refusing

Jan. 7 (UPI) — The Justice Department has sued Arizona and Connecticut for refusing to hand over their full voter registration lists, making them the 22nd and 23rd states to be targeted by the Trump administration in its litigious campaign over voter data ahead of the midterm elections.

The lawsuits were filed Tuesday, with Attorney General Pam Bondi arguing she is charged by Congress to ensure that states have proper and effective voter registration and voter list maintenance programs.

She also threatened that she has the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to demand the statewide voter registration lists.

“Accurate voter rolls are the foundation of election integrity, and any state that fails to meet this basic obligation of transparency can expect to see us in court,” she said in a statement.

The Justice Department has sent demands for the voter registration rolls to at least 40 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

All states except North Dakota require citizens to register with election officials, with the information forming voter registration rolls.

The demands for these rolls, which include private and sensitive information, have raised concerns among both voting-rights groups, who say the Trump administration may try to undermine elections, and immigration advocates worried the rolls could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security.

The Trump administration has argued that it needs the lists to ensure election integrity, including that non-citizens are not voting. President Donald Trump continues to falsely claim that the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden, was stolen from him.

The lawsuits overwhelming target Democratic-led states, and the effort comes ahead of November’s midterm elections, which Trump has increasingly become involved with.

Jesus Osete, principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, posted the lawsuit naming Arizona as a defendant on X, saying the Democratic-led state “didn’t respond” to the Justice Department requests for the voter rolls.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes responded to Osete with a video statement, saying they have responded to every Justice Department request, and that he will not break state and federal law to share unredacted voter data with the federal government.

“I would recommend that Mr. Osete read those correspondence and we will see you apparently in court,” he said.

“Pound sand.”

The century-old rivalry series between USC and Notre Dame is taking a few years off, and as far as Lincoln Riley is concerned, that’s the fault of the Irish.

In his first public comments since the series was officially put on hiatus, the USC coach put the blame squarely on Notre Dame for not accepting USC’s most recent offer to continue the rivalry, which would have moved the 2026 game, usually scheduled in November, to the very beginning of the season.

“It’s pretty simple,” Riley said Monday, ahead of USC’s bowl matchup with Texas Christian. “We both worked for months to try to find a solution. Notre Dame was very vocal about the fact that they would play us anytime, anywhere.

“Jen Cohen, our AD, went back to Notre Dame roughly a couple of weeks ago with a scenario and a proposal that would extend the series for the next two years. We took Notre Dame at their word that they would play us anytime, anywhere. That proposal was rejected.

“Not only was it rejected, but five minutes after we got the call, it was announced they scheduled another opponent, which I’ll give them credit, that might be the fastest scheduling act in college football history.”

The Times reported last week that the Playoff selection earlier this month proved to be a turning point for USC’s administration in talks with Notre Dame. The realization that the Irish — by virtue of a side agreement with the College Football Playoff committee that hands them a bid if ranked in the top 12 — would have gotten into the field over Miami especially gave USC pause.

That’s when Cohen returned to Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua with an offer for the rivals to face off in the season opener. Notre Dame instead scheduled Brigham Young to fill that vacancy over the next two seasons.

Riley has been roundly criticized for his part in the rivalry’s potential demise after he suggested in August 2024 that the annual series could be in danger, if USC proved too much of a hurdle in the Trojans’ path to the College Football Playoff.

In the spring, as negotiations between the two schools stalled and the public pointed fingers at Riley and USC, Notre Dame coach Marcus Freeman said that continuing the rivalry was “pretty black and white for me.”

“I want to play them every single year,” Freeman said. “You want my opinion? I want to play them every single year. When? I don’t care. I don’t care when we play them: Start of the season, middle of the season, end of the season. I don’t care. I want to play USC every year because I think it’s great for college football.”

After initially holding firm on its intent to renegotiate terms of the rivalry year-to-year, so as to wait on changes to the College Football Playoff format, USC sent an amended offer to Notre Dame before the season that would have extended the series for two seasons. But Notre Dame wanted a longer deal.

The two schools nearly came to an agreement in October, around their final meeting in South Bend. USC had made clear that it wanted to play the game earlier in the season, but was warming up to the idea of continuing the series as is through 2027.

USC decided to dig its heels in after Selection Sunday, returning to USC with a final offer to play early in the 2026 season. Notre Dame declined.

“The fact is very, very clear, this can all be settled very quickly,” Riley said. “Had Notre Dame lived up to their word and played us anytime, anywhere, we would be playing in the next two years, and looking ahead after that, hopefully continuing the series.

“They did not follow through on it, thus we are not playing them the next couple years. We’re hopeful something can be worked out in the future. That would be fantastic. We at SC would love for the game to continue. We have no problem following through on our promises in the future.”

It’ll be a while before those negotiations start up again. The next window in which USC could play Notre Dame is during the 2030 season.