DOJ Steps Up Voter Fraud Efforts Before Midterms

The Trump administration has intensified its actions against voter fraud as the November midterms approach, bringing federal charges and filing a lawsuit against California concerning ballots allegedly linked to noncitizens. The Justice Department announced charging 28 individuals in California with election-related offenses. This follows a lawsuit demanding the state halt counting ballots from over 20,000 people the government labels ‘likely’ noncitizens. California officials have contested these claims, arguing the list provided by the federal government lacks verification.

This dispute has culminated in threats against election workers. President Trump has warned that California officials risk jail time if they proceed with counting these flagged ballots. In parallel, the Justice Department has stated that local employees who knowingly process ballots submitted by noncitizens may face investigation or prosecution.

Newsweek reached out to multiple officials for comments, including those from the Justice Department, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, and the California Attorney General, among others. The Justice Department disclosed it has charged 113 individuals across 20 states with offenses like illegal voting and fraudulent voter registration over recent weeks. These cases involve allegations of noncitizens voting in federal elections and false citizenship claims on voter registration forms.

Recent DOJ Announcements

• October 5: Charges announced against 16 noncitizens in election-related cases.
• October 12: Charges against 16 individuals for illegal voting and fraudulent registration.
• October 16: Charges against 16 people in North Carolina, New York, and Idaho.
• October 19: 28 people charged in California, part of ‘Operation Protect the Vote’; 11 were arrested.

These are accusations, not proof of guilt. The Justice Department emphasizes that criminal complaints and indictments outline allegations; defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

Pressure on California Officials Over Ballots

The DOJ’s lawsuit claims federal authorities identified more than 20,000 individuals on California’s voter rolls presumed to be noncitizens. It argues that California should have segregated ballots from these individuals pending citizenship verification. The state insists it did not receive adequate information to validate the list and opposes the federal government’s demands. California maintains it has measures to prevent noncitizen voter registrations.

The DOJ identifies the 28 charged in California as foreign nationals, alleging some falsely claimed U.S. citizenship to register and voted in federal elections. However, it has yet to establish whether all on the list of 20,000 voted unlawfully.

Potential Legal Consequences for California Officials

Theoretically, California election officials could face federal charges if proven they deliberately facilitated election crimes. However, a DOJ warning does not equate to criminal liability, explained Michael T. van der Veen, a defense attorney involved in Trump’s second impeachment trial. Simply identifying someone as a likely noncitizen does not incriminate an election official.

Van der Veen pointed out the challenge for prosecutors to prove that officials enabled unlawful voting rather than performing their duties. Federal laws prohibit noncitizen voting in federal elections, with penalties for those who assist in federal crimes. Yet, proof requires evidence of intentional participation in illegal activities.

Mark Graber, a constitutional law scholar, highlighted that prosecutors must demonstrate an official knowingly counted a noncitizen’s ballot. Without knowing a voter’s ineligibility, Graber suggests, officials could not be accountable.

David Froomkin from the University of Houston Law Center agreed, stressing that such criminal laws demand a knowing violation of voter eligibility criteria. ‘An election official might be complicit if they knowingly facilitated illegal voting,’ he noted, but asserted that this isn’t the case here.