DOJ threatens legal action against California over alleged noncitizen voters

The Justice Department is asking California election officials to examine a list of people the federal government believes are likely noncitizens who were sent vote-by-mail ballots. It wants officials to separate those ballots while citizenship is checked. The request matters because federal law allows only American citizens to vote in federal elections, but the officials receiving the request dispute the DOJ’s authority and data.

Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter sent the list to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan. The DOJ asked county officials to “segregate — not cancel” the ballots. Logan said his office did not open the password-protected thumb drive because it conflicted with privacy and security protocols.

California officials have not accepted the request as presented. Logan said eligibility decisions must rely on verifiable information, not unconfirmed data matching. Weber said the DOJ did not provide her office a list and lacked legal authority. The DOJ demanded review by noon Thursday, creating an immediate dispute before Election Day.

A voter roll is the official list of people registered to vote in a jurisdiction. Election officials use it to determine who may receive ballots and participate. Temporarily segregating a ballot means setting that ballot aside while officials check information. It does not, by itself, remove the voter from the registration system.

The DOJ’s letters specifically asked California officials to “segregate — not cancel” ballots linked to people it considered likely noncitizens. That distinction matters. A registration cancellation changes a person’s eligibility record, while ballot segregation concerns the handling of one ballot during an investigation. The article does not describe a final process for deciding the ballots’ status.

California officials said eligibility changes must follow state and federal law and rely on verifiable information. Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan also declined to open the DOJ’s thumb drive, citing privacy and information-security protocols. Thus, the dispute concerns both election administration and whether the supplied data is reliable enough to justify holding ballots.

The article does not provide figures measuring noncitizen voting or comparing it with total participation in U.S. elections. Therefore, no numerical ratio, percentage, or turnout comparison can be calculated from the supplied text. The strongest scale-related statement is that voting by noncitizens is a “relatively rare phenomenon,” attributed to voting experts.

The article describes the DOJ’s effort as part of a broader Trump administration campaign focused on possible noncitizen voting. It also notes that former President Donald Trump has made unfounded claims that widespread election fraud exists. Those details explain the political context, but they do not quantify how often noncitizens vote.

Because the source provides no figures, a precise answer would require outside evidence. Based only on this article, the supported conclusion is limited: experts characterize noncitizen voting as relatively rare, while its size compared with overall election participation is not stated. The article instead focuses on the legal and administrative dispute in California.

Federal law prohibits systematic voter-list maintenance during the 90 days before a federal election. The article says the DOJ request came less than three weeks before Election Day. That timing sharply limits broad efforts to review or alter registration records, making the demand legally and administratively sensitive.

The DOJ says it is not asking California to change voter rolls. Instead, it wants officials to sequester ballots connected to people the federal government believes are likely noncitizens. The law still allows individualized information, such as notification from the Social Security Administration that someone has died. The article does not establish whether the DOJ’s list qualifies as individualized information.

This timing creates a conflict between rapid ballot review and election safeguards against late systematic list changes. California officials say eligibility decisions must use verifiable information. With mail ballots already going out October 5 and the DOJ demanding review by Thursday, officials face a compressed deadline before voting and counting proceed.

When officials hold ballots for investigation, those ballots may not move through the normal counting process immediately. That can delay decisions about which votes are included and make election results harder to report promptly. The article does not say exactly how California would handle ballots that remain unresolved, so the precise consequences are not established.

The DOJ asked officials to segregate, rather than cancel, ballots tied to people it believes are likely noncitizens. This mechanism is intended to preserve the ballots while citizenship status is checked. However, Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said the supplied information involved unconfirmed data matching and that his office had not opened the thumb drive.

The dispute could therefore affect voters whose records are incorrectly matched, as well as the timing of counting. California officials insist that eligibility decisions must rely on verifiable information. The immediate issue is whether officials will review or hold the ballots before Election Day, while broader disputes could produce postelection challenges.

California officials say the state already has safeguards for voter eligibility. Secretary of State Shirley Weber said state law requires only U.S. citizens to register to vote. She also said noneligible registrants are removed from the state’s voter rolls. These rules are the state’s existing framework for protecting registration accuracy.

The key safeguard is verification before action. Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said federal and state laws clearly establish how eligibility is determined. He said any removal must be based on verifiable information, not assertions based on unconfirmed data matching. His office also declined to access the DOJ’s thumb drive because it did not consider the device a secure medium.

State officials argue that an unconfirmed match could wrongly identify an eligible voter. Their position is not that records should never be checked. It is that checks must follow legal procedures, secure data practices, and reliable evidence. Weber said California election officials remained committed to a fair and smooth 2026 General Election.

In the United States, election responsibilities are divided. State and local officials generally maintain voter rolls, issue ballots, and administer elections. The federal government can enforce federal election laws and bring legal actions, but its authority over state election procedures has limits. The article presents this division through a direct dispute between the DOJ and California officials.

Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter demanded that California review a federal list and segregate certain mail ballots. Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department official, said the federal government could send the letter but California did not have to act on it. California officials also said the DOJ lacked legal authority for the request.

The article does not provide a complete legal explanation of every federal and state power. It does show the practical conflict: the DOJ invokes federal election law, while California relies on its own eligibility rules, privacy procedures, and election administration authority. The dispute could continue through legal action or postelection challenges.