The election system in Minnesota is facing scrutiny on social media after a clip of a state official speaking to Somali voters reignited concerns about election integrity in the state.

"If you’re already registered to vote, you don’t need to bring anything with you," Minnesota Voter Outreach Director Melanie Hazelip said on Somali TV.

"You just show up to your early voting location, which is usually the county office or City Hall. Minneapolis and the bigger jurisdictions have a lot of extra places where you can go, like a lot of libraries or community centers. As long as you’re registered to vote, you don’t need to bring anything with you. 

TRUMP SCORES SUPREME COURT WIN IN ELECTION INTEGRITY FIGHT AS STATES GAIN NEW VOTER ROLL TOOL

"If you’re not registered to vote … you still have options. If you have a Minnesota ID that is updated, that’s all you need to bring with you. If you don’t have that, there is a list of documents on our website that you can find. You still have options to get registered same day."

While Hazelip's comments were in accordance with the laws on the books, they prompted outrage on social media after being posted by conservative influencer End Wokeness, and the post racked up almost a million views with users making the case that the system is too lax.

"A Minnesota election official just went on Somali TV and walked viewers through how to same-day register and vote using a Minnesota state ID," retired Navy intelligence Officer Phillip C. Parrish posted on X. 

"Minnesota hands out those IDs to non-citizens with no citizenship marking. Vouching lets one registered voter clear up to eight others on an oath. Citizenship is required by law. Real-time proof is not. The same state that lost hundreds of millions to documented fraud in childcare, nutrition, and Medicaid programs is now advertising the lowest-friction path to the ballot on community TV. Affirm you’re a citizen. Cast the vote. Get investigated later—if at all. This is how the system is built. It is not an accident."

Federalist Society co-founder David McIntosh wrote on X, "Democrats are on a mission to tell every non-citizen how they can get away with voting in our elections.

ELECTION CRIME ARRESTS KEEP PILING UP AS DEMS INSIST IT 'JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN'

"How is this not election interference?"

"Nothing to see here, I'm sure," Red Ax Strategies President Matthew Brodsky posted on X.

"This is why passing the SAVE America Act is crucial," conservative commentator Riley Gaines posted on X.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, the Minnesota Secretary of State's office said it "provides information and resources on Minnesota election laws to hundreds of nonpartisan community groups every year as a part of our regular voter engagement efforts."

"Recently, our voter outreach director spoke with a local news outlet and provided accurate information about Minnesota election laws and how eligible voters cast their ballots. Unfortunately, her accurate remarks have been misinterpreted and misrepresented by political actors online," the statement said. 

"With only a few days left before the election, we remain focused on making sure every eligible Minnesotan knows how and where to cast their ballot."

Bill Glahn, a policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment, told Fox News Digital, "given the timing, so close to the election — and the audience, Somali TV — she really should have emphasized the need to be an American citizen in order to vote."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"It's true most Somali immigrants are naturalized citizens, but not all," Glahn said. "In fact, we just had a noncitizen sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for the Feeding Our Future fraud."

The scrutiny comes as the Walz administration confronts hundreds of millions of dollars lost to social services fraud tied to the state’s Somali immigrant community. Critics pointed to a further wrinkle in Minnesota state law signed by Gov. Tim Walz in 2023 that provided for Driver's Licenses For All regardless of immigration status. The policy also stipulates that the licenses carry no markings indicating citizenship, even though such IDs are commonly used to register to vote.

Under Minnesota law, a registered voter can "vouch" for up to eight other voters’ residency who want to sign up for same-day voter registration without an ID. The registered voter must go with the person or people to the polling place and sign an oath verifying their address, according to an official fact sheet from the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State.

Glahn told Fox News Digital earlier this year that while the state touts the safeguards it has put in place to ensure only citizens vote, "it’s like murder’s illegal, but it happens all the time."

"It's a penalty of perjury," he said. "You signed an oath, but if you signed as Mickey Mouse, they're not going to find you."

In September, a federal indictment was handed down charging an illegal immigrant from India with knowingly making the false claim to be a U.S. citizen to vote in the 2024 general election in Minnesota.

Fox News Digital's Charles Creitz contributed to this report

A federal judge rejected on Wednesday a Trump administration request to stop California from processing the ballots of up to 20,000 people over allegations they are likely noncitizens, warning it would "wreak havoc" on the midterm elections.

 

A recent New York Times article presents evidence that Alaska Democrats sought to confuse voters in that state's 2026 Senate election by introducing a second candidate with a name very similar to that of the Republican incumbent, thereby potentially siphoning off some of the latter's voters. The incumbent senator is named Dan S. Sullivan, while the other candidate is Dan J. Sullivan. As the Times reports, some of the facts here are disputable, and it is not entirely clear whether Democratic candidate Mary Peltola knew about this effort or approved of it. But it seems likely that at least some of her staffers and other Democratic operatives were involved.

Before going further, I should emphasize that this effort is worthy of condemnation. Trying to confuse voters into voting for the "wrong" candidate in this way is not how democratic political participation should work. And the fact that other politicians (including Republicans) engage in various electoral "dirty tricks" doesn't justify this one.

Elsewhere, I have explained why these kinds of actions are not illegal, and why the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to block certification of the Alaska Senate result deserves to fail. I stand by that conclusion. Legal scholar Rick Hasen (a leading election law expert) has a helpful recent post explaining why the New York Times revelations do not change anything from a legal point of view. But the fact that this scheme is legal doesn't make it right.

That said, it is important to keep this issue in proper perspective, and especially to recognize that many other types of lies and efforts to exploit voter ignorance are much worse. Confusion caused by candidates with similar names is relatively rare, and it is difficult to find examples where it affected more than a small fraction of voters. I am not aware of even one case where it was decisive to the outcome of an election. But I welcome correction on that latter point.

