Washington state hands Trump DOJ its 25th straight voter roll loss

President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice suffered its 25th straight district court loss Tuesday in its nationwide campaign to force states to hand over unredacted voter registration data, after a federal judge in Washington rejected the department’s legal theory and dismissed the case with prejudice.

U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson, appointed by former President Joe Biden, concluded that DOJ’s demand for Washington’s statewide voter registration list “violates federal law,” joining what she described as a growing line of courts rejecting nearly identical lawsuits.

“The Government’s reading of 52 U.S.C. § 20701 is not persuasive as a matter of statutory interpretation, nor is it consistent with the purpose of the CRA, the Court joins a growing, unanimous consensus of courts to find that the List is not subject to a Title III demand,” Evanson wrote.

The ruling leaves DOJ 0 for 25 in federal district courts in its effort to compel states to surrender complete voter files containing sensitive information such as dates of birth, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

In Washington, DOJ sued Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) after he refused to provide the full file and instead offered a redacted version that excluded confidential information protected under state law. DOJ sought an order requiring Washington to produce the complete database, including voters’ full names, dates of birth, addresses and either driver’s-license numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.

“The DOJ has now lost 25 of these cases. Baseless demands for state voter rolls are part of a broader pattern of federal overreach in states’ elections,” Hobbs said a statement following the ruling. “The DOJ does not have the authority or any reason to interfere with state election administration. We are grateful that the court dismissed this case and upheld our constitutional authority to administer elections.”

Evanson rejected DOJ’s central argument that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 gives the attorney general authority to demand the statewide voter list.

The judge held that Washington’s voter database does not “come into” an election official’s possession within the meaning of the statute because state officials themselves create and continuously maintain it.

“If Congress intended that Title III would cover all documents in a state’s possession, as the Government would have it, Congress would have said so,” Evanson wrote, calling DOJ’s interpretation “strained.”

She also pointed to the constantly changing nature of voter rolls, saying DOJ never satisfactorily explained how the Civil Rights Act’s 22-month record-retention requirement could apply to a “living” database that states are legally required to continually update.

The ruling was particularly notable because DOJ’s own attorney conceded during oral arguments last month that Washington’s case was factually indistinguishable from the department’s other voter roll lawsuits.

Evanson also rejected DOJ’s broader contention that the Civil Rights Act established a “general inspection regime” allowing federal officials to demand records for investigations into any federal election law.

The department, she wrote, cited no authority supporting use of the Civil Rights Act as “an unlimited tool to consolidate voter data and to expand its own power over elections, rather than to protect the right to vote.”

The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning DOJ cannot simply amend the same complaint and try again in district court, though it can appeal.

The department has appealed nearly all of its previous defeats and has already lost one completed appeal in Michigan, where the full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of DOJ’s case.

Attention is now increasingly shifting to the 9th Circuit, where DOJ has appealed its losses in California and Oregon. Those appeals were argued in May, and decisions remain pending. The outcome could have broader consequences for several related cases in the circuit.

DOJ’s lawsuits against Idaho and Hawaii are both stayed pending the 9th Circuit’s rulings in the California and Oregon cases.

Only three of DOJ’s district court voter roll cases remain actively moving toward a ruling: Delaware, Georgia and Utah. 

Georgia’s case remains pending after being reassigned to a new judge this summer, while Utah’s case is still awaiting a decision on motions to dismiss and compel production. 

Despite the unbroken losing streak, DOJ has continued pressing the cases on appeal and has shown no indication that it intends to abandon the broader effort.