Federal authorities pressed ahead with subpoenas targeting California election workers this week, even after a federal judge issued a stern warning telling prosecutors to back off threats against local officials just one day earlier.
The latest subpoena landed Thursday at the Orange County Registrar of Voters office, where Department of Homeland Security agents demanded unredacted voter records for 60 people, according to documents obtained by CalMatters. It was at least the fourth such subpoena served on California election workers in the past week, underscoring an escalating federal campaign against the state’s election system just days before Tuesday’s midterm vote.
The push is being driven in part by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, led by Bill Essayli, a key figure in President Trump’s ongoing effort to substantiate claims — long disputed and never proven — that noncitizens are voting in California elections and skewing results toward Democrats.
Bloomberg Law reported Thursday that Justice Department leadership had instructed federal prosecutors nationwide to pursue criminal subpoenas against state and local officials as part of the broader search for evidence of noncitizen voting, citing two people familiar with the matter.
Essayli’s office sued California and Los Angeles County earlier this month, seeking to have 20,000 voter registrations thrown out over citizenship concerns. Last week, the Justice Department sent letters to county election officials statewide, threatening criminal prosecution if they refused to take similar action against voters on government-compiled lists.
Several California counties that checked those lists have reported finding significant inaccuracies, and many officials have pushed back on the legal basis for the demands. So far, only San Luis Obispo County has agreed to open an investigation into the voters named by the Justice Department.
**Subpoenas detail requests**
In Los Angeles County, three employees of the Registrar-Recorder’s Office were subpoenaed last week to appear before a federal grand jury the day after the election, Nov. 4. Prosecutors asked them to bring documentation showing how the county prevents noncitizens from voting, along with any evidence suggesting that a noncitizen cast a ballot in a federal race.
Dean Logan, the county’s Registrar-Recorder, said federal prosecutors have taken a “confrontational, adversarial approach” and welcomed the judge’s order telling the government to stop threatening election staff.
“Threats and intimidation have no place in elections,” Logan said. “We will take whatever steps necessary to ensure the safety of our employees and to remain focused on serving the voters of Los Angeles County so they can exercise their voting franchise.”
In Orange County, the newest subpoena echoes earlier requests. Elections officials had already turned over records on 20 voters in response to a September subpoena; Registrar of Voters Bob Page confirmed Thursday that three of those same names reappeared in this week’s request.
A Justice Department spokesperson, Kiersten Pels, downplayed the significance of the subpoenas, saying in a statement that “receiving a subpoena doesn’t mean you are a target,” and noting that the department typically does not subpoena people it intends to charge.
**Judge: “These threats must stop”**
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter made his position clear during a Tuesday hearing, telling the courtroom that federal threats against state and county election employees needed to end immediately. He formalized that message in a written ruling issued Wednesday evening.
“Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” Carter wrote. “The court reiterates what it said yesterday: these threats must stop.”
The Justice Department has since appealed Carter’s ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Pels argued that prosecutors are simply following through on what Carter himself suggested — pursuing criminal charges where illegal voting is found.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Carter challenged Essayli directly, pointing out that if noncitizen voting were occurring on the scale the administration claims, prosecutors could pursue indictments without threatening to disenfranchise legitimate voters in the process.
Last week, federal prosecutors across California charged 28 people with registering to vote despite not holding U.S. citizenship. Not all had actually cast ballots, and the total represents roughly 0.0001% of California’s 23 million registered voters.
“If it’s this big, you’ve got a remedy for goodness sakes,” Carter told Essayli. “Go out and indict.”
In her statement, Pels maintained that “while DOJ maintains that a civil remedy is still available, all agree that noncitizen voting is properly addressed through criminal law.”
Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Law School, questioned the timing of the subpoenas, noting that federal voting offenses carry a five-year statute of limitations, leaving no urgent need to pursue records in the final days before an election.
“Because they have no role in affecting the election results, there is no reason whatsoever for them to demand this information now,” Levitt said. “It’s not directly against the judge’s order … but it’s certainly not going to make the judge happy.”
State Sen. Tom Umberg, a Santa Ana-area Democrat and former federal prosecutor, said he was troubled by what he described as an attempt “to intimidate public officials in exercising 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 request for comment Thursday.
Michael Vitiello, a criminal law professor at the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law, said the pattern of subpoenas appears designed to unsettle election workers even if it stops short of violating the judge’s order outright.
“Maybe technically they’re trying to avoid direct conflict with the judge’s order, but they’re sure signaling that … election officials should lose some money, lose some sleep and maybe even go consult with lawyers,” Vitiello said.
Original source: CalMatters
