The Trump Justice Department has now sued 30 states plus Washington D.C. to force them to hand over sensitive voter data, and judges appointed by both parties keep throwing those cases straight in the trash. The latest dismissal came Monday from a George W. Bush appointee in Colorado, who tossed the case with prejudice. That last part matters: it means the DOJ cannot simply refile and try again.
What the DOJ Is Actually Demanding Here
To understand why this matters, you have to understand what the Trump administration is asking for. According to Axios, the DOJ has been demanding that states hand over sensitive voter roll information, and states across the country have told them no. All of them. Thirty states and the District of Columbia have all refused, which is the kind of unanimous resistance that usually tells you something about how reasonable the underlying demand is.
The legal campaign traces directly back to Trump's years of pushing what Axios describes as "unproven claims of massive fraud." That framing is careful and accurate. The claims are unproven because they were never proven, in court after court after court, in the years following 2020. None of that stopped the administration from building an entire legal strategy around them anyway.
A Bush Judge Just Threw It Out with Prejudice
U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer was appointed by George W. Bush. He is not a Biden-era liberal activist. He is, by any reasonable measure, a Republican-aligned judge. And on Monday, as Axios reports, he sided with Colorado and dismissed the DOJ's case against the state's Democratic secretary of state with prejudice.
Dismissal with prejudice is a legal full stop. It means the judge looked at what the DOJ brought, decided it was fatally flawed, and shut the door on any attempt to refile the same claims. This was not a procedural hiccup. This was a judge saying: no, and also no, you cannot come back and try this again.
Bipartisan Agreement That This Is a Bad Idea
Here is the thing about this losing streak that the administration would very much like you to ignore: these losses are not coming exclusively from judges appointed by Democrats. Axios specifically notes that federal judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans have handed the DOJ losses in this campaign. When your theory of the case is getting rejected by your own team's judges, that is not a sign that the judiciary is biased against you. That is a sign your legal argument has a serious structural problem.
The DOJ has sued 31 jurisdictions total and has apparently won exactly zero of these cases, based on the reporting available. That is a record that, in any normal functioning legal department, would prompt someone to call a meeting and ask whether the underlying legal theory needs to be revisited. This is not a normal functioning legal department.
The Political Math Behind the Legal Losses
None of this is random or accidental. The entire project, as Axios frames it, exists to back Trump's broader effort to "reshape voting" in America. That is the stated goal. Not to fight fraud that has been proven to exist, but to reshape the mechanics of how Americans vote, who is on which rolls, and ultimately who gets to participate.
The strategy appears to be: sue everyone, generate pressure, maybe get lucky with a favorable ruling somewhere, and in the meantime use the lawsuits themselves as a political signal to the base that the administration is fighting on their behalf. The losing does not necessarily undermine that political goal. It feeds the narrative that the system is rigged against them, which has been the whole point from the beginning.
Thirty-One Fights, Zero Wins
Let's put some scale on this. The DOJ has initiated legal action against 31 separate jurisdictions over voter roll data. Thirty states plus D.C. That is a coordinated legal blitz of a scale that requires real resources, real attorneys, and real time. Federal prosecutors spent their working hours on this. Taxpayer money funded every filing.
And the result, so far, is a losing streak that would get a sports team's coach fired before the season was halfway done. The Colorado dismissal with prejudice from a Bush judge is just the latest in what Axios describes as a "steady stream of losses." Steady stream. Not a rough patch. Not a few setbacks. A stream.
The Dingo Take
You are supposed to believe this is a good-faith legal campaign to protect election integrity. Thirty-one jurisdictions. Zero wins. Judges from both parties saying no. One dismissal so final the court literally blocked the government from trying again. At what point does "protecting election integrity" become "repeatedly filing losing lawsuits to justify a political narrative"? The answer, for this administration, appears to be: never.
The DOJ exists to enforce federal law impartially and to bring cases it believes it can win. What it is not supposed to be is a political pressure campaign conducted with subpoenas and federal court filings. Using the full weight of the Justice Department to demand voter data from 31 jurisdictions, losing every single time, and continuing anyway is not law enforcement. It is harassment with a federal seal on the letterhead.
The Colorado dismissal with prejudice should be the headline everywhere. A Bush-appointed judge looked at what the Trump DOJ filed, said this is so wrong I am not even going to let you try again, and moved on with his day. Somewhere in the DOJ building, someone is already drafting the next lawsuit. Thirty-two is going to go great, probably.
Comments