Oops! Trump DOJ failed to follow basic rules in losing bid to join voter purge case, court finds

A federal judge Thursday rejected an attempt by the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) to rush into a GOP-backed lawsuit seeking more aggressive voter purges in California. 

The judge, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, found that department attorneys filed their motion without following basic court rules or consulting the state.

The ruling does not decide whether DOJ may ultimately join the case. But for a department already facing a string of courtroom defeats over its nationwide voter roll campaign, including some embarrassing and high-profile gaffes, the rejection adds another avoidable setback — this time caused by its own haste.

U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi denied DOJ’s motion to intervene after concluding that the department failed to properly meet and confer with the parties before filing. The denial was without prejudice, meaning DOJ can try again after complying with the court’s requirements.

DOJ sought to join a lawsuit brought by Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner (R) and the American Independent Party of California against Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D). 

The plaintiffs are represented by the anti-voting group Judicial Watch.

The underlying lawsuit alleges that California is failing to make a “reasonable effort” to remove voters who have died or moved, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). It asks the court to order Weber to develop and implement a new voter list-maintenance program.

DOJ moved to intervene Monday, arguing that it has independent authority to enforce both the NVRA and the Help America Vote Act. But the department filed before Weber had even entered an appearance in the case — and without speaking to her attorneys.

Scarsi wrote that the motion failed to comply with a local rule requiring lawyers to “discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution” at least seven days before filing.

DOJ asserted that it had conferred with the plaintiffs, who supported its intervention, but the judge noted that the department did not provide the required declaration and that the discussion occurred fewer than seven days before the filing.

The court also questioned why DOJ was in such a hurry. 

Weber may agree to let the federal government intervene, Scarsi wrote, making the motion unnecessary. If she objects, the parties’ discussions could at least narrow the disputed issues.

“Setting aside the motion’s procedural deficiencies, the Court declines to consider the matters presented in the motion at this time for prudential reasons. Defendant has yet to appear, and the United States did not confer with Defendant’s counsel before filing the motion,” Scarsi wrote. “Since Defendant likely will join the litigation soon, the Court will defer the intervention question until she does.”