Analysis: More than 40% of names on DOJ list of alleged noncitizens not on California's voter rolls

UCLA analysts examined all 20,930 names that the Justice Department identified as possible noncitizen voters in California. Their central finding was that 8,880 names, or 42% of the list, did not correspond to anyone in the state’s current voter file. That makes the list much less reliable than the administration claimed.

The analysts also found at least 22 people who appeared to be U.S. citizens. Many additional names may have matched confirmed citizens. The list was supposed to help officials identify potentially illegal votes, but the analysis instead found substantial uncertainty and apparent errors.

The findings matter because the Justice Department demanded that officials separate flagged ballots during counting. Judges rejected that demand, and officials said they lacked time for the careful investigation required before removing voters. The administration disputed the analysis and called it bogus.

A voter roll is an election authority’s official record of people registered to vote. It helps officials verify voters, maintain accurate registration records, and administer elections. The article refers to California’s current voter file, which is the state’s voter-roll database.

If a name cannot be found, the record may be outdated, incomplete, misspelled, or associated with different identifying information. It may also belong to someone who is not currently registered. The absence of a match does not by itself prove that a person is a noncitizen or cast an illegal ballot.

That distinction is central here. UCLA analysts found 8,880 Justice Department names did not correspond to anyone in California’s current voter file. The article does not establish why every name failed to match. It shows that officials needed more investigation before treating those names as evidence of illegal voting.

The Justice Department said the list identified people who might be noncitizens and therefore might have voted illegally. It warned California election officials that they could face criminal liability if noncitizens were allowed to vote. The administration also issued subpoenas to election offices.

The department demanded that officials treat the 20,930 names as possible illegal voters by separating their ballots during the Election Day count. That would have prevented those ballots from being included normally while officials investigated the voters’ eligibility. The request arrived shortly before the election, according to election officials.

State and local officials objected because they said there was not enough time for the painstaking investigation required by law. Multiple judges rejected the demand as unconstitutional and a threat to democracy. On Friday, a federal judge ordered the Justice Department to stop sending such demands, and the administration appealed Saturday.

The UCLA analysis found at least 22 people on the Justice Department’s list who appeared to be U.S. citizens. The article does not provide a separate number for naturalized citizens. It says many more names may correspond to confirmed citizens, so the 22-person figure is a documented minimum, not necessarily the full total.

This matters because the list was being used to identify possible illegal voters. A citizen wrongly flagged could have faced ballot separation, additional scrutiny, or removal pressure. The analysis therefore raised concerns about both accuracy and the risk to eligible voters.

The findings came from reviewing all 20,930 names after a federal judge ordered the administration to share the list with the plaintiffs. The Justice Department disputed the results. Bill Essayli, who runs the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles, called the report bogus.

An inaccurate list can put eligible voters at risk during the most time-sensitive part of an election. Officials may treat a legitimate voter as suspicious, separate that person’s ballot, or delay its inclusion in the count. The voter could also face unnecessary scrutiny or removal from the rolls.

The article gives a concrete warning: the UCLA analysis found at least 22 apparent U.S. citizens on the Justice Department’s list. It also found 8,880 names that did not match California’s current voter file. Those errors make it harder for election workers to know which records require genuine investigation.

Election officials said the administration sent lists shortly before Election Day, leaving no time for the painstaking review required by law. Multiple judges rejected the ballot-separation demand. The broader implication is that election officials need accurate information and enough time to verify records before taking action against voters.

Matching immigration records with voter files can create false matches because different people may share names or similar identifying details. Records may also contain spelling differences, outdated addresses, incomplete data, or inconsistent dates of birth. These problems can connect an immigration record to the wrong voter.

The article does not list every matching error, but its findings show the danger. Of 20,930 names supplied by the Justice Department, 8,880 did not correspond to anyone in California’s current voter file. At least 22 names appeared to belong to U.S. citizens, and many more may match confirmed citizens.

That means a database comparison should identify records for careful review rather than establish wrongdoing by itself. Election officials said they needed time for the painstaking investigation required by law. Sending a disputed list shortly before Election Day can make that verification difficult and increase the risk of incorrect allegations.

Legal checks are meant to confirm that a record belongs to the right person and that the person is ineligible before officials take action. In practice, that requires reviewing the available records and giving officials enough time to resolve errors or uncertainty. The article does not provide a full step-by-step procedure.

The key mechanism described is a painstaking investigation required by law. California officials said they could not complete that work when the Justice Department sent possible noncitizen lists shortly before Election Day. A list alone therefore could not reliably establish that a voter was ineligible or that a ballot should be separated.

Multiple judges rejected the administration’s demand as unconstitutional and a threat to democracy. A federal judge later ordered the Justice Department to stop sending demands to state officials. The administration appealed. These rulings underscore that eligibility decisions must follow legal safeguards rather than rely only on disputed database matches.