The Alaska case is unlikely to be an exception to the above generalization. In the first round of the ranked-choice voting election (which narrows down the candidates to the top 4), only 2.5% of voters picked Dan J. Sullivan. Peltola led the incumbent senator by a much larger margin than that (8.1 points). Even if every single person who voted for Dan J. did so because of confusion (which is improbable), that's unlikely to change the result.

Moreover, the Alaska ranked-choice voting system reduces the risk of error. Some of those who vote for the "wrong" Dan Sullivan might rank the "right" one second. After the former gets eliminated, those votes get transferred to the latter. On top of that, as Michael Dorf points out, the Alaska ballot explicit indicates that Dan S. Sullivan is the "incumbent." That further reduces any potential confusion. The widespread publicity this issue has gotten over the last few weeks further reduces the risk of error. Many voters have probably now heard about the two Dan Sullivans and will be on guard against the problem.

It is still theoretically possible that confusion between the two Sullivans will end up having a decisive impact on the election. Some people who voted for Dan J. might not rank the other Sullivan second, or might misunderstand how the RCV system works. And some voters might (understandably) not be very careful about how they mark their ballots, thereby making a mistake despite the various safeguards against it. Still, it seems highly unlikely that such errors will have a decisive impact on the outcome.

Overall, this kind of a thing is relative molehill of a problem. Elections where it makes a decisive difference are likely to be extremely rare, at worst. By contrast, candidate lying about policy issues and exploitation of voter ignorance about them is a veritable mountain. I summarized some of the relevant evidence in an earlier post about the Alaska controversy:

Donald Trump is a particularly egregious example, going all the way back to his first campaign in 2016, and more recently with his lies about the 2020 election and other issues. But more conventional politicians also often resort to lies and deception, even if not to the same degree.  President Obama, for example, famously  lied when he claimed that, under the Affordable Care Act, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it." That deception won the 2013 Politifact Lie of the Year award. But it still helped Obama get reelected in 2012. I am not sure exploiting voter confusion about names is any worse than exploiting their ignorance about policy issues like crime, immigration, and health care….

Ultimately, both exploitation of voter confusion about names and other deceptions used in campaigns seek to exploit widespread voter ignorance. Because of the combination of "rational ignorance" (lack of incentive to seek out political information) and "rational irrationality" (lack of incentive to engage in unbiased evaluation),  most voters know little about government and public policy, and often do a poor job of evaluating the information they do know. This makes them vulnerable to deception and manipulation, and incentivizes politicians to lie and otherwise distort the truth.

I would add that lies and deceptions about policy issues affect vastly more voters and have vastly bigger impacts on electoral outcomes than confusion about candidates' names. To take just a few recent examples, Trump in 2016 and 2024 and Obama in 2012 probably could not have won without the former. If, in 2024, key swing voters had realized that Trump's policy agenda of tariffs and mass deportations was likely to raise prices (as it predictably went on to do) rather than lower them (as he promised to do), he likely would have lost. Polls showed that prices were the biggest issue in the election for key swing voters. Trump also might well have lost if GOP base voters realized he was lying about the 2020 election, among other issues. In 2012, Obama might have lost if swing voters realized that he was lying when said that, under his signature policy initiative (the Affordable Care Act), "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it."

Effective lies and deceptions about policy issues (often exploiting preexisting voter ignorance and bias, but also deliberately seeking to create more of it) are ubiquitous. And they very often affect electoral outcomes. Even when they don't change the outcome between the candidates who run, they often have an impact on the policies those candidates adopt in the first place. As described more fully in my book Democracy and Political Ignorance, political parties and their strategists know most voters are ignorant, and often deliberately select policy agendas based on the likelihood of successfully exploiting that ignorance. The result is that even the lesser of the evils on offer in a given election (or the less egregious liars) are often still very bad.

From a moral point of view, I don't see any reason to believe lying about policy issues and exploiting voter ignorance about them is any worse than trying to trick voters into selecting the "wrong" candidate out of confusion. In practical terms, the former happens much more often than the latter, and has a far bigger effect).

Cornell law Prof. Michael Dorf recognizes that lies about policy issues are bad, but suggests that efforts to create confusion about candidate names are worse, because the latter are harder to combat with "counter-speech." I think the truth is the exact opposite. People can and do use counter-speech to oppose lies and deceptions about policy issues. But "rationally ignorant" voters will often ignore the counter-speech (not wanting to take the time and effort to study it) or reject evidence that goes against their preexisting biases. Many policy issues require considerable time and effort to understand well.

By contrast, it's much easier to find out there are two candidates with similar names in the election, and to take precautions against accidentally voting for the "wrong" one. Counter-speech to that effect need not be very complicated at all, or take a long time to understand.  In the Alaska case, for example, you just need to remember to vote for Dan S. rather than Dan J. or just know to vote for the one marked "incumbent." And figuring this out does not require going against any partisan or ideological biases.

As I have emphasized in previous writings about voter ignorance, I do not believe we can or should fight it by trying to punish politicians for their lies, or by censoring "misinformation." There is, in fact, no easy solution to the problem. But I assess a range of  options in my 2023 article on "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Solutions to the Problem of Political Ignorance, and in Democracy and Political Ignorance. I believe the best approach is to make fewer decisions at the ballot box and more by "voting with your feet," where incentives to seek out information and evaluate it wisely are much better.  In the works linked above, I also argue that we should give consideration to simply paying voters to increase their knowledge levels (e.g. by establishing a "Voter Achievement Test" and offering rewards to high scorers). But I  recognize that any effective approach will take time, and there may be no one fix that is sufficient by itself.

