DOJ Files Statement of Interest in McQueer v. Benson, Michigan Court of Claims, on Pollbook Deletion and HAVA

On October 15, 2026 the United States moved in the Michigan Court of Claims for leave to file a statement of interest in McQueer v. Benson, No. 26-000172-MZ (Judge Michael J. Riordan). The signatories are the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan and the Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon. Whether the court granted leave is not established in the sources reviewed.

What the case is

Bridgewater Township Clerk Michelle McQueer sued Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Elections Director Jonathan Brater and the Department of State on August 12, 2026 over Rule 168.48, which requires clerks to delete electronic pollbook software and files within seven days of certification. The Republican National Committee and the Michigan Republican Party are plaintiff-intervenors. Her lead theory is that the federal records-retention law preempts the rule. Per the filing, the court denied the State’s motion for summary disposition on September 22, 2026, and the Department of State then issued a declaratory ruling defending the rule.

What DOJ says

• Deletion after the midterm. Taking the State’s factual assertions as true, “the Attorney General would not consider deletions pursuant to Rule 168.48 after this midterm election an enforcement priority.” DOJ adds that the “Secretary remains ultimately responsible for the preservation of records under Title III.” It also flags that other facts remain in dispute or need verification, including whether all pollbook data reaches the statewide list.
• HAVA. Reading the State’s own ruling, DOJ argues Election Day runs on precinct snapshots of the voter list, operated offline, with voter history uploaded up to a week after certification. That, it says, leaves the State with “unleashed disjointed and disconnected SVRLs across the state.” Its conclusion: “A list that is de-centralized just before the election and then re-centralized seven days later is not a HAVA-compliant SVRL.” The operative hedges are “may violate” and “remains concerned.”

What DOJ does not ask

The filing contains no request about counting or certifying the election.

Why it matters

It puts a federal HAVA noncompliance theory about a battleground state’s Election Day voter lists on a court record before the vote, and it does so a week before DOJ’s Alaska certification suit. It also tells clerks DOJ will not prioritize prosecuting these deletions after this election.

Open

The State’s response; whether leave was granted; the court’s ruling; docket entries (state court, not in RECAP).