Full Breakdown
DOJ Admits Filing Error in New Hampshire Voting-Fraud Litigation
5/17/2026, 10:42:55 PM
Misfiled Supplemental Authority Notice in a Granite State Case
On a recent Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a two-page motion in the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire asking that a notice of supplemental authority be withdrawn. The motion states that the notice “was filed in error and was not intended for filing in this matter.” The erroneous filing concerned a voting-fraud lawsuit filed in September 2025 in New Hampshire (the “Granite State” case). The DOJ clarified that the supplemental authority was meant for a separate Minnesota voting-fraud action filed on the same day the New Hampshire case was initiated the previous year.
Background of Recent DOJ Filing Mistakes
The incident follows a series of filing inaccuracies by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division during the second Trump administration. In early October 2025, the division submitted a 28-page opposition to a motion for a temporary restraining order that contained at least 19 instances of the Microsoft Word error message “Error! Bookmark not defined.” Later that month, the DOJ issued a three-page errata to correct table-of-contents formatting problems. In late October 2025, the department admitted a factual discrepancy in a separate litigation concerning federal deployment of state National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, revising a reported figure of 115 deployments to 86 individual officers.
Key Personnel and Agencies Involved
- Harmeet K. Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, signed the motion to withdraw the misfiled notice.
- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, responsible for the filings in both the New Hampshire and Minnesota voting-fraud cases, as well as the unrelated procedural documents cited above.
Timeline of Relevant Filings
- September 2025 – Notice of supplemental authority mistakenly filed in New Hampshire voting-fraud case.
- Early October 2025 – 28-page opposition containing “Error! Bookmark not defined” errors submitted in a separate case.
- Mid-October 2025 – Three-page errata issued to correct table-of-contents errors.
- Late October 2025 – DOJ acknowledges factual error in National Guard deployment numbers (115 -> 86).
- Friday (date unspecified) – Motion to withdraw the erroneous New Hampshire filing submitted; intended Minnesota filing filed immediately thereafter.
Quantitative Overview of Filing Errors
- 2-page motion to withdraw the misfiled notice.
- 28-page opposition with >=19 “Error! Bookmark not defined” instances.
- 3-page errata correcting table-of-contents formatting.
- Discrepancy in deployment data: 115 reported deployments versus 86 individual officers.
Implications for Ongoing Litigation
The withdrawal motion directly affects the procedural posture of the New Hampshire voting-fraud suit, potentially delaying the court’s consideration of supplemental authority. Repeated filing inaccuracies raise concerns about the DOJ’s internal review mechanisms, which could influence judicial confidence in the department’s submissions across multiple cases.
Official Statements from the Department of Justice
The DOJ’s filing emphasizes procedural correction: it “respectfully requests that the Court withdraw [the erroneous filing] from the docket” and notes that the correct supplemental authority was filed immediately after the withdrawal motion. In the National Guard case, the department expressed “regret” for the factual discrepancy and indicated reliance on Department of Homeland Security data to amend the record.
Criticism of Procedural Diligence
The source characterizes the 28-page opposition as having been prepared “with little attention to detail,” highlighting a pattern of technical oversights that critics argue undermines the credibility of the DOJ’s legal filings.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The National Guard deployment figures illustrate a factual conflict: the DOJ’s earlier representation cited 115 deployments, while a DHS review revised the count to 86 individual officers. No further clarification is provided in the available documents.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The Notice was filed in error and was not intended for filing in this matter,” — DOJ motion
- “The United States respectfully requests that the Court withdraw [the erroneous filing] from the docket.” — DOJ motion
- “Defendants do wish to correct a factual discrepancy discovered in the course of responding to plaintiffs' letter," DOJ wrote in that error-correcting effort.” — DOJ letter to the Ninth Circuit clerk
- “We are informed by our clients that this 115 figure was the number of deployments and that some individuals were deployed multiple times.” — DOJ clarification on National Guard data
- “In finalizing their Opposition, Defendants inadvertently encountered errors in the Table of Contents required by Local Rules, including a technical error preventing proper display of the page numbers,” — DOJ errata
What’s Next
The district court will consider the withdrawal motion and determine whether to excise the misfiled notice from the docket. The DOJ’s immediate filing of the intended Minnesota supplemental authority suggests the department will continue to pursue its voting-fraud claims, now with corrected documentation.