The beginning of wisdom here is to recognize we have a wide-ranging problem of voter ignorance, and to prioritize the most significant types of ignorance and exploitation thereof. On that scale, ignorance about policy issues should rank high, while voter confusion about candidates' names is a very minor problem, by comparison.

UPDATE: I have made minor additions to this post.

The post Creating Voter Confusion About Candidates' Names is Bad - But Exploiting Voter Ignorance About Policy Issues is a Much Bigger Problem appeared first on Reason Magazine.

A New York Times investigation revealed an alleged effort by operatives liked to Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to recruit a second Dan Sullivan for Alaska’s ballot, but the report came as nearly 1 in 10 registered Alaska voters had already cast ballots.

The timing means roughly 58,000 voters may have made their choices before learning of the reported effort that critics say was intended to create confusion with a same-name candidate. 

Peltola’s campaign and the DSCC have denied involvement.

SENATE CONTROL IS A COIN FLIP — AND DEMOCRATS’ PATH RUNS THROUGH TRUMP COUNTRY

Dan J. Sullivan made it to the four-candidate general election earlier this year after winning 2.5% of the vote in the primary. His campaign announcement did not list a party affiliation. His website does not state his position on any political issues.

"Dan Sullivan challenges Dan Sullivan for U.S. Senate Seat, urges Alaskans to defeat incumbent, elect a Sullivan who stands up for Alaska," it read.

The New York Times reported that the effort to recruit potential Republican spoiler candidates included Dan J. Sullivan. The effort spanned coordination between the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) to Peltola staffers, according to text messages, interviews and internal documents.

According to a source interviewed by the New York Times, Peltola was aware of the efforts.

MARY PELTOLA'S CAMPAIGN, DEMS BACKED COVERT SCHEME TO FIELD SPOILER CANDIDATES IN ALASKA SENATE RACE: REPORT

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit last week, seeking to delay certification if Sen. Dan Sullivan is defeated, citing the possible confusion. It’s unclear if the DOJ is likely to succeed on those grounds.

The state’s ranked-choice voting system is further complicating the election picture for Sen. Sullivan.

Under this system, voters rank their preferred candidates. If their top choice is eliminated, their support passes to their next-ranked option. While supporters of the process argue it expands voters' power and greatly increases the influence of candidates that may not otherwise be a top choice, critics believe it also introduces confusion.

Alaska state Sen. James Kaufman, a Republican, is one of those critics.

Kaufman fears that some voters won’t bother to fill out both the "Sullivans" on the ballot to cover their bases.

He believes there are still some voters in Alaska, especially Republicans, who refuse to use the system, citing disagreements with its implementation.

"Some people have a pretty strong traditionalist perspective: one person, one man, one vote," Kaufman said in an interview with Fox News Digital earlier this year.

ALASKA SENATE RACE’S ABSURD NAME PROBLEM GETS EVEN HARDER TO UNTANGLE

"And, so, the ballot fatigue where people just don’t rank because maybe they disagree with it; there’s a pretty strong segment of the population here that just patently disagrees with the rank-choice voting system we ended up with. And they don’t necessarily believe in utilizing it," he added.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Less than a week remains before the Nov. 3 general election.

In a July 16 letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said a "preliminary review" suggested there "may be as many as 190,832 non-citizens registered to vote" in her state. Weber was skeptical—for good reason, it turned out. Three months later, the Trump administration reduced that estimate by nearly 90 percent, saying about 20,000 "likely noncitizens" had received California vote-by-mail ballots.

The Justice Department gave Weber and Dean Logan, Los Angeles County's top election official, 48 hours to determine whether any of the people on the government's list were in fact citizens. Otherwise, it said, Weber and Logan should segregate those ballots and refrain from processing them until citizenship could be verified. After Weber and Logan declined to comply with the Justice Department's demands, it asked a federal judge for a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring them to do so—a request that he rejected in a scathing opinion on Wednesday.

"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," writes U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee. "This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections. If Plaintiff's last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process. Over 20,000 registered Californians would potentially lose the right that generations of Americans have fought to preserve."

The Justice Department delivered its list of "likely noncitizens" to Logan three weeks before Election Day. At that point, Los Angeles County already had sent ballots to 5.9 million voters and processed 331,000 of them. Logan said he was "legally prohibited" from doing what the Justice Department wanted because it had failed to explain the methodology used to compile the list, raising the possibility that citizens would be denied their voting rights.

There was ample reason for that concern. On July 17, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin averred that "as many as" 15,903 noncitizens were registered to vote in Nevada. The following month, when the DHS submitted a list of allegedly illegal voters to Nevada election officials, the number had fallen to 185—99 percent lower than Mullin's original figure. It turned out that every one of those 185 voters was a U.S. citizen.

"DHS has identified over 250,000 potential non-citizens illegally registered to vote" in California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, Mullin said in July. He was echoing President Donald Trump, who for years has grossly exaggerated the extent of illegal voting by noncitizens, often in service of his own vanity.

Trump has repeatedly claimed, for example, that he would have won the popular vote in 2016 but for "the millions of people who voted illegally," and in January 2024 he warned that noncitizen voters "could very well affect the next election." In a speech the night before Mullin's announcement, Trump asserted that the DHS had "identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections."

Judging from Nevada's experience, the actual number may be closer to zero. It is hard to say, because the methods used by the DHS remain hazy.

In the California case, Carter says, the DHS "purchased a voter file that appeared to reflect 'the actual voter rolls in California, that as of August 2025, may be used for the 2026 federal election.'" It "then 'enhance[d]' the voter data through a 'reliable third-party data analytics'" and used records maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to find "an internal USCIS immigration number" that "may" correspond to each registered voter. "The matches are scored," Carter notes, "because 'the resulting data may be incomplete, outdated, or mismatched.'"

