I have built a career staking out aggressive positions in court. In the run-up to the 2020 election, I rallied significant resources to litigation aimed at reducing barriers to voting by mail. Those cases proved successful and led to a swift backlash by Donald Trump and his supporters.

Once the election was over, my legal team and I represented Joe Biden in defeating Trump and his allies in more than 60 lawsuits targeted at overturning the results. We were stretched thin but never shied away from taking each case head-on.

This earned me the enmity of Republicans and made me a hated figure among the MAGA faithful. But I didn't care. I was committed to fighting for voting rights no matter what.

After Trump left office, I continued to go all in to protect voting rights in court. In 2021, Republican-controlled states passed a series of omnibus voter suppression laws. My team and I challenged every single one of them in court.

As the Biden administration settled in, it became clear that some did not appreciate my strident approach. They wanted to see a return to norms — a de-escalation of what they considered to be partisan lawfare.

I was not deterred. The memory of Jan. 6, 2021, remained seared in my mind. I did not allow hope to become a strategy — a temptation that grows stronger the more you want something to be true. I never sought compromise with those who tried to destroy our democracy.

When Trump took office again, I knew we would face an even greater test. During the four years he was out of power, Trump had weakened the guardrails by constantly attacking them. Good election officials were run out of office and replaced by election deniers.

When he appointed Pam Bondi as attorney general, I was quick to denounce her as an election denier, even as The Washington Post was calling her "qualified" and "serious" and recommending her confirmation.

What I understood, and too many others ignored, is that she was put in place to do Trump's political dirty work. That meant prosecuting his political opponents. It also included undermining future elections.

Once in office, it did not take long for Bondi and her cronies to get to work. In May, the Department of Justice demanded Colorado turn over its voting records from the 2024 and 2020 elections. At the time, many assumed this was simply retribution against the state for having prosecuted and convicted Tina Peters — one of Donald Trump's favorite election deniers.

But then other states started reporting that they were receiving demands for their full, unredacted voter files. Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania all reported getting nearly identical letters.

By the end of last summer, it became clear that Trump's DOJ was trying to obtain the most sensitive voting data from all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The federal government, which plays no role in administering elections, has never sought this information and has no legitimate need for it.

In August, Trump gave away his plan. In a social media post that received too little attention, Trump wrote:

"States are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them."

In essence, Trump was declaring that he alone could decide which ballots count and which are discarded.

Suddenly, the DOJ's efforts to obtain detailed information on every single voter made sense. The administration wanted to create a national list of voters so it could decide who is disqualified from voting and whose ballots should be rejected.

In September, the DOJ started suing states for refusing to turn their voting records over, and I made the decision that we would fight each one of those lawsuits — no matter how many were filed.

As the year ended, the number of lawsuits swelled. Then, in 2026, it increased further.

As of today, 30 states and the District of Columbia have been sued. And in each of those cases, my law firm — Elias Law Group — has filed on behalf of groups of voters and organizations to intervene as defendants. Only one judge has said no.

These are not amicus briefs. We are entering as defendants — essentially saying to the DOJ that if they want these records, they need to sue us as well as the state.

This has been an enormous undertaking. These 30 cases are in addition to our normal caseload, protecting citizens against voter suppression laws or illegal Republican gerrymandering.

As of now, our hard work has paid off. Five courts have ruled on the DOJ's lawsuits. My firm won all five. Two were decided by judges appointed by Trump. Three of these cases are now on appeal.

There is no guarantee that my strategy will pay off. We could suffer losses in the remaining cases, lose on appeal or have other voter suppression laws go unchallenged because of the resources we have dedicated to these fights.

It is easy to see how going all in on these cases could go wrong. The safer approach would have been to pick and choose — litigating only those cases in the most favorable circuits or avoiding those assigned to Trump-appointed judges.

But to protect free and fair elections, to protect democracy, we cannot play it safe. We cannot focus on padding our win/loss record by only taking on easy fights. We need to take chances — even if it means we can lose.

That has been the lesson of the Trump era. The voter file fight — 30 cases, five wins, three appeals pending — is just the latest example of what it looks like to take that lesson seriously. I hope my decisions work out. But win or lose, I take solace in knowing that I was willing to fight.

Now, here's some joy from a pawtner in the opposition movement.