children)

How long until ICE is kicking in the doors of any registered Democrat?

[–] ghostlychonk@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They can't even rely on that. My state doesn't require party registration to vote (I always thought that was a weird thing, anyway).

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There’s too many Democrats for that. It will probably be a different, more scalable type of oppression. My guess is better analytics for voter suppression and gerrymandering.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

I think more actual fraud at this point and random publicized door kicks not really any different than what they're doing now. Just with "demonrat" justification rather than illegal immigrant justification.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I am a registered Republican. I have never voted for a Republican in a general election in my life. You don't have to vote for the party you are registered with.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Please keep voting in the primaries.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago

The main reason I registered Republican was to cast my vote for moderate candidates in the primaries. Sadly, those are becoming harder to find since 9/11.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

~~One could look at that as more suspicious in the context of why they may be trying to collect this data. This is the guy that wanted Georgia to "find more votes" and a registered Republican voting for a Democrat sounds like one of those things that is "obviously a mistake" as you surely intended to vote R.~~

~~A registered Democrat voting for a Democratic candidate would be largely assumed, but if all your votes are going to another party, this may be the so far undiscovered "evidence" of the Dems stealing votes or doing fraudulent mail in or drop off ballots.~~

~~I don't disagree with what you do, I just think it would stand out more if I were to be looking for statistical anomalies.~~

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There is no way to tell who voted for who. That's not how the voter systems work.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

You are correct. I just reeducated myself. They just have a record if you voted or not. Apologies.

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm sure this has nothing to do with Palantir providing lists of people to target and deport

I mean, what are they gonna do, use this information to target likely dissenters against the government?? /s

Anyone and everyone who voted for this is an irredeemable piece of shit, and should be stripped of their right to vote for the rest of their miserable lives

[–] BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Honestly, I see no viable recourse with those who voted for him three times now and support him whole hearted. They want to cause pain, misery, they're the opposite of compassion. They view compassion as something they should get, no one else. They live in a different world than us.

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

their worldview quite literally stems from the idea that there should be Out-Groups whom the law binds but does not protect, and In-Groups whom the law protects but does not bind. That's how they square their "don't tread on me" attitude with their want of big government. They recognize that in order to properly humiliate and subjugate "the others," they need a big state militarized police force and constant surveillance, but if they were ever themselves to fall victim to it, then they cry foul. They can't learn the lesson until they're caught up in it, and usually instead of updating their opinion and voting like it, they simply drop out of the democratic process all together, saying that "both parties are the same."

They are the uneducated simpletons that the founding fathers feared, which is why they originally wanted only educated people to vote. I'm, uh, starting to come around to the idea myself.

There's still educated, intelligent people who look at others that way, it's not wholly education. Though you can argue they're less likely to be conservative and more aware of the state of the proletariat.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago

Now there is an “alarm”?! Ffs