Richie Diesterheft / Wikimedia Commons
Why It Matters
The Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision closes off one legal avenue for those challenging how Secretary of State Chuck Gray handled a federal voter data request — a case that touches on questions of state election law, federal authority, and how states should respond to Washington’s demands for sensitive voter information.
What Happened
The Wyoming Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in an election complaint filed against Gray, who turned over driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers of all registered Wyoming voters to the U.S. Department of Justice last August.
The Trump administration had begun requesting voter data from all 50 states in 2025 as part of a broader federal effort to examine voter rolls. Attorney General Keith Kautz — a former Wyoming Supreme Court justice — advised Gray on how to respond to that federal request.
Cheyenne private attorney George Powers filed a complaint under Wyoming election code in April, alleging Gray violated state law by handing over the sensitive data. Because Kautz had advised Gray through the process, Powers asked Kautz to recuse himself from any review of the complaint and sought the appointment of an independent prosecutor. When Kautz declined to step aside, Powers escalated the matter to the state’s highest court.
The Court’s Ruling
The two-page decision from the Wyoming Supreme Court was direct: the justices found Powers had not demonstrated the legal threshold required for mandamus relief — an extraordinary remedy that compels a government official to take a specific action.
“We find Petitioner has not cited any ‘absolute, clear, and indisputable’ law specifically requiring these actions,” the court wrote. “As such, Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief.”
The ruling effectively leaves the attorney general’s handling of the complaint in place.
By the Numbers
- Two separate groups of attorneys reviewed Powers’ complaint and declined to bring criminal charges against Gray.
- One review was conducted by an unnamed private Wyoming law firm; a second by an unnamed Wyoming county and prosecuting attorney.
- The attorney general’s office used an internal “Chinese wall” information barrier during the evaluations to limit the flow of information between reviewing attorneys and the AG’s office.
- The Supreme Court’s denial came in a two-page order.
Zoom Out
Wyoming’s situation reflects a broader national tension that emerged after the Trump administration began requesting voter information from states in 2025. Some states pushed back on the requests, while others, like Wyoming, cooperated. The legal questions about what data states may lawfully share — and under what circumstances — have generated complaints and litigation in multiple states. A recent unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment rights is an example of how high-profile legal questions from state-level disputes can eventually reach the nation’s highest court.
What’s Next
Ryan Semerad, the attorney representing Powers, said they are weighing their options going forward. With criminal charges already declined by two separate reviewing bodies and the Supreme Court now refusing to compel recusal or an independent prosecutor, available legal paths appear limited — though Semerad stopped short of saying the matter was closed.
About the Author
