Gavin Newsom Warned Of ‘Criminal Prosecution’ Days Before Midterms

The Justice Department has issued a warning to California election officials, raising the possibility of criminal prosecution if authorities knowingly allow ballots cast by ineligible noncitizens to be counted in the November midterm elections.

The warning comes amid an escalating legal confrontation between federal authorities and California over approximately 20,000 registered voters whom the Trump administration has identified as potentially ineligible because of questions surrounding their citizenship status.

Federal officials argue that California must investigate those registrations before counting the affected ballots. State election authorities dispute the reliability of the government’s findings and maintain that the allegations have not been substantiated.

The dispute intensified Friday when Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter sent a letter warning election administrators about the potential legal consequences of knowingly facilitating unlawful voting.

“The legal consequences for either facilitating or ignoring a federal crime are significant,” McCotter wrote in the letter obtained by The Associated Press.

The correspondence was directed to the Los Angeles County Counsel’s office, with copies sent to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan.

McCotter argued that election officials could face criminal liability if they knowingly assisted in counting ballots cast by individuals who are legally prohibited from voting in federal elections.

The letter did not announce criminal charges against Weber, Logan or any other election official.

It also did not establish that California authorities had knowingly counted an unlawful ballot.

Nevertheless, the warning adds a new dimension to the confrontation by raising questions about potential personal legal consequences for officials responsible for administering the election.

The warning followed a federal lawsuit filed Thursday seeking to prevent California from counting certain mail-in ballots until the citizenship status of the affected voters can be verified.

At the center of the case is a list of approximately 20,000 registered voters whom federal authorities have classified as likely noncitizens.

The Justice Department maintains that the list was developed through comparisons of California voter-registration records with federal immigration information.

According to the government’s complaint, Homeland Security agencies initially identified potential matches between voter-registration data and immigration records.

Federal citizenship and immigration personnel then reviewed those matches before referring information to Homeland Security Investigations for additional examination.

Investigators reportedly conducted further analysis intended to identify discrepancies, address possible mismatches and reduce errors in the underlying data.

The administration describes the process as an ongoing effort to identify individuals who may have registered or voted despite lacking the citizenship required for participation in federal elections.

However, the government’s own characterization of the findings as preliminary is an important distinction.

A database match suggesting that an individual may be a noncitizen does not necessarily establish that the person is currently ineligible to vote.

Immigration records can become outdated, and individuals may acquire citizenship after their original immigration information was recorded.

The federal government’s conclusions therefore remain subject to verification and judicial scrutiny.

California officials have challenged the reliability of the list and questioned whether the Justice Department has provided sufficient evidence to justify interfering with the state’s election procedures.

Federal authorities contend that California was given an opportunity to review the names and determine whether the individuals were eligible voters.

According to the administration, the state failed to complete that review within a 48-hour deadline established by federal officials.

The Justice Department subsequently filed suit, arguing that California could not disregard potential violations of federal election law while continuing to process ballots.

The administration is seeking a court order requiring the disputed ballots to be separated from other votes until the citizenship status of the affected individuals can be determined.

That proposed remedy would temporarily prevent the identified ballots from being included in election totals pending verification.

It would not automatically establish that every voter on the list is ineligible or require that every flagged ballot be permanently rejected.

The distinction is central to the legal dispute.

Federal officials argue that additional verification is necessary to prevent votes cast by ineligible individuals from affecting election results.

California authorities counter that restricting ballots based on preliminary or inaccurate information could prevent eligible American citizens from having their votes counted.

Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan indicated that the disagreement should be resolved through the courts while his office remains focused on administering the election.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, has framed the lawsuit as a necessary effort to enforce federal voting requirements.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli accused California officials of declining an opportunity to address the government’s concerns.

“We are taking California to federal court to demand that the votes of American citizens not be diluted by noncitizens,” Essayli said.

Attorney General Todd Blanche similarly characterized the administration’s legal action as an effort to uphold election law and strengthen confidence in the voting process.

Federal law generally prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections for federal office, subject to narrow statutory exceptions.

States are responsible for maintaining voter-registration systems and administering elections, but those responsibilities must operate within applicable federal constitutional and statutory requirements.

The Trump administration argues that California’s refusal to act on the disputed registrations conflicts with federal election law.

Its complaint invokes the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that valid federal law takes precedence when it conflicts with state law.

Federal attorneys contend that California cannot rely solely on existing registration declarations when federal authorities have presented information suggesting that some registered voters may not be citizens.

California disputes the factual basis for that argument and the administration’s proposed intervention in an election already underway.

A federal judge will have to consider the reliability of the government’s evidence, the legal standards governing voter eligibility and the consequences of the requested restrictions.

The court must also evaluate whether the proposed relief can be implemented without improperly excluding eligible voters.

The separate warning about potential criminal prosecution raises additional legal questions.

Establishing criminal liability would generally require proof that an official’s conduct satisfied the elements of a particular federal offense, including any applicable knowledge or intent requirements.

Merely receiving a federal list of potentially ineligible voters would not, by itself, establish that an election administrator committed a crime.

Likewise, disagreement between state and federal officials over the accuracy of voter-registration information does not automatically amount to criminal wrongdoing.

Those distinctions could become significant if the Justice Department attempts to pursue enforcement action beyond its current civil lawsuit.

The confrontation comes at a particularly sensitive point in the election calendar.

With the November 3 midterms approaching, California election administrators are preparing to process ballots while federal officials seek additional verification measures.

The compressed timeline creates practical challenges for both sides.

Federal authorities want potential eligibility problems resolved before votes are counted.

State officials must also ensure that legally registered voters are not improperly excluded because of incomplete or inaccurate government records.

Both concerns are relevant to the integrity of the election process.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit has not established that 20,000 noncitizens registered or attempted to vote unlawfully.

Instead, that figure represents the approximate number of registrations federal authorities have identified for further scrutiny.

The court proceedings will determine whether the administration has presented sufficient evidence and legal justification to require California to change how it handles the affected ballots.

For now, the dispute remains unresolved, and no criminal charges against the named election officials have been announced.

The administration has made clear that it intends to pursue enforcement of federal voter-eligibility requirements, while California continues to challenge the accuracy and implications of the government’s allegations.

As the midterm elections draw closer, the legal confrontation will test how federal authorities can address suspected registration irregularities while preserving the voting rights of eligible citizens.

The immediate question before the courts is whether the government’s preliminary findings justify withholding ballots from tabulation until citizenship can be independently verified.

The broader question is how far federal authorities can go in directing state election procedures when disputes arise over voter eligibility.

Until a judge rules, the Justice Department’s allegations remain contested, and the approximately 20,000 flagged registrations have not been established as unlawful votes.