The DHS "then compared the potential identity matches to Department of State and Social Security Administration data to screen out U.S. citizens," Carter adds. "In the next step, a confidence level was assigned (where a high score supported a 'strong identity link') and a manual review was conducted for each match to 'determine which registered voters'" were "likely to be aliens." Then came "a 'quality review' to identify issues such as 'duplicate entries' and 'incomplete records,'" followed by "an 'enrichment process' that utilized 'additional unique identifiers' to 'improv[e]' the matching process."

The government did not initially specify the source of the "reliable third-party data analytics." But it later revealed that "the third-party platform it relied on was
Lexis Nexis," Carter notes. "It remains unknown how Lexis Nexis performed its analysis, such as how it 'linked names to Social Security numbers not available on the California public voter file.' Plaintiff likewise did not explain what its 'enrichment process' entailed or how it occurred. Plaintiff also provided 'no error rates' or 'validation against a reliable benchmark' that would enable a determination of the accuracy of its findings. Omissions of this critical information prevent an evaluation of Plaintiff's procedure, including how Plaintiff reduced its initial claim of nearly 200,000 alleged noncitizens to 20,000 individuals."

Potential sources of error include conflating people with similar or identical names and outdated records that do not reflect recent naturalization. Because it is unclear how the DHS tried to address such problems, it is not surprising that Weber and Logan did not want to rely on the Trump administration's list, especially given its pattern of dramatically reducing the putative number of illegally registered voters.

"It is well-documented that matching voter registration records with data from other
administrative databases 'presents numerous challenges,'" Carter writes. And given the potential for error, he says, "Plaintiff's allegations are not credible." He adds that the TRO sought by the Justice Department "would likely lead to voter disenfranchisement" and "would create a significant administrative burden for Defendants, leading to chaos and upending the election."

In any event, Carter says, the Trump administration does not have legal standing to seek such an order. The government's main argument was that California officials, by refusing to segregate ballots from people on its list, were interfering with its enforcement of 18 USC 611, which makes it a misdemeanor for "any alien to vote" in a federal election.

"Defendants do not 'interfere' with the United States' ability to enforce Section 611 by
administering an ongoing election in accordance with established State and Federal law, rather than assuming new obligations pursuant to a federal criminal law they are not responsible for enforcing," Carter writes. It is well established that state officials have no obligation to enforce federal law, he notes, and that they cannot be "commandeered" to do so.

Nor does the federal government need such assistance to enforce Section 611. "The very same day the United States filed its TRO [application] in this Court, the Department of Justice brought charges against 28 individuals" in California under that law, Carter notes. It is not clear how many of those defendants, who represent 0.0001 percent of California's 23 million registered voters, actually cast ballots. But "if fraudulent voting occurs," Carter says, "the United States should uphold the law and bring additional Section 611 indictments against those non-citizens it believes actually voted illegally in the current—or a prior—election."

The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility for conducting elections, subject to explicit limits imposed by Congress. But the Justice Department's actions in this case "are indicative of a broad, ongoing pattern of attempted election interference by federal officials," Carter writes. The department "has filed at least thirty-one lawsuits in federal district courts across the country seeking complete voter rolls from the States. Out of the twenty-six decided cases, the DOJ has prevailed in precisely zero."

In addition to "its failed attempt to seek State voter rolls," Carter notes, "the United States has also requested that States act based on the Executive's own lists." But "sister district courts across the country have cast doubt" on the reliability of those lists for the same reasons that Carter cites in this case.

On October 23, the Justice Department "sent letters to every county in California requiring them to set aside the votes of alleged non-citizens," Carter notes. "The letters stated that election officials 'risk significant federal scrutiny' if they failed to comply with the Government's demands. The government reiterated its threat in open court yesterday, stating that State and County election officials who do not comply with their letter risk federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2, which criminalizes aiding and abetting the commission of a criminal offense. The court reiterates what it said yesterday: these threats must stop."

The post Trump's Claims About Noncitizen Voting Are 'Not Credible,' a Federal Judge Says in a Scathing Decision appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s effort to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of convicted felons sparked controversy Thursday after an attorney obtained an executive citation addressed to "Betty No Last Name," purportedly notifying the recipient that her voting rights had been restored.

The citation identifies No Last Name as one of more than 66,000 Virginians whose rights to vote, serve on juries and seek public office have reportedly been restored under Spanberger's administration. The controversy comes ahead of a Nov. 3 ballot measure that would make voting rights restoration automatic upon release from prison.

"It’s a big deal," said Virginia Beach attorney Tim Anderson, who first obtained the citation for No Last Name and shared it with Fox News Digital.

SPANBERGER VOTING RIGHTS LETTERS SENT TO DEAD FELONS AMID BALLOT ACCESS PUSH

"It’s clear [Spanberger] didn’t sign it. No governor and no secretary of the commonwealth would sign a restoration order that says Betty No Last Name, so they’re not looking at it; they didn’t review anything," Anderson told Fox News Digital in an interview Thursday. Each citation bears the signatures of the governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth Candi Mundon-King.

"Whereas, Betty No Last Name, by reason of conviction(s), suffers political disabilities …," the citation obtained by Fox News Digital says.

MAP IT: DOJ ILLEGAL VOTING CRACKDOWN SWEEPS 17 STATES AS RAZOR-THIN ELECTIONS FACE SCRUTINY

Anderson said he obtained the citation through a public records request to the Chesapeake Sheriff's Office after reports emerged that restoration notices had been sent to felons who are now deceased. He said the document originated from Spanberger's office and was sent to the sheriff's office.

He speculated that the citations were generated through a mail merge of records and signed using an autopen despite language in the documents indicating that each case had been individually reviewed.

Former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares also questioned whether the administration had individually reviewed the restoration cases.

