ACLJ Exposes Another Election Scandal in a Leftist State

For years, Americans have been told that concerns about noncitizens voting are a “myth,” a Right-wing talking point unworthy of serious attention. However, California’s own Secretary of State just proved otherwise – not by uncovering fraud, but by admitting the state has no idea whether it’s even happening, because it isn’t bothering to track it.

Here’s how we got here. On July 16, the ACLJ submitted two California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests – one to the California Secretary of State and one to Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office – seeking records on how the state maintains the integrity of its voter rolls. The Attorney General’s office took its extension to respond by August 10, a permissible request under California law.

The Secretary of State’s office responded first but refused to provide any records responsive to our request. Their answer: “The Statewide Voter Registration System does not contain a voter status reason for cancellation due to non-citizenship, therefore there are no records responsive to this request.” In other words, the state cannot tell us how many noncitizens have ever been removed from its voter rolls – because it doesn’t keep that information at all.

The problem for California? Federal law requires every state to maintain records showing how it safeguards the accuracy of its voter rolls and to make those records available to the public. Specifically, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 52 U.S.C. § 20507, requires each state to retain, for at least two years, and make available for public inspection, records concerning “the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”

But California just admitted, in writing, that it keeps no such records when it comes to noncitizens being removed from its rolls.

That’s convenient. But it’s also unlawful.

Below are each of our numbered records requests, followed by California’s response to each:

1. “Records showing the number of voter registration records canceled because the registrant did not satisfy the citizenship requirements for voter registration . . . .”

CA Response: “The Statewide Voter Registration System does not contain a voter status reason for cancellation due to non-citizenship, therefore there are no records responsive to this request.”

1. “All records concerning the implementation of programs and activities

conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official
lists of eligible voters.”

CA Response: The response provides links to two training manuals. The identity of new registrants is verified by comparing registration records against death records, felony records from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and DMV change-of-address records. Duplication is addressed by checking names, dates of birth, and California driver’s license or Social Security numbers.

1. “All records containing or addressing policies for handling information received through the Election Voter Complaint form.”

CA Response: The SoS treated the request as a question and did not provide responsive records. Election Voter Complaint Forms are forwarded to SoS Elections Division staff for “further review and/or investigation.”

1. All records containing the outcomes or final determinations of investigations regarding illegal voting . . . .”

CA Response: “Our office does not maintain the statistics being requested.”

Our request demanded they provide all records that the NVRA requires the states to keep. If it’s true that no such records exist, or if they do exist but California just refuses to produce them, it appears California could be violating not just its own open-records act (the CPRA), but that it could also be violating a federal law (the NVRA) and its record-retention and public-inspection requirements.

To be clear, this isn’t a case of the state simply lacking a category for record-keeping in general. California’s own system does track cancellations for other reasons – death, moving out of state, felony convictions – that strip voting rights. Those categories exist and are documented. The one category missing is citizenship. That’s not an oversight; that’s a choice.

And here’s where the state undermines itself. In the same response, California was quick to reassure us that voters must attest, under penalty of perjury, that they meet all eligibility requirements, including citizenship – and that state law “unambiguously” bars noncitizens from registering.

Translation: Don’t worry, it’s illegal. But if the state isn’t tracking when that law gets broken, and someone is removed for violating it, that reassurance is hollow. You cannot claim a safeguard is working if you have no records showing whether it’s ever been triggered.

It’s also worth noting that California doesn’t require proof of citizenship or lawful presence for a certain category of driver’s license, AB 60 – the same kind of licensing pathway that triggered New Jersey’s noncitizen voter-roll problem. And driver licenses are used to establish identity.

It’s important that we do not blow this off, thinking, Well, that’s just California, and it will always elect Leftists. Fighting for election integrity in America always matters. It is one of the most precious hallmarks of our constitutional republic.

Also remember that there are many congressional districts at play in California (nine currently held by Republicans), and this election year, the United States House of Representatives is very much in play. This is certainly of immediate national concern.

The ACLJ isn’t done here. We’re waiting on the Attorney General’s response by August 10, and depending on what – or what isn’t – in that answer, our options range from further legal demands to potential litigation over noncompliance with state and federal recordkeeping law.

Sometimes a nonanswer tells you more than a full one would have. California just told the country it doesn’t know how many noncitizens have been removed from its voter rolls. That’s not a technicality. That’s a transparency failure the state needs to fix – and if it won’t do so voluntarily, the law may force its hand.

Take action with the ACLJ. Sign our petition: Defend Election Integrity and the Constitution.