top of page

Janie Sitton 

Mired in controversy, Voting Section attorney Janie Sitton has ironically made national news for likely having voted illegally in North Carolina. In addition, her advocacy to upend the legal system for a new system of “transgender jurisprudence” raises alarming questions about her left-wing activism.  

Sexual Law Instructor Turned DOJ Attorney

Janie Sitton is a career attorney In the DOJ's Voting Section and has a long history of demonstrating partisan bias and extreme left-wing ideology. Sitton has written in support of the trans agenda, has donated to Democrats, and is registered to vote as a Democrat.

Most recently, Sitton's likely violation of North Carolina election laws drew national media attention, with the DOJ maintaining a deafening silence regarding the allegations against their attorney. 


Below we outline facts that call In to question Sitton's ability to impartially enforce our nation's election laws as a civil service attorney tasked with doing so.

Sitton’s Washington D.C. and North Carolina Real Estate Holdings 

Sitton has been a resident and active voter in Washington D.C. since registering to vote on August 13, 2010, within days of buying her home (2736 Ordway St NW #5) on August 17, 2010. Since then, voter data indicates she has voted in election cycles from 2010 to 2020 in the District of Columbia, with the last election being the Presidential Primary of 2020.



Consistent with someone whose home is in the District of Columbia, online records provided by the Washington Office of Tax and Revenue show Sitton has claimed a homestead exemption on her DC residence every year from 2018 to present.



According to the DC Office of Tax and Revenue, Washington property tax laws require that to be eligible to claim a homestead exemption, the owner must declare that the property is the principal residence (domicile) of the owner.









Submitting a false statement on these property tax records can subject the applicant to criminal penalties, according to the fraud and false statement laws under 47-4106 of the Code of the District of Columbia.


North Carolina Second Home 


Sitton also owns a condominium (503 Victory Trail) in Morganton, North Carolina that was purchased in 2002.


Included within a refinancing of the mortgage executed on her North Carolina condominium in April of 2019, was a “Second Home Rider” requirement signed by Sitton which obligates her to treat the condominium as a “second home.”











North Carolina property tax records indicate that Sitton’s mailing address for the North Carolina property since 2011 has been her Washington, DC home. The tax bill from the year Sitton voted in the North Carolina election is shown below. (*Note the Washington, DC owner address.)




Sitton Likely Violated North Carolina Illegal Voting Laws  


On 08/19/2020, Sitton registered to vote in North Carolina: From the NC State Board of Elections Voter Database. (*Note 503 Victory Trail address)




As shown by the record of her voting history from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, soon after registering to vote, Sitton voted in the Presidential general election by absentee ballot, and then voted once more in a 2021 municipal election. 


It is important to reiterate that while she was voting in the North Carolina elections, she was claiming the homestead exemption on her “primary residence” in the District of Columbia and a little over a year prior had taken a mortgage on the North Carolina property contingent on her North Carolina property being a second, non-residence property.   


After the 2020 presidential election, Sitton abruptly restored her DC voter registration in May of 2022.


North Carolina Election Law 


North Carolina General Statutes 163-57 clearly define what is and is not considered residency for the purposes of registering to vote within the state, with multiple provisions applying to Sitton’s situation:

§ 163-57. Residence defined for registration and voting.All election officials in determining the residence of a person offering to register or vote, shall be governed by the following rules, so far as they may apply:

  1. That place shall be considered the residence of a person in which that person's habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever that person is absent, that person has the intention of returning; 


Public records make it clear that Janie Sitton never had “the intention of making that county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district a permanent place of abode,” as required by North Carolina Law. Specifically, Sitton:  


  • Continuously claimed her DC home as a primary residence to obtain a homestead exemption on her property taxes while voting in another state.

  • Signed a mortgage agreement to keep her North Carolina condominium as a second non-residence property and not her primary residence.

  • Continued to have her North Carolina Property Tax bill sent to her DC address while claiming to live in North Carolina.

  • Continued to work at her job in the Voting Section of the Department of Justice, whose primary offices are in Washington, DC.

  • Voted by absentee ballot by mail in 2020.

It is important to note that Sitton is a highly experienced attorney working in the highest levels of the legal community in the United States, as attorney at the United States Department of Justice.  As a legal expert it is not reasonable to believe that Sitton was unaware of the numerous and continuing violations of election law.


