ExtremismLedger
ExtremismLedger is a living public-interest database. Records are continuously reviewed, updated, and expanded as new verified information becomes available.

Justice Department Demands That California Election Officials Set Aside Mail Ballots of Voters on a Federal 'Likely Noncitizen' List

Documented · 10/13/2026

California

This involves pending federal litigation and demands that no court has ordered. Beginning October 13, 2026, while Californians were already voting by mail in the November 3 federal election, the U.S. Department of Justice asked California's Secretary of State and the Los Angeles County registrar to review a list of more than 20,000 registered voters whom federal agencies believe are likely noncitizens and, where citizenship could not be confirmed, to set aside those voters' mail ballots rather than count them. When the State and County declined, the department sued them on October 15 in United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025 (C.D. Cal.). On October 22 and 23, U.S. Attorney's Offices delivered county-specific portions of the list to election officials in at least 40 of the state's 58 counties, asking them to commit within 48 hours to working with federal agencies, to supply listed voters' Social Security, driver's license and registration information, and to instruct election officials to set aside and not process those voters' ballots until citizenship was determined. The letters warned that officials who 'knowingly tabulate ballots cast by individuals identified by federal agencies as noncitizens' risk becoming 'aiders and abettors to a federal crime.'

The list was built by federal agencies by matching a copy of California's voter roll against immigration records and third-party data; the department has told the court it is not feasible to investigate the listed individuals before the election concludes. Inclusion on the list is not a finding that a person is ineligible. Los Angeles County's review of a 200-record sample found that 42.9% had cancelled registrations and that, where birthplace was reported, 38.9% indicated birth in the United States; a federal official disputed the County's analysis. Federal prosecutors have charged 28 people on the list with crimes; charges are not convictions.

Procedural status (as of October 29, 2026): On October 26 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2-1, dismissed the government's first emergency appeal for lack of jurisdiction without deciding the merits. On October 28, after a hearing the previous day, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter denied the government's application for a temporary restraining order. In that preliminary ruling he concluded that the government had not shown it was likely to succeed, finding that it likely lacks standing and a cause of action, that its preemption claim is not likely to succeed, and that the relief it sought would likely violate federal election law; he wrote that the court "cannot conclude that Plaintiff's process is credible," and, referring to the government's warnings that election officials risked federal charges, that "these threats must stop." The ruling is not a final decision on the merits. The government appealed the same day and renewed its request for an injunction pending appeal; as of October 29 no court had ruled on that request. On October 29 Judge Carter appointed a technical special master and set a November 13 hearing on motions to dismiss and on the government's motion for a preliminary injunction, with witness testimony on the list's reliability. No court has ordered any ballot set aside, and no county is reported to have done so; the Secretary of State and officials in Los Angeles, Santa Clara and Contra Costa counties have publicly declined. No public record reviewed shows any election official being investigated or charged in connection with these demands.

Documented claims

Editorial classification 10/29/2026

ExtremismLedger includes this matter under Editorial Policy §0 criterion 8 (subversion or attempted subversion of American constitutional democratic-republic norms). This is a novel application of that criterion, decided by the project owner on October 29, 2026. It applies to federal demands, made outside any court order and during active voting, that election officials withhold the ballots of voters on an unverified list, coupled with warnings to those officials of criminal exposure for the election-administration conduct at issue; both elements are required, and ordinary voter-roll litigation, or a federal letter that lacks either element, does not qualify under this application. The norms involved are the administration and counting of federal elections by state and local officials under neutral, pre-established rules; the protection of registered voters from having their ballots withheld without an individualized determination that they are ineligible; and the ability of election officials to carry out their legal duties without threats of federal prosecution. The documented conduct is a series of federal demands, beginning October 13 and extended to county election officials across California on October 22 and 23, that officials set aside the ballots of voters on a list of more than 20,000 people whom federal officials describe as 'likely' noncitizens and whom the government acknowledges it cannot individually investigate before the election concludes. The demands warned that officials who count those ballots risk liability as 'aiders and abettors to a federal crime,' and the President publicly wrote that 'They will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!' The Ledger's judgment is that this conduct is reasonably capable of undermining those norms because it uses the threat of federal criminal exposure to press local election officials to depart from state counting law and withhold votes on the basis of an unadjudicated federal list. That judgment is informed by the federal district court's October 28 order denying emergency relief, which preliminarily concluded that the requested relief would likely violate federal election law, said the court could not conclude that the government's list-building process was credible, and called the government's warnings to election officials threats that 'must stop'; that order is not a final ruling on the merits and is on appeal. Weighing against that judgment: federal law prohibits noncitizen voting, and enforcing it is a legitimate federal purpose; 28 people on the list have been charged, and charges are not convictions; the letters asked that ballots be set aside, not cancelled, and framed liability around 'knowingly' counting unlawful ballots; the department also pursued the same relief in court; no official has been charged; no ballot is reported to have been set aside; one appellate judge would have granted the government relief; and the government's appeal and its motion for a preliminary injunction remain pending. This is the Ledger's own editorial classification, not a judicial finding. It does not assert that the demands were unlawful, that any official committed a crime, or that any eligible voter's ballot was withheld. The Ledger does not apply criterion 6 (election interference), because no ballot has been withheld or count altered and no court has finally determined the lawfulness of the demands. It does not apply criterion 7, because no court or official body has found an abuse of prosecutorial or governmental power, the October 28 ruling is a preliminary denial of emergency relief, and no official has been investigated or charged.