"Four mentions of ‘Betty No Last Name’ and still no last name. I’m thinking perhaps Abigail Spanberger’s ‘individualized review’ is just imaginary," Miyares said in a statement.

Fox News Digital reached out to Spanberger, Mundon-King and the Chesapeake Sheriff's Office for comment. A sheriff's office official also confirmed veracity of the citation received in No Last Name's name, and provided an additional copy to Fox News Digital.

Anderson said he found the questionable citation after contacting only a handful of Virginia law enforcement agencies and believes similar cases may exist elsewhere in the state. He also suggested that officials whose signatures appear on the citations could face criminal liability if the documents were found to be fraudulent, potentially resulting in forfeiture of office.

Anderson’s finding went viral on social media Thursday, and critics pointed out how No Last Name’s citation colored the upcoming ballot question on automatic rights restoration for felons.

Some Virginia lawmakers have called for an independent audit of Spanberger's rights-restoration process. State Sen. Glen Sturtevant, R-Chesterfield, who has called for the audit, said reports have since emerged of restoration citations being sent to deceased individuals.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

"Now a certificate for "Betty No Last Name," signed by the governor. Still no audit. Vote no on Question 3," Sturtevant said in a statement.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"Congratulations to Betty No Last Name," added Del. Wren Williams, R-Stuart. "You can now vote in Virginia."

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter on Wednesday rejected the Justice Department's emergency request to force California to set aside mail-in ballots associated with more than 20,000 registered voters whose citizenship the Trump administration has questioned, ruling that the last-minute intervention would disrupt an election already underway.

The over 20,000 voters identified by Department of Justice officials as "likely aliens" were designated as such after Homeland Security Investigations and federal partners "used multiple data-enrichment and verification methods" to flag potential noncitizens on California’s voter rolls. California officials, however, disputed the list's accuracy, citing a preliminary review that identified U.S.-born individuals and voters with no voting history among those flagged.

Carter, a Clinton appointee, ruled that the Justice Department's last-minute effort to intervene in California's election violated constitutional and federal-law constraints, while questioning the reliability of the government's evidence that the flagged voters were noncitizens.

"The district court denied our emergency request to sequester ballots from 20,000 suspected noncitizens," First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. "This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution. The Solicitor General authorized an immediate appeal. We filed our Notice of Appeal and will immediately seek an emergency order from the Ninth Circuit."

NINTH CIRCUIT QUESTIONS TRUMP DOJ'S EMERGENCY REQUEST TO SET ASIDE 20,000 CALIFORNIA MAIL BALLOTS

The Trump administration has suffered a string of defeats in election-related cases in the lead-up to the midterm elections, raising questions whether the administration will be able to deliver on its promises of improved election integrity ahead of the 2028 presidential election. President Donald Trump and other administration officials have repeatedly raised concerns about widespread voter fraud in U.S. elections, though those claims have not been supported by evidence demonstrating fraud on such a broad scale.

California election officials argued that complying with the Justice Department's request would be virtually impossible because county election offices had already processed more than 500,000 ballots, separating them from identifying information and preventing officials from reliably linking those votes to individual voters.

Carter warned that the requested intervention would "wreak havoc and disrupt the election that is already underway," though he noted that federal authorities were free to pursue individual voting fraud cases.

Experts were divided along ideological lines in the case.

TRUMP SCORES SUPREME COURT WIN IN ELECTION INTEGRITY FIGHT AS STATES GAIN NEW VOTER ROLL TOOL

Hans von Spakovsky, an election expert at Advancing American Freedom, a Mike Pence-affiliated think tank, criticized California for refusing to comply with the DOJ’s request.

"It tells you something very revealing and unfortunately badly revealing about California officials that they don’t even want to check," von Spakovsky told The Center Square. "In California, for example, they have automatic voter registration. When you go in to get a driver’s license, they don’t ask you, ‘Would you also like to register to vote?’ The state of California just automatically registers you, and when you ask them, they say, ‘Well, it’s up to the individuals to tell us they’re not eligible to vote.’"

BIDEN-APPOINTED JUDGE BLOCKS VOTER-FRAUD PROBES IN BATTLEGROUND STATES JUST DAYS BEFORE MIDTERMS

Rick Hasen, a University of California, Los Angeles, election-law professor, meanwhile, called the Justice Department’s request a "total overreach of federal power," arguing that "the Constitution’s clear that states have the authority to run Congressional elections unless Congress passes a statute otherwise — and Congress didn’t do so here."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The California governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment when reached by Fox News Digital on Thursday.

Most American voters say they have a higher level of enthusiasm for casting their ballots this year versus prior elections, according to a new poll. In the Gallup survey, 56 percent of respondents said they were “more enthusiastic about voting than usual,” while 30 percent said they were “less enthusiastic” and 11 percent were “as…

Most American voters say they have a higher level of enthusiasm for casting their ballots this year versus prior elections, according to a new poll. In the Gallup survey, 56 percent of respondents said they were “more enthusiastic about voting than usual,” while 30 percent said they were “less enthusiastic” and 11 percent were “as…

The plot thickens: Last night, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, said he would launch an investigation into Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola. This is because of late-breaking allegations that Peltola's staffers tried to recruit candidates to run in the Senate race that could confuse voters into not voting for her opponent.

---

Scenes from New York: A Brooklyn woman, Halima Salman, was apparently training with ISIS. Salman, an American citizen, was brought to Syria by her father when she was a teenager and somehow developed close ties to the terrorist group. "Salman, who faces up to 10 years in prison at sentencing, is believed to be the first woman accused of being an ISIS member to stand trial in federal court," reports The New York Times. (There are a lot of jokes I could make here, most of which would not be so tasteful, so I'll let our esteemed commenters handle it.)

