California election controversy explained: Why the Department of Justice and state are squaring off over voter rolls

A major dispute has erupted between the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and California election officials over the state's voter registration records, with the Trump administration accusing the state of failing to prevent potentially ineligible noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

California, however, has challenged the federal government's data and accused it of attempting to interfere with election administration shortly before the November 3, 2026, midterm elections.

The controversy escalated on October 15, when the DOJ filed a federal lawsuit against California, its Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan.

The department alleged that more than 20,000 people it considers likely noncitizens were registered to vote and had been sent mail-in ballots. It wants the state to investigate the flagged registrations and prevent ballots associated with ineligible voters from being counted until their citizenship is verified.

The dispute has since reached the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. During a hearing on October 25, judges questioned the federal government's legal authority, the timing of its intervention and the reliability of the voter list. Here's what the controversy is about and why it has become a major election-related legal battle.

Why has the US Department of Justice sued California?

The DOJ's case centres on allegations that California has failed to adequately identify and remove noncitizens from its voter registration lists.

Under US federal law, noncitizens are prohibited from voting in federal elections. The DOJ argues that California's system of automatically mailing ballots to registered voters could result in ballots being sent to people who are not legally eligible to participate in federal contests.

In its October 15 announcement, the department said its investigation, conducted alongside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), had identified more than 20,000 people who were likely noncitizens but appeared on California's voter rolls.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said, "State-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable in the United States of America."

The department also alleged that California officials had been given an opportunity to review the flagged names and take action but had refused to cooperate.

Why is California opposing the DOJ's demand?

California officials have rejected the federal government's allegations, arguing that the DOJ has not provided sufficient evidence or explained how it identified the people on its list.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber said her office received a demand to investigate an unknown number of people whom the federal government believed were likely noncitizens, but the DOJ initially did not provide the list directly to her office.

She said the department gave California just 48 hours to obtain the information, investigate the names and take action, with only 21 days remaining before the November 3 election.

In an October 14 statement, Weber stated, “The USDOJ’s relentless efforts to unlawfully gain access to states’ protected voter data and purge voter rolls serve only to cause chaos and fuel public distrust in our elections.”

California has maintained that its election laws already require voters to be US citizens and that procedures are in place to remove ineligible registrations. It has also questioned the federal government's methodology, pointing to previous instances in which voter eligibility claims based on federal data were found to be inaccurate.

What is the controversy over the 20,000 voters?

The central disagreement concerns the accuracy of the federal government's list of more than 20,000 people it suspects are noncitizens.

The DOJ said its agencies examined publicly available voter registration records and compared them with federal immigration data to identify potentially ineligible registrants. It maintained that the people flagged had undergone multiple data-enrichment and verification checks.

However, California officials and Los Angeles County election administrators have questioned the reliability of the information.

According to a report by LAist, Los Angeles County Assistant Registrar Monica Flores reviewed a sample of 200 records from the federal list. Her assessment found that a majority of the people in the sample were not active voters, while nearly 40% of the records indicated that the individuals had been born in the United States.

The findings raised questions about whether the federal government's list could incorrectly identify eligible American citizens as noncitizens.

Federal officials have also acknowledged that their assessment is not infallible. Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter said, "There may be some names on there who it turns out ultimately are citizens."

He added, "We're not perfect, and that's why we've asked California to cooperate with us."

The DOJ has maintained that it has high confidence in its findings but acknowledged that further verification is necessary.

Why is the timing of the lawsuit significant?

The timing has become another major point of contention because the dispute emerged just weeks before the November 3 midterm elections.

California had already begun sending mail-in ballots to registered voters in early October. State officials argue that investigating thousands of registrations and potentially withholding ballots so close to polling day could affect eligible voters.

The dispute also involves the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a federal law that restricts systematic voter-roll maintenance within 90 days of a federal election. The provision is intended to prevent eligible voters from being improperly removed shortly before an election.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has also slammed the federal government's approach. In a statement reported by the Los Angeles Times, he said:

"Mail ballots are already in most voters’ hands, and Election Day is less than three weeks away. Every count, recount, hand count, lawsuit, and audit has found that there’s no widespread voter fraud in the U.S."

He added that California would challenge the administration's demands in court.

What happened in the latest court hearing?

The dispute intensified on October 25, when a three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals heard the Trump administration's request for emergency intervention.

According to news agencies Reuters and the AP, the judges raised questions about the federal government's legal authority to demand that California set aside thousands of mail-in ballots.

Judge Mark Bennett questioned whether the appeals court had jurisdiction to intervene before the lower court had ruled. He also pointed to the constitutional authority of states over election procedures.

Judge Gabriel Sanchez raised concerns about whether the federal government was attempting to compel state officials to enforce federal law, potentially raising issues under the Tenth Amendment.

The DOJ argued that California's refusal to review the flagged registrations was undermining federal law. Its lawyer Matthew Donnelly told the court that the alleged harm was "irreversible and irrevocable."

However, lawyers representing California and Los Angeles County argued that the federal list was unreliable and that withholding ballots could disenfranchise eligible voters.

The appeals court said it would seek to issue a decision quickly.