DOJ Faces Setback in Voter Roll Case Following Missed Deadline and Allegations of False Claims

DOJ’s Legal Missteps Derail Voter Roll Investigation in Washington State

The Department of Justice’s efforts to obtain Washington state’s voter rolls suffered a significant setback this week following a series of procedural missteps that prompted judicial intervention. A federal judge is now demanding explanations from the DOJ after it failed to properly serve its lawsuit against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, missed critical deadlines, and apparently provided misleading information to the court.

The case began in December when the DOJ filed suit demanding that Washington turn over unredacted voter rolls as part of a nationwide campaign to access voter data. However, more than three months later, the department had still not properly completed the basic legal requirement of serving Hobbs with the lawsuit.

“We would expect the U.S. Department of Justice to know how to properly file a lawsuit in federal court,” Hobbs’ office stated in December. “We would also expect them to follow official procedures of serving the complaint prior to reaching out to media outlets, considering the important nature of voter data.”

The situation deteriorated when Judge S. Kate Vaughan had to intervene on March 10, ordering the DOJ to either prove it had served Hobbs or explain why the case should not be dismissed. Rather than complying with this directive, the department filed paperwork days later claiming it had served Hobbs by leaving the lawsuit with someone identified only as “Mia Doe” at what it described as his residence.

This claim quickly unraveled when state attorneys pointed out a critical error: “800 Fifth Avenue is the address of the Washington Attorney General’s Seattle Office; it is not the residence or usual place of abode of Secretary Hobbs.” Under federal rules, delivering legal documents to an incorrect location – especially one that is not a person’s home – typically does not constitute valid service.

Further complicating matters, Hobbs’ legal team had already agreed to waive service entirely a day before the botched attempt – a routine procedure that allows cases to proceed without formal delivery of documents. Deputy Solicitor General Tera Heintz had clearly communicated this in an email, writing, “I represent Secretary Hobbs in the above referenced matter. Attached is Secretary Hobbs’s waiver of service.”

The situation revealed apparent disorganization within the DOJ itself. Days later, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristin Johnson, who had not previously been involved in the case, contacted the state attempting to serve Hobbs again. She ignored the existing waiver and incorrectly insisted that it was invalid, stating, “Please note that we require an Acknowledgement of Service and cannot accept a Waiver.” This directly contradicted federal rules, which explicitly permit service waivers to reduce costs and delays.

Judge Vaughan expressed clear frustration in a subsequent order: “It is now clear that Plaintiff did not timely serve Defendant. It remains unclear whether service of process on Defendant has actually been effected and how.” The judge ordered the department to explain “why it made an inaccurate representation to this Court” regarding Hobbs’ alleged residence, adding a pointed note that the unidentified “Mia Doe” likely doesn’t live at the Attorney General’s office either.

The DOJ now faces a March 23 deadline to explain its conduct, including why it disregarded the court’s earlier order and failed to request additional time. If the court finds the department’s explanation insufficient, the case could be dismissed entirely and sanctions imposed.

This Washington state incident is part of a pattern of procedural missteps in the DOJ’s broader campaign to obtain voter data under the Trump administration. Led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, the initiative has encountered similar problems in other states. In Oklahoma, department officials spent months sending emails to incorrect addresses. In other jurisdictions, DOJ lawyers have cited nonexistent laws, contacted the wrong officials, and even filed court documents containing internal editing notes.

These repeated errors have raised questions about the department’s competence and the legitimacy of its nationwide push for access to sensitive voter information, which it has characterized as an “election integrity” measure. The embarrassing procedural failures continue to undermine what critics have called a “shambolic quest” for voter data.