---

QUICK HITS

• "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entered Tuesday's Israeli election with a governing majority and is now on course to exit with something less," reports the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. "That's one way to understand the result, but it was also widely anticipated. The surprising news is the opposition's failure to come out ahead of Mr. Netanyahu. He may not have won, but the opposition lost.…At present count Mr. Netanyahu's Likud party is in first place, projected to win 26 or 27 seats in Israel's 120-seat Knesset. That's down from 32 in the current Knesset but up from the 19 or 21 in pre-election polls. The opposition Yashar party of former military chief Gadi Eisenkot lags at 21 seats."
• "Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh on Wednesday left the central bank on track to raise interest rates again this year, even as he stuck to his refusal to offer any explicit guidance on the future path of policy," reports Bloomberg. "Operating within his self-imposed communication boundaries, Warsh used his assessment of a strong economy and warnings over persistent inflation to signal the Fed's job is not yet done. The message reinforced expectations that officials will raise borrowing costs in December—after holding them steady Wednesday—with the potential for another increase in early 2027."
• Allie Beth Stuckey is politically burnt out, says Bloomberg.
• The differences between sex realism and gender realism, and what sex-realist feminists are actually fighting for.

The post Antics in Alaska appeared first on Reason Magazine.

A federal judge rejected the Justice Department’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have barred California from counting mail ballots from more than 20,000 alleged noncitizen voters, saying the election "is already underway."

U.S. District Judge David Carter, in a ruling issued late Wednesday night after a hearing in Los Angeles, said the government's request "would wreak havoc and disrupt the election that is already underway, create a chilling effect on election workers and voters alike, and discount the votes of United States citizens."

The Justice Department immediately appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

CALIFORNIA MUST RESPOND TO DOJ'S EMERGENCY REQUEST OVER BALLOTS MAILED TO ALLEGED NONCITIZENS, COURT RULES

"The district court denied our emergency request to sequester ballots from 20,000 suspected noncitizens," U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli wrote on X. "Every day, more ballots are processed by election officials. This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution. The Solicitor General authorized an immediate appeal. We filed our Notice of Appeal and will immediately seek an emergency order from the Ninth Circuit."

NEWSOM SPARS WITH TRUMP-APPOINTED PROSECUTOR OVER 20,000 SUSPECTED NONCITIZENS ON VOTER ROLLS

California mails ballots to all 23 million of its registered voters. More than 3.7 million people have already voted in the state, including more than 500,000 ballots already processed this week with the ballot already out of the envelope, according to court filings.

It would be impossible to know which ballot belonged to a particular voter now, according to Los Angeles County officials.

BLANCHE WON'T RULE OUT DOJ BLOCKING ELECTION CERTIFICATION IN 'DOOMSDAY' SCENARIO

"Eroded trust in our democracy is irreparable," Judge Carter, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote. "Once a vote is segregated, lasting harm has occurred. If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger. This Court declines to be a party to such process."

STATE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS SHARING PASSPORT RECORDS FOR VOTER CITIZENSHIP CHECKS

Carter said that "states have control over their elections," but the federal government claims it has evidence the state refuses to accept that there are 20,000 noncitizens registered to vote in the state of California.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that states are not doing enough to stop noncitizens from voting, which he says is widespread.

Carter said the Justice Department never explained why counting ballots would impair any prosecutions under the law, and California said the DOJ's assertions relied on "suspect data."

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CHARGES 16 ACROSS MULTIPLE STATES WITH ALLEGED ILLEGAL VOTING, ELECTION CRIMES

"There are no mysterious databases; this was laid out in publicly filed declarations," Essayli wrote Wednesday night on X. "Voter rolls were compared to USCIS immigration, Social Security, and passport records. We are not changing the rules mid-election, we are enforcing them. It’s unlawful for noncitizens to vote."

Registered voters can self-declare to be noncitizens to get removed from the voter roll, and do so while they are seeking naturalization or saying they are ineligible for jury duty.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In Washington state, the Justice Department on Monday sent a letter asking officials not to count any ballots received from 400 voters it claims are not citizens. Washington had 5 million registered voters as of 2024, state records show.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Washington's secretary of state blasted the Justice Department Wednesday after federal officials said investigators had identified more than 400 noncitizens illegally registered to vote in the state, some of whom they said had cast ballots in multiple elections dating back decades.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs pushed back against the findings, saying the state’s review of the list uncovered "several glaring deficiencies."

"This list includes United States citizens and is not reliable. Without individualized proof of ineligibility, it would be both irresponsible and illegal for election officials to decline to process a registered voter’s ballot," he said. 

"That analysis reflects a significant number of people on your list who are not currently registered to vote or are on inactive status, contradicting your representations that all the individuals included in the list will receive a ballot in this year’s election," he added. 

On Monday, the U.S. attorneys’ offices for the Eastern and Western districts of Washington said investigators had identified lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, who were registered to vote or had cast ballots.

"We have identified over 400 noncitizens who are registered to vote and have voted in multiple elections. This is only the tip of the iceberg," Neil Floyd, acting U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, said in a statement. 

"We will continue to investigate and identify those who are committing crimes by voting illegally."

Immigration officials told Fox News Digital Tuesday that dozens of noncitizens have also been arrested nationwide in a major voter fraud crackdown.

DOJ HAS VERIFIED 20,000 NONCITIZENS ON CALIFORNIA VOTER ROLLS, FEDERAL PROSECUTOR SAYS

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Floyd said investigators identified hundreds of noncitizen voters by reviewing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records, which showed that some people who applied for certain benefits had also voted.

While some individuals voted only once or three times in past elections, Floyd said others voted as many as 27 times. In total, his office counted approximately 1,500 instances of noncitizens casting ballots.

He emphasized that some noncitizens had been voting for decades, predating Washington’s transition to a vote-by-mail system. 

