During this Midterm election year, the Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to interfere with state and local oversight of the election process. What frustrates me as a lifelong Republican is the “Keystone Kops” nature of it all, especially with the Department of Justice.
When I was coming up in politics in the ’80s, ’90s, and 2000s, the Republican Party and Republican administrations took pride in competence. When you saw lawyers from the Justice Department walking into a grand jury proceeding or courtroom, you knew they had their act together. You knew their arguments were well-researched and firmly grounded in the law and the facts. This standard attracted the caliber of professional the federal government needs, to keep our nation secure and win the trust of the public.
It’s now 2026, though. So let’s look at DOJ’s recent record on election issues.
In July 2025, the department sent a letter to Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton asserting that four congressional districts were unlawful racial coalition districts. In November, federal Judge Jeffrey Brown, writing for a 2–1 majority temporarily blocking the new maps, stated: “It’s challenging to unpack the DOJ Letter because it contains so many factual, legal, and typographical errors.”
Even attorneys representing Texas wound up characterizing DOJ’s letter as “legally unsound,” “baseless,” and “erroneous”—in short, “a mess.”
The Supreme Court subsequently stayed that injunction, allowing Texas to use the maps while litigation continued. But that does not erase the factual and legal errors Judge Brown identified in DOJ’s letter.
In December 2025, DOJ filed a lawsuit against my state of Georgia, seeking access to unredacted statewide voter rolls containing sensitive personal information. I’m not a lawyer, but I know there’s a proper federal judicial district in which to file a lawsuit. For this case, it was the Northern District of Georgia. Atlanta is there.
But no. Justice filed in the Middle District of Georgia.
The suit was dismissed for improper venue. The department refiled in the correct district, only to lose again, this time on the merits, in September.
In January 2026, DOJ filed a similar complaint in Virginia, seeking access to unredacted voter rolls. That complaint contained some rather basic errors, including misspelling “Virginia” as “Virgina” on the very first page. Virginia Democrats have been equally careless in court filings, but I would like the nation’s top legal department to at least run a spell-check before filing something with a federal court. Instead, “voter rolls” is being spelled “voter roles.”
DOJ later amended its complaint. In July, the case was dismissed with prejudice — not because of a typo, but because the court rejected the department’s legal theory.
Then there’s Oklahoma. Beginning December 10, 2025, Justice sent demands for voter-registration information to an incorrect email address. The department followed up in December and January, apparently wondering why Oklahoma wasn’t responding. On January 28, Oklahoma officials finally received the correspondence and explained that DOJ had been emailing the wrong address.
For weeks.
The United States Department of Justice.
Finally, there’s DOJ’s broader campaign to obtain states’ unredacted voter-registration lists, including personally identifiable information (PII). DOJ is now 0–27 in cases decided on the merits at the district court level.
Zero wins. Twenty-seven dismissals.
Yes, there was a settlement with Oklahoma, and many of the dismissals are being appealed. But the district court record speaks for itself.
In the old days, a sustained record of this kind would have prompted some very uncomfortable conversations at Main Justice. It reminds me of that scene in Office Space: “What would you say … you do here?”
Courts are doing their jobs. Justice is failing to make its case. And too often, the department is undermining itself with mistakes that are as elementary as they are avoidable.
When I was coming up in politics, competence was one of the Republican Party’s superpowers, and a Justice Department attorney walking into a courtroom commanded respect. The department’s reputation for preparation, professionalism, and legal rigor carried real weight. Now, judges are being asked to accept arguments that repeatedly fail judicial scrutiny, while election officials across the country are spending time and taxpayer resources responding to demands the department has struggled to justify in court.
We need a competent, professional, effective Justice Department. We need lawyers who know the law, respect the facts, and understand the enormous responsibility that comes with the power of the federal government.
The nature of this Justice Department’s election-related efforts threatens to undermine the department’s credibility for years to come. And for Republicans and conservatives, something else has been lost: the reputation for seriousness that once defined so much of our approach to governing.
DOJ’s Incompetence Should Concern Everyone, Republicans Included
During this Midterm election year, the Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to interfere with state and local oversight of the election process. What frustrates me as a lifelong Republican is the “Keystone Kops” nature of it all, especially with the Department of Justice.
