DOJ Weighs Post-Election Litigation Against Mail-Ballot States Amid Data Reliability Disputes

Key points

• DOJ is evaluating lawsuits against seven other all-mail states (Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington) and D.C., in addition to California.
• Attorney General Todd Blanche stated he would not rule out federal action to block state certification of votes, though he denied intent to improperly interfere.
• Los Angeles County officials found that 38.9% of a 200-person sample from the DOJ’s list indicated U.S. birthplaces, and 43% had canceled registrations.
• The DOJ previously claimed 16,000 Nevada voters were noncitizens, a figure later reduced to 185, all of whom were verified as citizens by state records.
• California officials argue the federal demand is unfeasible and potentially illegal, while the DOJ asserts the state is engaging in 'willful blindness' regarding federal law.

Background

This development follows the DOJ’s October 15 lawsuit against California and Los Angeles County, which sought to halt the counting of 20,000 mail ballots. That initial action was part of a broader federal push to investigate alleged voter fraud ahead of the November 3 midterms, including a 'coordinated criminal voter fraud surge initiative' in nine states. The current reports indicate an escalation from pre-election challenges to potential post-election interference with the certification process.

How outlets are covering it

NBC News and The Guardian emphasize the unreliability of the federal data, highlighting that a significant portion of the flagged individuals were born in the U.S. or had no voting history. NPR notes that the 28 individuals recently charged by the DOJ were all legal permanent residents, suggesting misunderstandings of rules rather than intentional fraud. In contrast, the DOJ, represented by Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter and spokesperson Kiersten Pels, acknowledges potential errors but insists that states must independently verify citizenship and that federal law prohibits 'willful blindness.' Blanche’s comments to NBC News frame potential post-election action as a last-resort measure, distinguishing between planned interference and reactive legal responses.

Why it matters

The potential expansion of DOJ litigation to other all-mail states and into the post-election certification phase represents a significant escalation in federal involvement in state election administration. If successful, such legal challenges could delay the certification of results in key midterm races, raising constitutional questions about the limits of federal power over state election processes. The reliability of the data used to target voters is central to the legal and political debate, with errors in previous cases undermining the credibility of the federal claims.

What to watch

The DOJ is expected to finalize its strategy for additional lawsuits before or after the November 3 midterms. California and Los Angeles County will continue to contest the reliability of the federal list in court. The outcome of the current California litigation may set a precedent for whether federal courts will allow the DOJ to intervene in the certification of votes in other states. Blanche and other DOJ officials may provide further clarity on the scope of potential post-election actions in the coming weeks.