Wait, what? Texas did what? Tell us what exactly is going on here. >> Texas has turned over its statewide list of registered voters to the federal government. The request came from the US Department of Justice. The data has already been transferred. What's being questioned now isn't whether Texas complied, but what was shared, why it was requested, and what happens to that data next. And to be clear, this wasn't the result of a data breach. No hack, no leak, no whistleblower. This was a formal request sent through official channels, complied with by the state, and completed quietly. Because when it comes to sensitive voter information, the most reassuring phrase is apparently nothing unusual here. Texas officials say this kind of data sharing has happened before, which may be true, but critics argue that we've done it before isn't the same as explaining why it was necessary this time or what limits were put in place once the data left state control. Thin blue lies, baby. According to Texas officials, the Department of Justice requested access to the state's voter registration database as part of a broader federal review related to election administration. Texas complied with the request and provided the voter role data to the DOJ. State officials say this type of data sharing is not unusual and has occurred before under different administrations. A voter registration database, often called a voter role, is maintained by states to manage elections. These records are used to confirm eligibility, assign voters to districts, and ensure ballots are properly issued. While the exact fields can vary by state, voter roles commonly include identifying and administrative information tied to each registered voter. New joint reporting from Vote Beatat and the Texas Tribune reveals Texas quietly turned over its entire voter role, covering more than 18 million Texans to the Justice Department. Then the move comes as the Trump administration pushes states across the country for access to that data. And that's raising questions about privacy oversight and the limits of federal authority. Gabby Beernbomb with the Texas Tribune is joining us to talk more about this. She's one of the reporters who broke the story this morning. Gabby, thank you for your time. >> Thanks for having me on. >> All right. Okay. So, we hear that headline and we're like, wait, what? Texas did what? Tell us what exactly is going on here. >> Yeah. So, the Justice Department is part of what they say is their effort that voter roles are being properly maintained, that ineligible voters are being taken out. They have asked all 50 states to turn over their voter role. Now, we've already seen um almost two dozen states say no. And we've seen some states say yes and Texas was one of them. Sort of quietly as you mentioned right before Christmas turned over the voter role. Um and so the secret office confirmed to us that means that registered Texas voters that includes um their driver's license number, their date of birth and the last four digits of their social security number. So as you mentioned um there's certainly people including the Democratic National Committee, the DNC that are worried about the privacy violations this might entail that the federal government identifying information. Voter registration records can include a voter's name, residential address, date of birth, and internal identification numbers used by election officials. Texas officials have stated that sensitive data is governed by law and subject to access restrictions. Not all information in the database is publicly releasable. The data transfer has drawn objections from Democratic Party officials and voting rights organizations. Their concern is not that the DOJ requested voter data, but that the request may have been overly broad, involving the entire statewide database rather than a limited subset. They argue this raises questions about privacy, scope, and legal authority. >> You think about the states that said no. Are those all blue states or are some of them red? Talk to us about the states that said no. >> Yeah, majority blue states, right? Um, and they've argued that a elections are state-run, right, and locally run. This is not, you know, the federal government doesn't run elections. And both they and the DNC have argued that this might violate federal election law. Um, particularly, you know, with rel with relation to how often um, states are allowed to remove people from the voter roles um, and when they can do that, how close to elections they can do that. And so, it's definitely an open question um, that I think will, I would imagine, will be headed to the courts. Federal law gives the Department of Justice authority to enforce voting rights protections, including monitoring compliance with federal election statutes. However, critics argue that those enforcement powers do not automatically grant unrestricted access to complete voter databases without a specific enforcement action or case. This legal question remains unsettled. The Justice Department has stated that its request was lawful and related to ensuring proper administration of federal election laws. The DOJ says voter data helps identify potential violations, including improper voter removals or discriminatory practices. Officials emphasize that the data is used for oversight, not political purposes. >> And when it comes to the DOJ, why do they say they need this information? What do they say is the the purpose of them needing that? Remind us of that. >> Yeah, they say it's for their own verification purposes to ensure that ineligible voters do on the roles. So, you know, there are processes to do this, but the DOJ says that this is sort of their oversight power in their voting rights division um to make sure that ineligible voters are not still on the roles. And that's interesting when you look at what happened in Texas recently, right, where the Secretary of State's office ran, you know, our voter roles against the database that the federal government has and they got a large number, if you will, of people who were flagged as potentially being uh ineligible. And it turns out, you know, a lot of those people, at least what we we're seeing here in Travis County, are are in fact eligible to vote. You know, you talked about some of the concerns that this raises. What did folks over at the Secretary of State's office tell you about this? >> Yeah, they, you know, in their sort of communications with the DOJ, they've said they don't believe, right, that this violates the law and shouldn't be interpreted as such. Um, they feel like they above board and followed that. However, right, we have seen concerns, like I said, from the DNC um that not only is this sort of a privacy concern, but they're worried that the DOJ might end up erroneously, as you mentioned, removing people who are in fact eligible from the list. Um and that's why, you know, there are sort of this complex series of laws governing when and how someone a registered voter from the voter role. >> Yeah, very interesting stuff indeed. Gabby Baron Bomb with the Texas Tribune working on this story. Of course, you guys can find it on the Texas Tribune's website. We thank you so much for taking some time out to talk with us today. >> Thanks so much for having me. Happy weekend. >> What has not been publicly detailed are the technical safeguards surrounding the data. That includes how the information will be stored, who within the federal government may access it, and how long the data will be retained. Those specifics were not disclosed in public statements. Those details may exist somewhere. They just weren't shared with the public. Texas is not alone. In recent years, the Department of Justice has sought voter data from multiple states as part of federal election oversight efforts. Some states have complied without objection. Others have resisted or limited the scope of access. This has resulted in ongoing tension between state election officials and federal authorities. At the center of this issue is a question that remains unanswered. How much voter data does the federal government need to enforce election law? And where is the line between oversight and privacy? That question has not yet been resolved. Fin blue lies, baby.