"I think the earliest moment we have is 1984," Floyd said. "It's early ‘90s, late ’80s, I believe."

However, Floyd said he had not checked whether any of the individuals voted in the upcoming midterms, explaining that he did not want to "interfere with the current election."

The number of potential noncitizen voters could represent only a fraction of the broader population, Floyd said, because the list includes only individuals who sought certain benefits in Washington state.

NINTH CIRCUIT QUESTIONS TRUMP DOJ'S EMERGENCY REQUEST TO SET ASIDE 20,000 CALIFORNIA MAIL BALLOTS

"If you take that population, and you expand it out to include all the people that are here illegally that we haven't had contact with, just my estimation is that it's going to be in the thousands," Floyd said. 

Federal officials said many green card holders were registered to vote without their knowledge through Washington’s Motor Voter program, which integrates voter registration into the state’s Department of Licensing.

"We have heard from green card holders who were registered against their knowledge via the Washington Motor Voter program. Then they receive a ballot in the mail and assume they are legally registered — that simply is not the case," the notice said.

According to the Washington secretary of state’s website, eligible residents are automatically registered to vote only if they provide proof of U.S. citizenship during a driver’s license or ID card registration process.

Floyd said investigators identified patterns they believe contributed to noncitizens being registered to vote.

According to the DOJ notice, federal officials are asking Washington state to set aside ballots cast by the identified individuals until their citizenship status can otherwise be confirmed.

"Washington is now on notice that noncitizens are voting. It is up to the state to take action to make sure that they are not allowing these noncitizens to vote illegally," the notice said.   

The move builds on DOJ's legal action against California, where federal officials are seeking to set aside mail-in ballots from roughly 20,000 voters they allege are likely noncitizens while their citizenship status is verified.

In response, the California secretary of state’s office said last week that its review "found significant accuracy problems with their sweeping claims."

"At best, this litigation is a reckless political stunt. At worst, it threatens to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election. Plaintiff’s sole claim—that a federal criminal prohibition on individual noncitizen voting preempts large swaths of California’s election administration—borders on the absurd. The relief Plaintiff seeks is as unlawful as it is untenable," the statement said. 

Officials warned that voting as a noncitizen can have serious consequences for those seeking to become U.S. citizens. Potential criminal charges include making false statements in a naturalization application, and some individuals could also face charges for fraudulent voter registration.

On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security told Fox News Digital numerous illegal aliens had also admitted to unlawfully registering to vote or casting ballots in U.S. elections.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Of the dozens of suspects arrested, at least 18 had voted in a federal election. 

The individuals were from a range of countries, including Mexico, Somalia, Honduras, Guyana, Cuba, Germany, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Vietnam, El Salvador, Cambodia, Guatemala, Portugal and Italy.

Many also faced charges for numerous alleged crimes, including counterfeiting, fraud, kidnapping, DUI, sexual offenses, assault with a dangerous weapon, drug possession and burglary.

“We assume that our enemies, like the Chinese or the Iranians, want to undermine our elections,” says investigative journalist Peter Schweizer. “But a lot of the resistance has actually come from some of the states.”

The post Peter Schweizer: Inside Homeland Security’s Push to Clean Up Voter Rolls Before Election Day appeared first on Breitbart.

A federal appeals court refused to order California to set aside roughly 20,000 mail ballots tied to voters the Trump administration says are noncitizens.

The post Ninth Circuit Won’t Order California to Set Aside Noncitizen Ballots appeared first on Breitbart.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused opponents of attempting to steal Israel’s national election Tuesday following arrests in a suspected voter-bribery investigation, as record turnout prompted his right-wing coalition to launch an emergency mobilization effort in the final hours before polls closed.

The post Benjamin Netanyahu: ‘They Are Trying to Steal the Election from Us’ as Voting Enters Final Hours appeared first on Breitbart.

Improving polls for Labour are bound to lead to feverish speculation about a snap election. But if Burnham is tempted, what just happened in British Columbia might change his mind, says Mark Littlewood.

The post British Columbia Shows the Risks of a Snap Election appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Opposition bloc lawmakers and activists out in force, coalition representatives nowhere to be seen, while some 60,000 non-residents exercise their civic duty

The effort among Democratic and nonprofit groups includes training volunteers to stand watch outside polling places and report activities they consider concerning.

California's experiment: Will California's proposed wealth tax, Prop 40, pass next week? And if it gets passed, will it end up actually costing the state money instead of generating revenue?

The basics: The proposal features a one-time 5 percent tax on people with net worths over $1 billion who lived in the state on January 1, 2026 (with the net worth amount calculated as of December 31, 2026). The idea for the snapshot date is presumably to prevent capital flight once the tax passes. The tax's supporters say the tax's revenues will amount to $100 billion and will fund California's health care system, which need to make up for federal Medicaid cuts.

Seven billionaires, representing 30 percent of the total billionaire wealth in the state, left California before January 1, 2026, when news of the possible tax broke. Peter Thiel, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin are among the deserters. The French economist Gabriel Zucman—an intense defender of the wealth tax—seems committed to the idea that this flight won't matter too much. He argues that while removing those seven brings down revenue estimates to $89 billion, adding in less-prominent small-time billionaires raises revenue to $115 billion.

This is silly. As The Washington Post's Megan McArdle points out, there's no reason to believe those less-famous billionaires would stay put. We have a hard time estimating what the total preemptive flight looks like, and how many billionaires have successfully taken up residency elsewhere.

"Either the tax is annual—and in that case it generates revenue annually, and some billionaires leave," claims Zucman. "Or the tax is one-time—in that case it generates revenue in just one year, and there is no incentive to leave. It can't be both at the same time." Zucman doesn't seem to consider that billionaires have already left, as soon as the idea was seriously floated, thus taking early steps to shield their wealth from the state.

