Utah’s massive voter data shift

Thousands of Utah voters received a letter in the mail last week explaining that their voter registration data will soon be publicly available unless they qualify as an “at-risk” voter.

Since 2018, Utah has been the only state in the country allowing voters to withhold their information without a reason. On May 25, more than 300,000 voters will lose this “withheld” status.

Another million voters, out of the state’s 1.8 million active registered voters, will lose their “private” status, which allowed political groups to access their information, but not private individuals.

The Legislature approved the change in a stated attempt to comply with federal election law. Meanwhile Utah is also facing a lawsuit from the Trump administration over access to more sensitive voter data.

What does the law do?

In March, lawmakers voted mostly along party lines to remove the option to make one’s voter registration data private when registering to vote. The default will flip to public for almost all voters.

This will make the administration of elections “cleaner and simpler” following multiple changes to “withheld” and “private” status over the past decade, Utah deputy director of elections Shelly Jackson said.

Public voting records include a voter’s name, voter identification number, address, party affiliation, voter status and recent election participation. It does not include how an individual voted.

The information of almost all voters can be made available to political parties, campaign operations and concerned citizens for a fee of $1,050. This level of access is standard across the country.

Utah will join more than 30 states that allow voter files to be purchased by anyone. Another 19 states limit information to certain groups like campaigns, parties, nonprofits and journalists.

To qualify as “at-risk,” a voter must be, or live with, a victim of domestic violence, a law enforcement officer, a military member, an individual protected by court order or a public figure who has received threats.

The “at-risk” voter designation will be determined by county clerks who will review the documents which are required under the law to prove a voter qualifies to have their information withheld.

What is the federal law?

Supporters of the new law, passed as SB153, said the state’s expanded privacy status violated the National Voter Registration Act, which requires records to be open to public inspection in some cases.

Utah’s policy has already opened up the state to legal challenges. Last year, former gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman sued the state, making an argument later repeated by lawmakers in the 2026 session.

Lyman’s lawsuit was dismissed in January because a U.S. district judge ruled that Lyman was not directly harmed by the law as a candidate. Lyman, who is now running for Congress, said he would appeal.

Courts are still deciding how the NVRA of 1993 should be applied to state privacy laws and the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office believes it was already in compliance before SB153, according to Jackson.

“The NVRA was passed during a different time when there wasn’t all these concerns about privacy. We didn’t have this access to online,” Jackson told the Deseret News. “Those are important things to keep in mind.”

Opponents of SB153 have voiced concern that in the current political environment it could lead to doxing, when someone’s personal information is posted on the internet in a threatening manner.

The law clarifies that voter lists can only be purchased for specific political purposes. It is a class A misdemeanor to knowingly disclose the information obtained from the voter list on the internet.

Why is Trump suing Utah?

The Trump administration has also appealed to the NVRA in a separate lawsuit against the state of Utah.

In February, the Department of Justice announced it had added Utah to the list of 29 states it was suing for allegedly failing to hand over full voter registration lists upon request.

The lawsuit argues that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 empowers the attorney general to review state election records. The DOJ originally requested the data in 2025 under the NVRA.

Federal authorities stated that auditing voter rolls was necessary to ensure election security, particularly for states like Utah which depend on clean rolls for mail-in ballots.

Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson has vocally opposed the effort on privacy and constitutional grounds. The U.S. Constitution leaves election administration to the states, she points out.

Henderson has questioned handing over sensitive data, containing Social Security numbers and dates of birth, to the Trump administration, who she said had not given her a valid reason.

“It’s absolutely unprecedented,” Jackson said. “They could absolutely come and inspect all 1.8 million records if that’s what they wish to do. We think that’s very different than releasing an Excel spreadsheet.”

Last month, Henderson asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit. A similar lawsuit was dismissed in Massachusetts on Thursday because the DOJ had not given a fact-based statement for why they needed the data.