admin
The fight over a 20,000‑name list of alleged noncitizen voters in California just blew up in federal court and on social media. A new public filing from immigrant‑rights group CHIRLA and UCLA’s Voting Rights Project says about 42% of the names DOJ gave them don’t match anyone in California’s voter file. The Justice Department immediately fired back, calling the analysis bogus, asking the court to punish the groups and doubling down on its claim that more than 20,000 likely noncitizens are on the rolls. Voters deserve clarity — not courtroom theater.
What the filings actually say
CHIRLA and UCLA studied the DOJ’s 20,930‑name list and reported that 8,880 entries — roughly 42% — did not correspond to anyone in California’s current voter file. They also said some records looked like duplicates or belonged to U.S. citizens, and that redactions made matching harder. The Associated Press ran the CHIRLA/UCLA findings, and that set off an immediate, fiery rebuttal from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. Bill Essayli, the office’s first assistant U.S. attorney, called the report “bogus” and repeated DOJ’s long‑standing claim that multiagency checks using USCIS and HSI records identified more than 20,000 likely noncitizens who were sent ballots.
The evidence fight: county sample vs. DOJ claims
Los Angeles County didn’t stay on the sidelines. The county filed a sworn technical declaration sampling 200 names from the DOJ list. Its numbers were messy: about 42.9% of the sample had canceled registration records, 42.4% were active, and 4.6% were inactive. The county also found that 86 people in the sample were mailed ballots and that 71.2% had never voted before. Among records with usable birthplace data, 38.9% showed a U.S. birthplace — a direct contradiction of the DOJ’s sweeping public claim that the county “re‑confirmed” every sampled person as foreign‑born. That discrepancy is the sharp point of this dispute.
Why DOJ is pushing hard — and why courts are cautious
DOJ says the list is the product of serious investigative matching and even points to criminal prosecutions tied to some names. The department argues that letting ineligible ballots stand would dilute citizens’ votes. Fine — but the remedy DOJ seeks is drastic: sequester ballots or force counties to set aside votes during an ongoing election. Federal judges have been reluctant to grant emergency, sweeping remedies. Some judges have pushed back and limited DOJ’s requests, and appeals are already underway. The bottom line is simple: a raw list and a press release are not a courtroom proof of widespread fraud.
So what now? The court will sort out whether CHIRLA/UCLA’s public analysis broke any rules and whether DOJ’s methodology truly supports its 20,000‑plus claim. But voters and election officials need more than name‑calling and threats of sanctions. DOJ should show its matching method and let neutral experts examine it. Counties should be able to clear up errors without being lectured from on high. Until someone opens the file and proves it, this looks like a data mess dressed up as an election emergency — and Americans deserve better than that.
