I am concerned by what I see as repeated efforts by the Trump administration to use unilateral executive power to reshape federal policy without proper congressional approval. From attempts to alter voter registration rules and restrict mail-in voting procedures to efforts involving birthright citizenship, independent agencies, inspectors general and federal funding conditions, these actions raise serious questions about separation of powers.
As an ordinary citizen, writing publicly is one way I can assert my ownership in the democratic process and insist that the branches of government remain in the balance the Constitution intended.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican, in February 2026 because of her refusal to turn over Utah’s complete, unredacted voter registration rolls, which included driver’s license numbers, the last digits of Social Security numbers and full dates of birth. The lieutenant governor is to be commended for her refusal because it is her duty to uphold state law and protect Utah’s constituents, regardless of party affiliation.
Under Article 1, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, primary authority over the time, place and manner of elections rests with the states. Decentralized election administration was intentional on the part of the framers of the Constitution to prevent any single federal entity from amassing unchecked authority over the voting process, and it is essential to securing and maintaining the trust of the voters.
Civic participation depends on the guarantee that our votes belong to us — not to a centralized federal database.
Henderson’s refusal matters because it is an example of an official saying that constitutional protections and democratic checks are not optional. This is not a partisan issue. That is why I care about Henderson’s refusal to comply with the DOJ’s demand for constitutionally protected information.
Voter information is not just bureaucratic data; it is tied to the fundamental right of citizens to participate in elections without intimidation, coercion or unnecessary government intrusion. When a federal agency seeks access to sensitive election-related information, public officials have a duty to ask whether that request is lawful, justified and respectful of constitutional limits.
The DOJ claims this is about preventing noncitizen voting, but recent audits confirm that 99.7% of registered voters are American citizens; therefore, the DOJ’s obvious purpose is to increase federal control over elections through executive orders and proposed legislation. This is clearly an abuse of power and risks diminishing free and fair elections.
Utah is not alone in this battle. While several states chose to hand over their citizens’ confidential data to federal authorities without a fight, most chief election officials across both political parties have refused the DOJ’s push for private citizens’ data, data that is constitutionally protected. So far, the DOJ has sued 29 states. None of the 18 federal courts (and judges appointed by both parties) have sided with the DOJ.
Henderson’s position is not about political obstruction or partisan grandstanding; it is part of a broad, bipartisan nationwide consensus to defend state sovereignty, constitutional limits and voter privacy.
Would you support a federal agency gathering private data if the party in power changed tomorrow? If federal overreach concerns us only when the other party does it, it isn’t federalism we care about — it’s power. Upholding constitutional limits means defending the rule of law even when it is politically inconvenient.
Public trust is fragile. Civic participation depends on the guarantee that our votes belong to us — not to a centralized federal database. We should challenge our federal representatives to respect the constitutional boundaries of election administration and support state leaders who refuse to treat our personal identification as federal property. Hats off to Henderson for supporting the U.S. and Utah constitutions.
I am just an ordinary citizen, but ordinary citizens are the ones the framers had in mind when they opposed centralized elections. Please pass on your thanks to Henderson for standing behind the Constitution and protecting our rights.