When I was coming up in politics in the ’80s, ’90s, and 2000s, the Republican Party and Republican administrations took pride in competence. When you saw lawyers from the Justice Department walking into a grand jury proceeding or courtroom, you knew they had their act together. You knew their arguments were well-researched and firmly grounded in the law and the facts. This standard attracted the caliber of professional the federal government needs, to keep our nation secure and win the trust of the public.
It’s now 2026, though. So let’s look at DOJ’s recent record on election issues.
In July 2025, the department sent a letter to Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton asserting that four congressional districts were unlawful racial coalition districts. In November, federal Judge Jeffrey Brown, writing for a 2–1 majority temporarily blocking the new maps, stated: “It’s challenging to unpack the DOJ Letter because it contains so many factual, legal, and typographical errors.”
Even attorneys representing Texas wound up characterizing DOJ’s letter as “legally unsound,” “baseless,” and “erroneous”—in short, “a mess.”
The Supreme Court subsequently stayed that injunction, allowing Texas to use the maps while litigation continued. But that does not erase the factual and legal errors Judge Brown identified in DOJ’s letter.
In December 2025, DOJ filed a lawsuit against my state of Georgia, seeking access to unredacted statewide voter rolls containing sensitive personal information. I’m not a lawyer, but I know there’s a proper federal judicial district in which to file a lawsuit. For this case, it was the Northern District of Georgia. Atlanta is there.
But no. Justice filed in the Middle District of Georgia.
The suit was dismissed for improper venue. The department refiled in the correct district, only to lose again, this time on the merits, in September.
In January 2026, DOJ filed a similar complaint in Virginia, seeking access to unredacted voter rolls. That complaint contained some rather basic errors, including misspelling “Virginia” as “Virgina” on the very first page. Virginia Democrats have been equally careless in court filings, but I would like the nation’s top legal department to at least run a spell-check before filing something with a federal court. Instead, “voter rolls” is being spelled “voter roles.”
DOJ later amended its complaint. In July, the case was dismissed with prejudice — not because of a typo, but because the court rejected the department’s legal theory.
Then there’s Oklahoma. Beginning December 10, 2025, Justice sent demands for voter-registration information to an incorrect email address. The department followed up in December and January, apparently wondering why Oklahoma wasn’t responding. On January 28, Oklahoma officials finally received the correspondence and explained that DOJ had been emailing the wrong address.
For weeks.
The United States Department of Justice.
Finally, there’s DOJ’s broader campaign to obtain states’ unredacted voter-registration lists, including personally identifiable information (PII). DOJ is now 0–27 in cases decided on the merits at the district court level.
Zero wins. Twenty-seven dismissals.
Yes, there was a settlement with Oklahoma, and many of the dismissals are being appealed. But the district court record speaks for itself.
In the old days, a sustained record of this kind would have prompted some very uncomfortable conversations at Main Justice. It reminds me of that scene in Office Space: “What would you say … you do here?”
Courts are doing their jobs. Justice is failing to make its case. And too often, the department is undermining itself with mistakes that are as elementary as they are avoidable.
When I was coming up in politics, competence was one of the Republican Party’s superpowers, and a Justice Department attorney walking into a courtroom commanded respect. The department’s reputation for preparation, professionalism, and legal rigor carried real weight. Now, judges are being asked to accept arguments that repeatedly fail judicial scrutiny, while election officials across the country are spending time and taxpayer resources responding to demands the department has struggled to justify in court.
We need a competent, professional, effective Justice Department. We need lawyers who know the law, respect the facts, and understand the enormous responsibility that comes with the power of the federal government.
The nature of this Justice Department’s election-related efforts threatens to undermine the department’s credibility for years to come. And for Republicans and conservatives, something else has been lost: the reputation for seriousness that once defined so much of our approach to governing.
More on this topic
Two Reasons Why Dems Could Simply Underperform, Instead of Be ‘Cheated’
Respect the Rules, Reject the Chaos: Why the Purcell Principle Must Hold
How Rural Voters Are Preparing for the Midterms