California

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares84 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas Democrats say they are prepared to return to state after two-week absence

      by

      Texas Democrats said on Thursday they are prepared to return to the state under certain conditions, ending a nearly two-week-long effort to block Republicans from passing a new congressional map that would add five GOP seats.The lawmakers said they would return as long as the legislature ends its first special session on Friday, which Republicans have said they plan to do. Texas’s governor, Greg Abbott, has said he will immediately call another special session.The Democrats also said they would return once California introduces a new congressional map that would add five Democratic seats, offsetting the gains in Texas. California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, is expected to announce what he has teased as a “major” redistricting announcement on Thursday.Gene Wu, chair of the Texas house Democratic caucus, said in a statement that he and his colleagues “successfully mobilized the nation against Trump’s assault on minority voting rights”.“Facing threats of arrest, lawfare, financial penalties, harassment and bomb threats, we have stood firm in our fight against a proposed Jim Crow congressional district map,” he said. “Now, as Democrats across the nation join our fight to cause these maps to fail their political purpose, we’re prepared to bring this battle back to Texas under the right conditions and to take this fight to the courts.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe lawmakers said in a statement that returning to Texas would allow them to build a strong public and legislative record that could be used in legal challenges against the map. More

    • 150 Shares140 Views

      in US Politics

      Newsom says California will draw new electoral maps after Trump ‘missed’ deadline

      by

      California governor Gavin Newsom says the state will draw new electoral maps after Donald Trump “missed” a deadline on Tuesday night in an ongoing redistricting battle between Democratic and Republican states.“DONALD ‘TACO’ TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, ‘MISSED’ THE DEADLINE!!!”, Newsom’s office wrote on social media. “CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE ‘BEAUTIFUL MAPS,’ THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!)”.“BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR — THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR ‘MAGA.’ THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! — GN,” reads the post.The post follows a series of snarky, all-caps tweets meant to mimic Trump’s social media writing style.Newsom was mocking Trump’s moniker, “Taco”, short for “Trump always chickens out”, prompted by his flip-flopping deadlines.Several states have waded into the redistricting wars, where Newsom and other Democratic state leaders had threatened to draw retaliatory maps if Texas were to move ahead with its redistricting scheme.Texas Democrats had left the state to stop Republicans from passing a new congressional map. The Texas senate passed the new congressional map on Tuesday, but it will not earn full approval from the legislature because of the quorum-break. Lawmakers are set to adjourn on Friday and Texas’s governor, Greg Abbott, has said he will immediately convene a new special session.In a letter sent to Trump on Monday, Newsom said he would prefer to leave the matter of congressional map-making to independent commissions, not partisan legislative bodies and emphasized that he would “happily” stand down if other states abandoned their redistricting effort. But, Newsom said: “California cannot stand idly by as this power grab unfolds.”Newsom’s office summarized the letter Monday in a mocking social media post to Trump: “DONALD TRUMP, IF YOU DO NOT STAND DOWN, WE WILL BE FORCED TO LEAD AN EFFORT TO REDRAW THE MAPS IN CA TO OFFSET THE RIGGING OF MAPS IN RED STATES. BUT IF THE OTHER STATES CALL OFF THEIR REDISTRICTING EFFORTS, WE WILL DO THE SAME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!”At a press conference with several quorum-breaking Texas lawmakers, as well as California’s legislative leaders, Newsom outlined his plan to ask voters to override the existing congressional maps drawn by an independent commission and accept a new proposal to create five more Democratic-leaning seats. The governor expressed confidence that voters would approve the plan and said the state legislature would act in time to get the measure on the ballot this November.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump has defended the Texas plan, arguing that he is “entitled to five more seats” because he won the state’s popular vote in the 2024 presidential election. The argument, however, is flawed – a popular vote win does not necessarily mean a president’s party is awarded more congressional seats.Despite Newsom’s appeal, the White House is seeking to enlist other red states in the redistricting clash. Last week, vice-president JD Vance traveled to Indiana, where he met with state Republican leaders to lobby them on the effort. Republicans have also targeted Ohio and Missouri.Lauren Gambino contributed reporting More

    • 150 Shares84 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge hears if Trump team broke law during LA Ice protests