Sitton's Left-Wing Transgender Activism 

Janie Sitton has long been at the forefront of promoting the transgender agenda. In 2000, while working for the DOJ, Sitton authored a radical article that called for the adoption of a new legal system deemed “transgender jurisprudence.” The article, titled "Introduction to the Symposium, (De)Constructing Sex: Transgenderism, Intersexuality, Gender Identity, and the Law" and published in the William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice, also stated the need to “rethink” the basic known “assumptions and constructs upon which our society and laws are based.”

Those connections have not always been fully recognized or appreciated. The concept of "gender" traditionally has been thought to describe two alternative sets of socially constructed behaviors and expectations (labeled "masculine" and "feminine") attributed to and usually adopted by an individual based on his/her sex (either "male" or "female"), a status generally assigned at birth and viewed as being biologically determined. 2 "Gender identity" concerns a person's self-identification as one ("man") or the other ("woman") of these two groups. Individuals assigned one gender by society but identifying as the other were labeled "transexuals" or, later, "transgenders."3 The concept of "sexual orientation" was, and in the mainstream still is, anchored around the idea of sexual attraction: "homosexuals" are oriented or attracted to individuals of the same sex, while "heterosexuals"

Sitton described the article as a “first of its kind” publication focused on legal issues relating to transgender people, and outlined proposed changes to the legal system to conform to transgender ideologies, such as recognizing that gender comes in a “myriad of forms.”

prefer to have sexual relationships with members of the "opposite" sex. When recognized at all, "bisexuals" are those relatively unusual individuals who are attracted, or could be, to persons of "either" gender. Underlying each of the foregoing classifications is the traditional understanding of "sex"e as a dimorphous and biologically determined characteristic of every human, which is either "male" or "female." These two categories, generally considered mutually exclusive and all-encompassing, have been used to construct the others. Even "intersexual" persons-individuals who do not conform to "either" sex because they demonstrate physical characteristics of "both"4---are defined with reference to this binary scheme.      

These relationships are what led this Journal of Women and the Law to focus on transgenderism and intersexuality. The Editors recognized a connection between the way the law treats, or should treat, transgenders, and the way the law affects, or should affect, women. As often happens, focusing on the marginal rather than the central group brings into focus more clearly the situation confronting both. In this case, it also reveals the fragility of these categories, leading inevitably to the conclusion that sex, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation are more fluid, both among and within individuals, than generally acknowledged.

Sitton took issue with common traditions such as identifying a newborn infant as a boy or girl based on the child’s sex. Sitton argued that society has been wrong to assume or assign a gender to infants.

As one example of the centrality of gender binarism in our culture, when a baby is born, "Is it a boy or girl?" is typically the first question to arise. Despite longstanding medical evidence that many human beings biologically are neither, or both,5 the answer given to that question is rarely "I don't know." Nor is it: "Let's wait and see how the child identifies."

Sitton concluded  that through both case law and changes to the legal system, that the guiding principles of “transgender jurisprudence” will lead to deconstructing traditional sex and gender concepts.

 Transgenderism and intersexuality force us to rethink many of the basic assumptions and constructs on which our society and laws are based. That knowledge can then be used to enhance the ability of all people to express their gender and sexuality as they choose. Additionally, it can foster the development of a gender jurisprudence which recognizes that such expression comes not in one of two forms, but rather in a myriad of forms.     
Each of these authors suggests ways for transgenders to navigate the caselaw and statutes that have developed in this area of gender and sexuality law. Additionally, they propose ways to further develop this jurisprudence and its guiding principles, all of which center on deconstructing the traditional sex/gender binary. Rigid adherence to that binary has facilitated the sex discrimination faced by women, and sometimes by men as well. Individually and collectively, the following articles demonstrate that adherence to the binary is indefensible, because it fails to account for the vast array of gender nonconforming people who do not consistently express either "masculinity" or "femininity" in the stereotypical way.

Sitton’s Record of Partisan Political Affiliation


Election records for the past decade indicate that Sitton has reliably affiliated as a Democrat, and past campaign contributions reflect giving to several Democrat candidates, including the following for a total of $450:  









1. District of Colombia, Board of Elections 

2. District of Colombia, Office of Tax and Revenue. 

3. Burke County Clerk, North Carolina. 

4. North Carolina, Board of Elections. 

5. North Carolina, General Statutes. 

6. J. Sitton, Intersexuality, Gender Identity, and the Law, 2000. 

bottom of page