Documented fact 10/29/2026

As of October 29, 2026, no court had ordered any California election official to set aside or withhold any ballot, and no county had been reported to have done so. On October 28, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter denied the government's application for a temporary restraining order. The same day, the government filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit and a renewed request for an injunction pending appeal; the docket reviewed on October 29 showed no ruling on that request. The court had granted motions to intervene by the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens and by Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network and Mi Familia en Acción. On October 29, the court appointed Daniel B. Garrie as a technical special master to assist in developing the factual record, set an expedited schedule for motions to dismiss, required all parties to submit witness lists by November 6 on the reliability of the government's list and the method used to produce it, and set a hearing for November 13 on the motions to dismiss and the government's motion for a preliminary injunction. No public record reviewed by the Ledger shows any election official being investigated, subpoenaed or charged in connection with the demands. California's general election is November 3, 2026.

Documented fact 10/28/2026

On October 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter denied the government's application for a temporary restraining order. The ruling decided only that the government had not shown it was entitled to emergency relief; it is not a final judgment on the merits, and the government has appealed. Applying the standard for emergency relief, the court concluded that the government had not established a likelihood of success: that the United States "likely does not have standing or a cause of action," that it is "not likely to succeed" on its claim that 18 U.S.C. § 611 preempts California election law, and that the requested relief "would likely violate" the National Voter Registration Act's 90-day limit on systematic voter-list programs and the Voting Rights Act's prohibition on refusing to count qualified voters' ballots; it also concluded that the requested procedure "violates the CRA," the Civil Rights Act's bar on applying different standards to some voters. The court found that any risk of irreparable harm was "solely due to its own neglect," citing the months between the government's receipt of the voter file and its suit; that "the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff's process is credible," citing undisclosed matching rules and an earlier federal list in Nevada that was reduced from 15,903 people to 185 whom, the court said, Nevada officials later confirmed were all citizens; and that, because citizenship could not be verified before certification, "a ballot segregated, in effect, would be a ballot removed." Describing the October county letters and a government statement in open court that officials who did not comply risked federal aiding-and-abetting charges, the court wrote: "these threats must stop." A heading in the order's background section states that "The DOJ's actions are indicative of a broad, ongoing pattern of attempted election interference by federal officials"; that is the court's characterization, not a holding. The order did not rule on the lawfulness of the county letters themselves or direct the government to withdraw them.

Documented fact 10/26/2026

After the district court set a hearing for October 27, the government asked for a ruling by noon on October 22 and, when none came, appealed, calling the court's silence a 'constructive denial,' and asked the Ninth Circuit to order California to set aside listed voters' ballots pending appeal. On October 26, 2026, in a published order (Judges Bennett and Sanchez, with Judge Bumatay dissenting), the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied the emergency motion as moot. It held that the district court had not constructively denied relief, noting that the government had twice asked for a ruling 'by November 3, 2026,' and wrote that 'The United States's claimed emergency, at least in part, is a self-constructed one.' The per curiam order did not decide whether the government's claim has merit; Judge Bennett wrote separately that he would deny relief on the merits, and Judge Bumatay would have granted it. No judge requested en banc rehearing, and the mandate issued the same day.

Documented fact 10/26/2026

Los Angeles County election staff declared under oath that a preliminary review of 200 records from the list found 42.9% with cancelled registrations, 42.4% active and 4.6% inactive; 71.2% with no record of having voted; and, among records with meaningfully reported birthplace, 38.9% indicating birth in the United States. In response, a USCIS official declared that USCIS matched 14 people in the County's sample to the federal list, that none of those 14 was born in the United States according to USCIS records, and that on re-review four 'might have a claim to U.S. citizenship' and one was deceased, adding that 'there is always a risk for human error.' Santa Clara County Executive James Williams said his staff found 'three duplicates' on the first page of that county's list. Separately, federal prosecutors announced charges on October 19 against 28 lawful permanent residents on the list for false statements or fraudulent registration; charges are not convictions. No court has made final findings about the list's accuracy; in its October 28 preliminary ruling the district court said it could not conclude that the government's process was credible, and it has set a November 13 hearing with witness testimony on the list's reliability.

