The short version
- Los Angeles election officials report that nearly 39 percent of a sampled group from a federal list of suspected non-citizens were born in the United States.
- The Department of Justice sued California after state and local officials refused to segregate ballots based on the provided list within a 48-hour deadline.
- Federal officials acknowledge potential errors in the data but maintain that states must independently verify citizenship status for individuals on the list.
A legal dispute over voter eligibility has intensified as Los Angeles election officials presented new evidence challenging the accuracy of a federal list identifying suspected non-citizens. In court documents filed Tuesday, local authorities stated that a substantial number of people included in the Department of Justice’s roster were actually born in the United States. This revelation casts doubt on the reliability of the data provided by federal agencies and underscores the growing tension between state election administrators and the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce voting laws.
The controversy centers on a list of 20,000 names that the Department of Justice delivered to Los Angeles County and California state officials last week. Federal authorities demanded that local election workers segregate ballots cast by anyone appearing on this roster unless they could independently verify the individuals’ citizenship status within a strict 48-hour window. Los Angeles officials declined to comply with the request, citing concerns about the data’s integrity. In response, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state and county on Thursday, accusing them of willful blindness to potential violations of federal law.
According to the filing, only approximately 7,000 of the 20,000 names provided by the federal government had addresses located within Los Angeles County. To assess the validity of the list, local officials analyzed a sample of 200 individuals. Aman Bhullar, an official in the Los Angeles clerk and recorder’s office, noted that among the records where birthplace information was clearly reported, 38.9 percent indicated the individuals were born in the United States. This finding suggests that the federal list may contain a high percentage of U.S.-born citizens who are being incorrectly flagged as non-citizens.
Further analysis of the sample revealed additional discrepancies. Bhullar reported that 43 percent of those on the list had voter registration records that had already been canceled. Additionally, 71 percent of the sampled individuals had never voted, and only 86 people had been mailed a ballot this year. These statistics imply that many of the flagged individuals were not active participants in the electoral process, raising questions about the necessity and impact of the federal intervention. A county spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment regarding the specific number of U.S.-born citizens identified in the full list.
The Department of Homeland Security, which compiled the list by matching voter rolls against its own records, has resisted demands from state officials to share its methodology. Experts have warned that the techniques used by DHS to identify non-citizens on voter rolls are prone to error. This concern is supported by previous incidents; in July, DHS accused Nevada of having up to 16,000 non-citizens on its voter rolls. However, when officials later provided a specific list of 185 names to Nevada election authorities, the state investigated and found that all 185 individuals were, in fact, citizens.
Despite these past inaccuracies, federal officials maintain that the lists are necessary for enforcing voting laws. R. Trent McCotter, the acting deputy attorney general, acknowledged during a press conference on Monday that there could be citizens on the list. He stated, “There may be some names on there who, it turns out, ultimately are citizens. We’re not perfect, and that’s why we’ve asked California to cooperate with us.” McCotter emphasized that the federal government is seeking cooperation from state officials to verify citizenship status rather than relying solely on the initial data provided by DHS.
Kiersten Pels, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, argued that self-reported information on voter registration forms cannot be taken at face value. She stated that just because an individual lists a U.S. birthplace on a form does not automatically make them eligible to vote if they are not citizens. Pels asserted that California’s refusal to verify the citizenship of people on the list constitutes a violation of federal law. “Federal law doesn’t permit this willful blindness,” she said, framing the state’s actions as an obstruction of justice rather than a legitimate concern about data accuracy.
The lawsuit marks a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between federal authorities and state election officials over voter eligibility. While the Department of Justice insists that states have a duty to verify citizenship for individuals on the provided lists, local officials argue that the data is flawed and could lead to the disenfranchisement of lawful voters. The outcome of this legal battle may set a precedent for how future disputes over voter rolls are handled, particularly regarding the use of federal data in state election administration.
As the case proceeds, attention will focus on whether courts will compel Los Angeles and California officials to segregate ballots based on the disputed list. The reliability of the DHS matching methodology remains a central point of contention, with critics pointing to past errors as evidence of systemic flaws. Meanwhile, election officials continue to navigate the complex legal landscape, balancing federal mandates with their responsibility to ensure fair and accurate elections for all eligible voters.
The situation highlights the broader challenges in maintaining accurate voter rolls in an era of heightened political scrutiny. With both sides presenting conflicting narratives about the integrity of the data, the resolution of this dispute could have far-reaching implications for election administration across the country. Until a final ruling is issued, the uncertainty surrounding the list’s accuracy remains a significant concern for voters and officials alike.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗DoJ’s suspected non-citizens list includes ‘high percentage’ of those born in US, LA officials say
