Federal prosecutors continued pressing California election officials with grand jury subpoenas this week, even after a federal judge issued a pointed order Wednesday demanding they stop threatening local election workers with criminal charges.
At least four election workers across the state have been served subpoenas in the past week, with one delivered to the Orange County Registrar of Voters office on Thursday — a day after U.S. District Judge David O. Carter’s ruling took effect.
That subpoena, issued by Department of Homeland Security agents, demands unredacted voter registration records for 60 individuals, according to documents obtained by CalMatters.
The subpoenas mark an escalation in what has become an unprecedented level of federal scrutiny over California’s election administration, setting up a potential clash over core democratic processes just days before Tuesday’s midterm election.
Among those leading the effort is the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, headed by Bill Essayli, a key figure in President Donald Trump’s long-running — and so far unsubstantiated — effort to prove that California elections are skewed toward Democrats because noncitizens are casting ballots.
Bloomberg Law reported Thursday that Justice Department leadership had directed top federal prosecutors to seek subpoenas from state and local officials as part of a broader probe into whether noncitizens had been allowed to vote. The outlet cited two unnamed sources with knowledge of the matter.
Earlier this month, Essayli sued California and Los Angeles County, demanding the cancellation of registrations for 20,000 voters he claims are not U.S. citizens. Last week, the Department of Justice sent letters to county election officials across the state warning of potential criminal charges if they failed to take similar action against their voter rolls.
Several county election offices have pushed back, saying spot checks showed the federal government’s list of flagged names contained inaccuracies, and have questioned the legality of the requests. So far, only San Luis Obispo County has said it will investigate voters named in the Justice Department’s letters.
What the subpoenas demand
In Los Angeles County, federal prosecutors last week subpoenaed three employees from the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, ordering them to testify before a federal grand jury on Nov. 4 — the day after the election — as part of a criminal investigation.
The subpoenas seek records detailing how the county prevents noncitizens from voting, along with any “evidence collected by your agency tending to indicate that a noncitizen has voted in a federal election.”
Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said in a statement that federal prosecutors have taken a “confrontational and hostile” approach, and that Judge Carter’s order was “timely and appreciated.”
“Threats and intimidation have no place in elections,” Logan said. “We will take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of our employees and to remain focused on serving the voters of Los Angeles County so they can exercise their right to vote.”
In Orange County, federal agents obtained a new grand jury subpoena last week, though it wasn’t delivered to election officials until Thursday. It mirrors earlier requests for voter information. In September, county officials had already turned over records for 20 registered voters in response to a previous subpoena. Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page told CalMatters on Thursday that three of those same names reappeared in the latest subpoena.
The Justice Department downplayed the significance of the new subpoenas, suggesting election officials themselves are not under investigation.
“Receiving a subpoena does not mean you are a target,” said Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels in an emailed statement. “In fact, DOJ typically does not subpoena people who are the subject of an investigation.”
Judge: “These threats must stop”
During a Tuesday hearing, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter made clear that the federal government needed to halt its practice of threatening election workers with prosecution if they didn’t comply with federal demands.
“This court believes it would be prudent for all threats against state or county employees to cease immediately,” Carter said from the bench.
He reiterated that warning formally in a written ruling issued Wednesday night.
“Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, attempted to coerce a state and local government into abandoning its own constitutional election procedures and bending to the will of the Executive Branch,” Carter wrote.
“The court repeats what it said yesterday: these threats must stop,” he added.
The Justice Department has since appealed Carter’s ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Pels said prosecutors are simply following through on the judge’s own instructions — to pursue illegal voting cases wherever they’re found.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Carter expressed skepticism about the administration’s broader claims, telling Essayli that if noncitizens truly were voting in the numbers the Trump administration alleges, nothing was stopping federal prosecutors from identifying and charging them directly — without risking the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters.
Last week, federal prosecutors in California charged 28 people with registering to vote despite not being citizens. Not all of them had actually cast ballots in prior elections, and the group represents roughly 0.0001% of the state’s 23 million registered voters.
“If it’s that serious, for God’s sake, you have a solution,” Carter told Essayli during the hearing. “Go out and get an indictment.”
“To be clear, the district court judge explained that illegal voting carries criminal liability,” Pels wrote in her statement. “Consistent with this, California also indicated in its brief that the avenue for punishing illegal voting is criminal prosecution. So while DOJ maintains there is still a civil avenue available, everyone agrees that noncitizen voting should be addressed through criminal law.”
Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Law School, said federal prosecutors may claim they’re pursuing a legitimate criminal investigation, but if that’s the case, there’s little reason to be rushing subpoenas to election officials in the final days before a vote. He noted that the statute of limitations for federal election crimes is five years.
“Since they have no influence over the outcome of this election, there’s no reason they need this information right now,” Levitt said. “It doesn’t directly violate the judge’s order … but it certainly won’t please him.”
State Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat and former federal prosecutor who represented the Santa Ana area, said he was troubled that his former employer appeared to be trying to “intimidate public officials in the performance of their sworn duties.”
“I’m embarrassed and outraged that they’re trying to interfere with the election,” Umberg said.
Essayli did not respond to a text message seeking comment Thursday.
Michael Vitiello, a criminal law professor at the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law, said the federal government appears to be trying to sow “uncertainty and fear” among election workers.
“Maybe, technically, they’re trying to avoid a direct conflict with the judge’s order, but they’re certainly signaling that … election officials should lose money, lose sleep, and maybe even need to consult with lawyers,” Vitiello said.
Original source: CalMatters