Documented fact 10/26/2026

Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber wrote on October 15 that she would 'not disenfranchise thousands of Californians—or order any county elections official to do so—based solely upon an unsupported and likely inaccurate "belie[f]".' Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Kristin Connelly called her county's letter 'an unenforceable 48-hour deadline delivered late on a Friday.' Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan said the letters threatened 'local election officials twelve days before the election.' On October 25, Santa Clara County Executive James Williams and County Counsel Tony LoPresti wrote to the U.S. Attorney's Office that state and federal law barred the registrar from complying, according to KQED and NBC Bay Area; Williams said a federal letter 'does not constitute a basis to sequester votes or failed to count them without a subpoena or a warrant.' First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said, 'Any election official who knowingly processes the ballot of a noncitizen is opening themselves to legal jeopardy.'

Documented fact 10/23/2026

Letters dated October 22 or 23, 2026 from U.S. Attorney's Offices in California were delivered to county election officials, in at least some cases by hand by Homeland Security Investigations agents; a Secretary of State attorney declared on October 23 that at least 40 of the state's 58 counties had reported receiving them, and a Justice Department spokesperson said the department had contacted every county. Letters from U.S. Attorney Eric Grant (E.D. Cal.) to Fresno, Madera and Sacramento counties, filed in the federal case, each enclosed a county-specific list (670 names for Fresno, 78 for Madera) and asked the official, 'Within 48 hours,' to 'commit to working with DOJ and DHS to identify who on the accompanying list is a citizen and who is not,' including by sending each listed person's Social Security number, state ID or driver's license information and voter registration application. For those whose citizenship the county could not independently confirm, the letters requested that the official 'immediately instruct the appropriate elections official to segregate—not cancel—those individuals' vote-by-mail ballots' and not process any such ballot until citizenship is determined. The letters stated that 'If persons knowingly tabulate ballots cast by individuals identified by federal agencies as noncitizens, they risk becoming aiders and abettors to a federal crime,' and closed by urging cooperation 'before taking actions that risk significant federal scrutiny and legal exposure.' Santa Clara County reported that its letter listed 902 people. Letters from the Northern District of California were reported but were not reviewed directly by the Ledger.

Documented fact 10/22/2026

In sworn declarations, federal officials described how the list was made. A Homeland Security Investigations official stated that HSI 'received what appeared to be the California voter roster,' which he believes reflects the rolls 'as of August 2025'; a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official stated that USCIS received a copy of the rolls from HSI around May 8, 2026, enhanced the data with a third-party analytics platform, and scored matches 'because the resulting data may be incomplete, outdated, or mismatched,' followed by manual and supervisory review. Both identified 'approximately 189 records with minor data discrepancies' after the list was delivered, and USCIS stated that a separate batch of more than 17,000 records was under review. The officials state that they reasonably believe the listed people are 'highly likely' to be noncitizens; in denying emergency relief on October 28, the district court wrote that it "cannot conclude that Plaintiff's process is credible," a preliminary assessment rather than a final finding.

Documented fact 10/16/2026

On the evening of October 16, 2026, President Donald J. Trump posted an image of the department's October 16 letter on Truth Social and, a minute later, over a screenshot of a news report about the letter, wrote: 'They will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!' The Ledger has found no evidence showing that he directed the letters or the lawsuit; this records his public statement only.

Documented fact 10/16/2026

In an October 16, 2026 letter to Los Angeles County's counsel, Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter wrote that the department sought to 'make unmistakably clear the legal implications for violating 18 U.S.C. § 611,' that 'If persons knowingly tabulate ballots cast by individuals identified by federal agencies as noncitizens, they risk becoming aiders and abettors to a federal crime,' and that 'The Department has not requested a purge, cancellation of registrations, or any programmatic action.' The letter treated the federal list as placing officials 'on actual notice of noncitizen voting.' It did not name any official as a target of investigation.

Documented fact 10/15/2026

On October 15, 2026, the United States sued the State of California, Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean C. Logan in United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025 (C.D. Cal.). The complaint asserts that, by counting ballots without verifying the citizenship of listed voters, the defendants frustrate the federal ban on noncitizen voting in federal elections (18 U.S.C. § 611(a)) in violation of the Supremacy Clause, and asks for an injunction barring California from tabulating mail ballots from individuals 'identified by the Federal Government as likely noncitizens until those individuals' citizenship status can be verified.' The complaint states that it is 'not practicable or feasible for the United States to investigate before the 2026 election concludes' the thousands of listed individuals. These are the government's allegations and requests; no court has granted them.

Documented fact 10/13/2026

On October 13, 2026, after California had mailed ballots to all registered voters on October 1 as state law requires, the Justice Department sent California's Secretary of State and the Los Angeles County registrar a list of more than 20,000 people that federal agencies labeled 'likely' noncitizens registered to vote. According to the Ninth Circuit's description of the record, the department asked them to review the list within forty-eight hours, confirm the individuals' citizenship, and, if they could not independently confirm citizenship, set aside ballots received from listed individuals until each person's citizenship could be verified. The Secretary of Homeland Security had first raised the issue with state officials in July, and they had asked for a description of the methodology.