Trump DOJ scrambles to salvage Minnesota voter roll case — but files wrong document and leans on shaky new claim

After losing five straight cases attempting to access state voter rolls, the Department of Justice tried to patch a key legal flaw in its Minnesota lawsuit — only to attach the wrong document and rely on a single, disputed allegation as its new justification.

The Trump DOJ’s latest blunder came one day after it asked a federal court for permission to fix what judges across the country have already called a fatal defect in its voter roll demands: failing to explain why it needed the data in the first place. 

But instead of waiting, DOJ rushed to file a new “additional basis” for its demand — and fumbled the rollout.

In its filing Friday, DOJ told the court it now had a factual reason to demand Minnesota’s voter registration list, including a recent report that a noncitizen may have voted in the 2024 election.

“This additional basis is a recent public report that alleged that [a] noncitizen … submitted a ballot in the 2024 federal election,” DOJ wrote. “The Division must verify that no such other individual is registered to vote, in violation of federal law.”

But the exhibit DOJ attached to support that claim didn’t mention the alleged incident at all. Instead, it was an unrelated January letter about Minnesota’s same-day voter registration system — a separate issue that has had nothing to do with DOJ’s case to seize Minnesota’s unredacted voter rolls.

Hours later, DOJ acknowledged the error and filed a “notice of errata,” replacing the exhibit with the intended letter. The corrected document still relied on a recent news report about a single alleged noncitizen voter as the basis for demanding Minnesota’s full voter rolls.

The latest error underscores a broader problem with DOJ’s legal strategy, which courts have repeatedly rejected in recent weeks. 

Since January, federal judges in California, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have all dismissed similar lawsuits, finding that DOJ failed to meet even the most basic requirement of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 — that it provide a factual “basis” for demanding sensitive voter data.

The losing streak now stands at five cases, zero wins.

Facing those defeats, DOJ asked courts across the country to let it send new letters to states — effectively a do-over. In Minnesota, however, the department appears to be trying a different approach and retroactively supplying a justification inside the ongoing case.

The department demanded Minnesota’s voter rolls months before the alleged noncitizen voter came to light this month. Now, it’s pointing to that single incidence as the reason it needs sweeping access to the data of millions of voters. 

The reliance on a single reported case is also notable. In earlier cases, DOJ has at least attempted to invoke broader alleged trends or irregularities. 

The single case itself was identified and prosecuted using existing safeguards in Minnesota. 

“Only U.S. Citizens are eligible to vote in Minnesota. When an individual completes a voter registration application, they attest that they meet all eligibility requirements, including that they are a U.S. citizen,” Secretary of State Steve Simon’s (D) office said in a statement in response to the case. “If a noncitizen attempts to vote in an election, they will be caught and held to account.”

Minnesota officials have cast doubt on the very allegation DOJ is attempting to use to justify its demand. At a House hearing this week, Simon pushed back on sweeping GOP claims about the case undermining the state’s election system.

“That’s not how the system works,” Simon said. “I would just say, as to the news report you’re flagging, this individual is reported to have said things that just aren’t true.”

At the same time, DOJ continues to argue it can use the Civil Rights Act of 1960 — a law passed to investigate racial discrimination in voting — to conduct broad audits of state voter rolls. 

In Rhode Island, a federal judge described DOJ’s efforts as a “fishing expedition,” noting the department failed to point to any evidence of wrongdoing and as such dismissed the case. 

The Minnesota filing suggests DOJ is now trying to solve that problem by attempting to add evidence after the fact. 

In the span of 24 hours, DOJ has asked the Minnesota court to allow a future “curing elaboration letter,” then turned around and filed what is characterized as a new basis for its demand — supported by the wrong document.

Jim Saksa contributed to this reporting.