The 20,000-Name List and the Forty-Eight-Hour Demand
Chapter 02 - The 20,000-Name List and the Forty-Eight-Hour Demand
LOS ANGELES COUNTY — Before the president threatened jail time, federal officials had demanded action.
The Justice Department provided Los Angeles County with a list containing approximately 20,000 names.
It was delivered on a password-protected thumb drive.
According to federal officials, the list had been developed using internal immigration records and data matching.
The government believed the individuals were likely noncitizens who had received mail ballots.
It gave California officials forty-eight hours to review the information and respond.
But the response was not what the administration wanted.
Los Angeles County officials said the Justice Department had not adequately explained how the list was compiled.
County Counsel Dawyn Harrison questioned whether the information was reliable enough to support the requested actions.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber also objected.
Her position was that the federal government had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the identified people were actually ineligible.
The disagreement was not merely procedural.
California sends mail ballots to registered voters.
That system depends on accurate registration records and eligibility safeguards.
If an ineligible person receives a ballot, authorities need lawful mechanisms to address the problem.
But if an eligible citizen is incorrectly identified as a noncitizen, removing that person's ballot could interfere with a lawful vote.
Both errors matter.
And neither should be dismissed without examining the evidence.
The administration argued that federal immigration information identified serious potential irregularities.
State officials challenged the reliability and completeness of the data.
A major difficulty was that government databases serve different purposes.
Immigration records document immigration-related information.
Election records document voter registration and election administration.
A person who was once a noncitizen may subsequently become a naturalized American citizen.
Outdated information or an inaccurate data match can create a false indication of ineligibility.
That possibility does not mean every federal identification was wrong.
It means the accuracy of the list needed to be established.
And the timing added another complication.
The election was already in progress.
Ballots had been mailed.
Some voters had returned them.
Local officials had legal responsibilities concerning registration, ballot processing, and voter protections.
A rapid decision affecting thousands of records could produce mistakes if the underlying data were incomplete.
The Justice Department nevertheless maintained that immediate action was necessary.
After the state did not comply with its deadline, federal prosecutors filed suit.
The government sought judicial intervention to prevent ballots associated with the disputed individuals from being counted before citizenship could be confirmed.
California contested the demand.
That left a judge to confront questions involving federal election law, state administration, and the rights of potentially eligible voters.
And the dispute was about to become even more serious.
Because the Justice Department was not simply asking officials to investigate the list.
May you like
It was warning that some decisions could lead to criminal charges.
The difference between a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution was becoming the next focus of the controversy.
