Election Practices Under Scrutiny in the U.S.
It’s sort of shocking, really, that the United States—often viewed as a frontrunner in technology—still operates its elections like many less developed countries. Recent admissions in federal court revealed that election officials in Los Angeles lack independent verification methods to check if individuals on their voter rolls are indeed U.S. citizens. They essentially just take their word for it.
This week, the Justice Department charged 28 noncitizens in California with various election-related offenses, such as voting. Out of those, eleven were taken into custody.
It’s clear now that noncitizens are appearing on voter rolls and sometimes casting votes.
Trent McCotter, the Acting Deputy Attorney General, was quite straightforward: “This Department of Justice will not ignore the fact that noncitizens vote in federal elections. Sadly, California and L.A. County don’t seem to share the same commitment.”
In his response, Governor Gavin Newsom’s office stated that California adheres to the self-attestation policies outlined in the National Voter Registration Act from the 1990s. That’s the real issue here. Essentially, the law treats citizenship as simply a personal declaration rather than requiring documented proof, which creates opportunities for mistakes, or worse, fraudulent activity in a state with millions of noncitizens.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act aims to tackle this problem by mandating documentary proof of citizenship for registration and requiring photo ID to vote. Unfortunately, this act has hit a wall in the Senate. It’s not an extreme measure; it merely incorporates standards that many established democracies already maintain. The lack of progress is less about complexity and more about political will.
Now, the evidence supporting claims of noncitizen voting is becoming increasingly clear. A reported software error in New Jersey led to 6,600 self-declared noncitizens being added to the voter rolls, with about 340 actually casting ballots. Similarly, Iowa’s Secretary of State identified 277 noncitizens registered, of whom 35 voted in the 2024 election. In Ohio, officials found 137 individuals who had confirmed their noncitizen status yet remained on the rolls, resulting in indictments for illegal voting spanning several election cycles.
Federal prosecutors are actively pursuing cases, charging 16 individuals in locations including North Carolina, New York, and Idaho with illegal voting and fraudulent citizenship claims. These are not just conspiracy theories; they are tangible findings verified by state secretaries and federal documents.
Some critics argue that the numbers are minimal when compared to the total ballots cast and that they haven’t influenced major elections. Sure, that’s often the case, but let’s be real here—every illegal vote effectively nullifies a legal one. In close races, especially for local offices like school boards and city councils, just a handful of votes can determine the outcome.
When California receives a list of 20,000 suspected instances of noncitizen voting yet refuses to review the ballots or undertake a transparent audit, it’s not upholding the integrity of the election process. Instead, it appears they value the ease of allowing self-attestation over the legal requirement that only citizens should vote in federal elections.
Officials who downplay these occurrences contribute to the ongoing problem. Newsom’s administration described the 28 charges as merely “0.0001% of California voters,” claiming that raising concerns right before an election could “sow distrust.” In contrast, attorneys in Los Angeles County have labeled the federal list as “unreliable,” asserting there’s “no basis” for any claims of widespread issues.
Election supervisors in other states, too, seem eager to obfuscate the issue, stating that noncitizen voting is “vanishingly rare,” “infinitesimal,” or so infrequent that strict verification is unwarranted. This perspective reduces documented instances to mere rounding errors rather than acknowledging them as serious legal violations.
The solution isn’t overly complex, and it’s been available for some time. Requiring documentary proof of citizenship during registration would close off the self-attestation loophole, while photo ID at polling places would ensure that the individual casting a ballot matches the registrant’s identity. Additionally, regularly comparing voter rolls with federal immigration databases, followed by the timely removal of confirmed noncitizens, would help maintain accurate lists.
States like Wyoming and Kansas, which have started implementing aspects of this approach, aren’t spiraling into chaos. The extra administrative efforts are a small price to pay for a system that prioritizes citizenship as a requirement rather than a mere suggestion.
Immigration enforcement shouldn’t be restricted to borders; it must extend to affirming that voting rights are reserved for U.S. citizens. When authorities consider noncitizen registration and voting as an unfortunate but acceptable cost of convenience, they are making a choice that undermines the voting rights of those who are subject to the laws those votes create.
Ensuring the integrity of elections isn’t a conundrum. It requires the bravery to demand proof, to clean up the voter rolls, and to enact the SAVE Act. The alternative? Continued dependence on trust alone in a system where, as highlighted by California’s own federal prosecutor, verifying even the simplest eligibility requirements has proved elusive. Citizens surely deserve better.
