New Jersey Voter Registration Dispute Escalates as Sherrill Rejects DOJ Demand for Noncitizen Records
New Jersey’s discovery that roughly 6,600 people who had indicated they were not U.S. citizens were nevertheless registered to vote has escalated into a federal dispute over voter-roll data, privacy and the scope of federal election oversight.
Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s administration said the registrations resulted from an error involving the state’s motor-vehicle system between June 2023 and June 2024, before Sherrill took office. A preliminary review found that fewer than 400 of those individuals subsequently cast ballots.
The Justice Department sought identifying information about the affected registrants and the elections in which those who voted participated. Sherrill declined to provide the requested personal information, arguing that New Jersey had an obligation to protect residents’ private data.
The dispute has since moved into federal court, where a judge dismissed a broader DOJ lawsuit seeking access to New Jersey’s electronic voter-registration database. The Justice Department said it would appeal.
How 6,600 Noncitizens Were Registered
Sherrill announced in July that approximately 6,600 people had been registered to vote even though they had indicated that they were not U.S. citizens while applying for driver’s licenses or identification cards.
According to the governor, the problem occurred between June 2023 and June 2024 through the Motor Vehicle Commission’s voter-registration process.
The individuals reportedly answered “no” when asked whether they were U.S. citizens but were nevertheless added to the voter rolls.
Sherrill said the individuals were registered through no fault of their own and that the problem occurred under the administration of former Gov. Phil Murphy. After learning about the issue, she said her administration ordered an investigation and began removing improperly registered individuals from the rolls.
The governor’s preliminary analysis found that fewer than 400 people who were newly registered because of the error went on to vote.
That figure does not establish that all of those ballots were knowingly cast illegally. The circumstances surrounding each registration and ballot would have to be examined individually.
Sherrill Refuses to Turn Over the Requested Information
The Justice Department responded by requesting identifying information about the affected voters, including information that could allow federal investigators to determine who had voted and in which elections.
Sherrill rejected the request.
“I’m not in the habit of turning over private identifying information of the citizens of New Jersey,” she said when asked about the federal demand. She argued that the Trump administration had been using federal authority against political opponents and said she was seeking to protect New Jersey residents’ personal information.
The statement became a major point of contention because the people at issue had indicated to state authorities that they were not U.S. citizens.
Sherrill’s broader argument, however, was about the status of the information as private voter data and whether the federal government had legal authority to compel New Jersey to provide it.
That distinction became central to the subsequent court battle.
DOJ Says It Needs the Records to Investigate
The Justice Department argued that the New Jersey disclosure provided an additional basis for examining the state’s voter rolls.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said the federal government needed information about the individuals to determine whether New Jersey was complying with federal requirements governing voter registration and maintenance of voter rolls.
The department also sought to determine which of the approximately 6,600 individuals had voted and when those ballots were cast.
Federal officials emphasized that their concern was not simply the existence of erroneous registrations but whether noncitizens remained on the voter rolls and whether ballots cast by ineligible voters could be identified.
The Justice Department has separately been pursuing access to New Jersey’s broader electronic voter database.
The State Says the Error Was Administrative
Sherrill has characterized the incident as a serious administrative failure rather than evidence that the individuals deliberately attempted to register illegally.
Her administration said the people affected had correctly indicated that they were not U.S. citizens when interacting with the motor-vehicle system.
New Jersey subsequently began reviewing the registrations and removing people who had been added solely through the erroneous process. By July 28, the state said more than 4,500 registrations were being removed, while roughly 2,100 additional cases were being sent to county election officials for review.
The additional review is significant because the status of an individual can change over time, and administrative records can contain errors. State officials indicated that some people could have subsequently become eligible to vote or could have been incorrectly identified as ineligible.
Vendor and State Officials Dispute Responsibility
Responsibility for the registration problem has also become contested.
Sherrill initially attributed the registrations to a software error involving the Motor Vehicle Commission system and said her administration was taking steps to replace the vendor involved.
The technology contractor, IDEMIA, disputed aspects of that characterization.
The company said information transmitted through the motor-vehicle system reflected what applicants had entered and that the state Division of Elections ultimately had responsibility for validating and adjudicating voter-registration information.
That disagreement means the precise technical and administrative chain that allowed the registrations to occur remains an important part of the state’s investigation.
Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Voter-Data Lawsuit
The legal dispute took a significant turn on July 29.
U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit seeking New Jersey’s electronic voter-registration database, which included sensitive information such as addresses, dates of birth, driver’s-license information and partial Social Security numbers.
Quraishi concluded that the federal statute cited by the Justice Department did not require New Jersey to produce its computerized statewide voter list in the manner demanded by federal officials.
The ruling did not determine whether the approximately 6,600 registrations were proper, nor did it resolve every issue surrounding the individuals who subsequently voted.
Instead, it addressed the federal government’s legal authority to obtain the broader voter database through the particular statutory provisions at issue in that lawsuit.
The Justice Department said it disagreed with the ruling and planned to appeal.
What the 400 Ballots Do — and Do Not — Establish
The discovery has become part of the national debate over noncitizen voting, but the available information does not establish that the approximately 400 ballots changed the outcome of an election.
Sherrill said the state had no evidence at the time of her announcement that any election result had been affected.
There is also an important distinction between being registered and actually voting.
The state’s preliminary analysis identified fewer than 400 people among the roughly 6,600 registrations who cast ballots. Investigators would still need to determine the circumstances of those votes, including whether individuals knowingly violated election law or whether the votes resulted from registration errors and misunderstandings.
A Broader National Dispute
The New Jersey case has become part of a wider confrontation between the Trump administration and states over access to voter-registration information.
The Justice Department has sought voter data from numerous states as part of its effort to examine whether voter rolls contain ineligible registrations and whether noncitizens have voted.
States and voting officials have raised privacy and federalism objections to some of those demands, while the Justice Department argues that federal law gives it authority to ensure compliance with federal election requirements.
The legal landscape remains unsettled. Courts have issued differing decisions concerning federal requests for state voter information, and the New Jersey case is now headed toward an appeal after Quraishi’s July ruling.
What Happens Next
The New Jersey controversy now has several separate tracks.
The state investigation: New Jersey is continuing to review the registrations and determine how the error occurred.
Voter-roll maintenance: State and county officials are examining the approximately 6,600 affected registrations and removing or reviewing them as appropriate.
The federal investigation: The Justice Department continues to seek information that it says is necessary to determine whether federal election laws were violated.
The court battle: The DOJ has said it will appeal the federal judge’s dismissal of its voter-data lawsuit.
The underlying facts are therefore clearer than some of the political rhetoric surrounding the case: New Jersey acknowledged that approximately 6,600 people who had indicated they were noncitizens were improperly registered to vote; fewer than 400 subsequently cast ballots; the state began correcting the registrations; and the governor declined to provide the requested personal information to federal investigators.
What remains disputed is the scope of federal authority to obtain that information, the precise cause of the registration error, and the circumstances surrounding the ballots cast by the affected individuals.
Benjamin Harris is a RapidReports front page contributor and editor,proud father of four.
