|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
New Bedford city officials are not providing the U.S. Department of Justice with a list of the city’s registered voters, questioning the department’s motives for requesting the data.
Last month, the DOJ announced it was sending federal election monitors to New Bedford and at least 14 other jurisdictions around the country. It requested the city’s voter list, which is a public record, and other voting information “to evaluate your compliance with the voter assistance requirements of the Voting Rights Act.”
On Monday, the city responded with a list of public webpages containing voter information, but not the voter data the DOJ had asked for.
“While voter lists are ordinarily available upon request, I am concerned that the Department’s inquiry is not designed to determine compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and is rather a pretext for unwarranted federal intrusion into a locally-administered election,” New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell said in a written statement to The Light.
Read the mayor’s full statement
Last month, the city received a non-binding request from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice for the list of New Bedford’s registered voters. The letter further stated that DOJ intended to send monitors to polling locations in New Bedford to assess the city’s compliance with certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act whose purpose is to facilitate voting by non-English speakers. This request came as a surprise as the city has no reason to believe that it has failed to comply with these provisions. Notably, the only explanation the Department offered for its inquiry was that the percentage of New Bedford’s residents with limited-English proficiency was 4.5 — which alone hardly makes New Bedford distinctive among American cities. It is difficult to understand how the city’s voter lists, which do not indicate how well any given voter speaks English, could shed light on whether the city is properly affording non-English speakers the opportunity to understand their ballots.
While voter lists are ordinarily available upon request, I am concerned that the Department’s inquiry is not designed to determine compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and is rather a pretext for unwarranted federal intrusion into a locally-administered election. Given the well-established track record of the current presidential administration to question the validity of elections without a good faith basis, I am concerned that the disclosure of the voter lists might chill voter interest in the upcoming elections and cause some to question their integrity. Accordingly, we have decided not to produce the voter lists to the Department.
As we always have, we will continue to administer safe, open and lawful elections in the City of New Bedford. I encourage every registered voter to exercise their right to vote in the September 1 primaries and the general election in November.
— New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell
The DOJ’s request cited 2021 census data showing that 4.5% of the city’s Hispanic voting-age U.S. citizens were “limited-English proficient.” In cities with at least 5% of such voters, it triggers a federal requirement that voting materials be available in another language. Boston, for example, must provide voting materials in Spanish.
The department did not cite any specific election problems in New Bedford, nor did it say the city violated any voting rights requirements.
“The voter list will facilitate identification of voting precincts with [limited-English proficient] voters,” the DOJ’s request said.
New Bedford’s top lawyer, Solicitor Eric Jaikes, pushed back on that in a response this week.
“I am unsure how those lists will enable you to determine how voters with limited English proficiency have difficulty exercising their voting rights,” he wrote.
Jaikes wrote that the mere existence of a significant limited-English population “is not a basis to believe that voters in New Bedford are being deprived of their rights under the Voting Rights Act.”
A spokesperson for the DOJ said in a written statement on Wednesday that New Bedford is one of “many locales” where it was conducting election monitoring, and that the limited-English population in the city “deserves equal access to vote.”
“As part of our nondiscriminatory efforts to ensure free and fair elections, the Civil Rights Division asks for basic information from all jurisdictions in order to facilitate more effective and targeted monitoring,” the statement said.
Mayor Mitchell said the city decided not to provide the voter list because of President Donald Trump’s history of questioning election integrity “without a good faith basis.” Releasing the list, Mitchell said, could “chill voter interest” in this fall’s elections and cause people to doubt the results.
The mayor expressed similar concerns when the DOJ first made its request, but said the city would comply “as required by law.”
The city did not cite a specific legal basis for denying the DOJ’s request, even though voter lists are public records. Massachusetts public records law generally doesn’t allow cities to withhold records based on the reason the request is being made.
The city interpreted the DOJ’s letter as a “non-binding” request not covered by the state’s public records law, said Public Information Officer Jonathan Darling.
“They didn’t file a public records request. It wasn’t a subpoena. It’s just a letter they sent asking us for [the voter list],” he said. “We’re under no legal obligation to turn over what they asked for.”
Darling said anyone can still obtain a copy of the city’s voter list by filing an official public records request, which goes through the city solicitor’s office.
“I can’t imagine that the solicitors would find a reason to turn it down,” he said.
The city has previously provided detailed voter lists and voter activity data to The Light and other requestors, including Boston University students analyzing Hispanic voter turnout in collaboration with The Light.
The DOJ did not respond to The Light’s question about whether it planned to re-send its request for voter lists as an official public records request.
This story contains material from previous New Bedford Light stories. New Bedford Light reporter Anastasia Lennon contributed reporting.
Editor’s note: This story was updated on Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2026, to add a response from the DOJ.
Thank you, New Bedford Light, for calling our attention to this important issue, and thank you, Mayor Mitchell for protecting our constitutional rights.
Glad to see Mitchell not being a lapdog for the administration.
What was his first response?
New bedford is in deep trouble.
New Bedford residents should be grateful to have a mayor who stands up for their rights even if some of them don’t value their rights or those of others.
Thank you John for protecting the citizens’ rights and not acquiescing to Trump’s illegal demands.
Let’s put all aside and only work with this particular issue. Great job and hold your ground for the citizens of New Bedford. The feds have no need for the voting lists period. As a side note, hint New Bedford Light, I was on Sawyer St. between Ashley Blvd and Acushnet Ave. I turned onto Sawyer St. from CVS. All traffic toward Ashley Blvd. was at a complete stop. As I navigated slowly because of “two persons” in the street, there was a blue pickup truck stopped with an unmarked police vehicle with flashing lights. The two individuals, I believe were Police, not New Bedford Police, with vests and one had a badge showing on his belt, the other I couldn’t identify, were yelling at the driver and demanding his identification. I remind you, stopped in the street, traffic was backed up through the intersection of Acushnet Ave. What Police would do something so egregious where they should have pulled the truck aside to conduct their business. Is there a story here.
What makes you think that they will not be able to get this voter information it’s public
The article states:
“anyone can still obtain a copy of the city’s voter list by filing an official public records request, which goes through the city solicitor’s office.”
That is the official, legal, constitutional way. That leaves a record of the request.