Will it pass? "Likely voters are essentially where they were a month ago," reports Politico, based on recent polling data, "with 46% in favor of Proposition 40 and 43% opposed—despite a recent push by backers of the measure, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, to rally support." Interestingly, "a strikingly high share of registered voters (84%) said they'd been exposed to advertisements or messages about the tax, but a 45% plurality said the communications had not swayed them, and those whose views had shifted were just as likely to be more opposed as more supportive."

There's another complication: On that very same ballot, voters will decide on Propositions 41 and 42, competing measures that could keep Prop 40 from taking effect. Prop 40 will be nullified if either one gets more votes; but Prop 40 will nullify both of them if it gets more votes. Prop 42 would bar new taxes on personal property such as businesses, investments, retirement accounts, trusts, and art collections—things Prop 40 targets. It also bans retroactive taxes, thus making Prop 40 impossible to pull off.

Back in January, Pirate Wires' Mike Solana spoke with a bunch of billionaires who were worried about the tax and making plans to flee, partially out of distrust that the tax would be one-and-done. "Three men I spoke with in the largest billionaire Signal chat said they ran an informal poll, and seventy percent of the chat (around sixty people, not all of whom were billionaires) indicated they would leave the state if the ballot proposition passes," reports Solana. "According to that same poll, around 15% have already left the state."

"There is now real danger in appearing successful in the state of California," writes Solana, "as the far left, imbued with a great deal of power, and benefiting now from several years of wealth scapegoating throughout the mainstream press, attempts to liquidate its perceived enemies in business."

---

Scenes from New York: I'm fully aboard this train these days, though open to being convinced why I'm wrong:

If you truly *love* American cities, you MUST support strict enforcement of laws against anti-social behavior. Paying bus fares, red light cameras, camping on sidewalks, smoking on trains, off-leash dogs, etc etc

If people want to do whatever they want, that's FINE in the… https://t.co/XU0WQR30yz

— Bobby Fijan (@bobbyfijan) October 26, 2026

---

QUICK HITS

• "Brazilian markets are heading for a major rout when local trading begins after President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pulled off a stunning comeback to defeat Flávio Bolsonaro, the right-wing candidate that many investors preferred," reports Bloomberg. This will be da Silva's fourth term.
• Is dynamic pricing on the rise? Customers say yes, but most companies say they're wrong. My thought: Even if it's not currently happening to the degree angry customers claim, it certainly will be big in the future, as online shopping takes over and AI makes implementation easier. Consider the upside, though, noted in this Wall Street Journal piece: "Much current angst is focused on electronic shelf labels, which have replaced the printed labels that dotted shelves at groceries and other stores. Research on digital shelf labels in the U.S. and Europe, where grocers have widely used the technology for more than a decade, found the labels don't lead to surge pricing, in part because price changes are obvious to anyone walking by. Rather, research found, grocers have used the labels to discount goods that are about to expire, reducing food waste."
• Great Washington Post headline: "Europe is running out of other people's money."
• President Donald Trump claims the ships passing past Cuba on their way home from Iran will just, uh, handle the situation there. Sure.
• Interesting:

Striking detail in the big NYT piece on Taiwanese families adjusting to working at the huge new TSMC chip plant in Arizona: their surprise at the lack of rigor in US schools. pic.twitter.com/YkSPzbHCuE

— Alec MacGillis (@AlecMacGillis) October 26, 2026

The post Will the Wealth Tax Fail? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Mail-in ballots account for more than half of votes cast so far, as early turnout builds across the United States ahead of Election Day.

---

More than 26.6 million U.S. citizens have already voted in the midterm elections, according to data released October 24 by the University of Florida’s Election Lab, with mail-in ballots accounting for 14 million of the votes recorded nationwide.

RELATED: U.S. Midterms: Trump’s Grip on Congress Comes Down to the Gas Pump

The latest figures show that 26,608,029 votes had been cast ahead of Election Day, including 14,006,420 ballots returned by mail and 12,601,609 votes cast in person. Election authorities have also received requests for more than 59.4 million mail-in ballots nationwide.

Early voting has increased in states including North Carolina, Kansas, Maine and Iowa, while Texas has seen a rise in mobilization among Latino voters, according to the report. The figures come amid concerns over economic conditions and the cost of living.

California has recorded 2,943,863 early votes, overwhelmingly through mail-in voting. Of those, 2,936,954 were returned by mail and 6,909 were cast in person. Voters in the state have requested more than 23.4 million mail-in ballots.

🚨 Estados Unidos se aproxima a unas elecciones legislativas decisivas, con la popularidad de Donald Trump en retroceso y creciente malestar por la economía. Los comicios del 3 de noviembre de 2026 definirán la composición del Congreso.

🗳️🇺🇸 ¿Qué opinas?… pic.twitter.com/HX9HCMb2o0

— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) August 29, 2026

Text Reads: 🚨 The United States is approaching pivotal legislative elections, with Donald Trump’s popularity on the decline and growing discontent over the economy. The November 3, 2026, elections will determine the composition of Congress.
🗳️🇺🇸 What do you think?

Democrats account for the largest share of California’s early votes, with 1,383,916 ballots, or 50.2% of the total. Republicans have cast 799,054 votes, representing 29%, while voters registered without a party preference and those affiliated with minor parties account for 575,130 votes, or 20.9%.

Los Angeles County leads California in early voting, with 539,589 ballots processed. San Diego County follows with 356,667 votes, ahead of Orange County, where 279,953 ballots have been returned.

The elections will determine all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, 35 Senate seats and 36 governorships.

The run-up to Election Day has also been marked by a legal dispute over the certification of results in Alaska. A federal court challenge backed by former President Donald Trump seeks to block the potential certification of the state’s election results, raising questions about the electoral process as voting approaches its conclusion.