      by

      A federal judge in San Francisco on Monday began hearing evidence and arguments on whether the Trump administration violated federal law when it deployed national guard soldiers and US marines to Los Angeles after protests over immigration raids this summer.The Trump administration federalized California national guard members and sent them to the second-largest US city over the objections of the California governor, Gavin Newsom, and city leaders, after protests erupted on 7 June when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officers arrested people at multiple locations.California is asking Judge Charles Breyer to order the Trump administration to return control of the remaining troops to the state and to stop the federal government from using military troops in California “to execute or assist in the execution of federal law or any civilian law enforcement functions by any federal agent or officer”.“The factual question which the court must address is whether the military was used to enforce domestic law, and if so, whether there continues to be a threat that it could be done again,” Breyer said at the start of Monday’s court hearing.The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force. The case could set precedent for how Trump can deploy the guard in the future in California or other states.Trump’s decision to deploy the troops marked the first time in 60 years that a US president had taken such a step without a governor’s consent. Critics say that Trump’s actions in many ways reflect a strongman approach by a president who has continuously tread upon norms and has had a disregard for institutional limits.“This is the first, perhaps, of many,” Trump said in June of the deployment of national guardsmen in Los Angeles. “You know, if we didn’t attack this one very strongly, you’d have them all over the country, but I can inform the rest of the country, that when they do it, if they do it, they’re going to be met with equal or greater force.”Many of the troops have been withdrawn, but Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, said on Sunday that 300 national guard troops remain in the state. The Trump administration last week extended the activation of troops in the LA area through 6 November, according to a court filing by Newsom.“The federal government deployed military troops to the streets of Los Angeles for the purposes of political theater and public intimidation,” Bonta said in a statement. “This dangerous move has no precedent in American history.”The hearing comes the same day Trump placed the DC Metropolitan police department under federal control and deployed the national guard by invoking section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has said national guard units would take to the streets of DC over the coming week.The Department of Defense ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 California national guard troops and 700 marines. Most of the troops have since left but 250 national guard members remain, according to the latest figures provided by the Pentagon. The remaining troops are at the Joint Forces training base in Los Alamitos, according to Newsom.Newsom won an early victory from Breyer, who found the Trump administration had violated the 10th amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments, and exceeded its authority.The Trump administration immediately filed an appeal arguing that courts cannot second guess the president’s decisions and secured a temporary halt from the appeals court, allowing control of the California national guard to stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.After their deployment, the soldiers accompanied federal immigration officers on immigration raids in Los Angeles and at two marijuana farm sites in Ventura county while marines mostly stood guard around a federal building in downtown Los Angeles that includes a detention center at the core of protests.The Trump administration argued the troops were needed to protect federal buildings and personnel in Los Angeles, which has been a battleground in the federal government’s aggressive immigration strategy. Since June, federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the US from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops and farms. Some US citizens have also been detained.Ernesto Santacruz Jr, the field office director for the Department of Homeland Security in Los Angeles, said in court documents that the troops were needed because local law enforcement had been slow to respond when a crowd gathered outside the federal building to protest against the 7 June immigration arrests.“The presence of the national guard and marines has played an essential role in protecting federal property and personnel from the violent mobs,” Santacruz said.After opposition from the Trump administration, Breyer issued an order allowing California’s attorneys to take Santacruz’s deposition. They also took a declaration from a military official on the national guard and marines role in Los Angeles.The Trump administration’s attorneys argued in court filings last week the case should be canceled because the claims under the Posse Comitatus Act “fail as a matter of law”. They argued that there is a law that gives the president the authority to call on the national guard to enforce US laws when federal law enforcement is not enough.Trump federalized members of the California national guard under Section 12406 of Title 10, which allows the president to call the national guard into federal service when the country “is invaded”, when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government” or when the president is otherwise unable “to execute the laws of the United States”.Breyer found the protests in Los Angeles “fall far short of ‘rebellion”.“Next week’s trial is not cancelled,” he said in a ruling ordering the three-day, non-jury trial.During the month the protests took place, tensions heightened between Trump and Newsom. The California governor compared the president with failed dictators and Trump entertained the idea of having Newsom arrested. More

    • 125 Shares91 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration demands $1bn from UCLA to restore federal funding

      by

      The Trump administration is seeking a $1bn settlement from the University of California, Los Angeles, a White House official said on Friday.The person was not authorized to speak publicly about the request and spoke on condition of anonymity.The Trump administration has suspended $584m in federal research funding from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and other agencies, the university’s chancellor, Julio Frenk, said in a message to UCLA staff and students this week.Last week, the justice department notified the university that an investigation by the department’s civil right division had “concluded that UCLA’s response to the protest encampment on its campus in the spring of 2024 was deliberately indifferent to a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students” in violation of federal anti-discrimination law.“This disgusting breach of civil rights against students will not stand: DOJ will force UCLA to pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk and continue our ongoing investigations into other campuses in the UC system”, the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, said in a statement.UCLA is the first public university whose federal grants have been targeted by the administration over allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action. The Trump administration has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges.The new University of California president, James B Milliken, who oversees a university system of 10 campuses, six academic health centers and three affiliated national laboratories, confirmed on Friday that the university had received notice from the justice department and was reviewing it.“Earlier this week, we offered to engage in good faith dialogue with the Department to protect the University and its critical research mission,” Milliken said. “As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians.“Americans across this great nation rely on the vital work of UCLA and the UC system for technologies and medical therapies that save lives, grow the US economy, and protect our national security,” he added.UCLA recently reached a $6m settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university, arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus.The university has said it is committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration reportedly suspends $200m in grants to UCLA

      by

      The Trump administration is suspending some research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, claiming “antisemitism and bias”, the school announced in a statement on Thursday.“UCLA received a notice that the federal government, through its control of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other agencies, is suspending certain research funding to UCLA,” Julio Frenk, the university chancellor, said in a letter to the campus. The move means “life-saving research” will be defunded, he said.“It is a loss for Americans across the nation whose work, health, and future depend on the groundbreaking work we do.”Frenk did not say the value of the grants, but the Los Angeles Times reported that roughly 300 grants amounting to nearly $200m were suspended.The federal government has moved to pull billions of dollars from prominent universities across the US after accusing the institutions of failing to adequately respond to antisemitism during pro-Palestinian protests, and referred some to the Department of Justice. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has reached agreements with Brown University and Columbia University to restore funding and close investigations into the schools.The agreement with Brown requires the institution to commit to nondiscrimination in admissions and programs, and allow the administration access to admissions data. Meanwhile, Columbia’s controversial deal requires it pay more than $220m, expand its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, review Middle East curriculum and cut programs promoting “unlawful efforts” related to diversity. Harvard remains in a legal fight with the federal government over its move to freeze billions in federal funds.The news out of UCLA comes days after the school reached a nearly $6.5m settlement in a lawsuit by Jewish students and a professor who said the university allowed antisemitic discrimination to take place on campus during protests last year.Earlier this week, the Department of Justice notified the University of California that its investigation found that UCLA’s response to a protest encampment in spring 2024 was “deliberately indifferent to a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students” and that students experienced “severe [and] pervasive” harassment.In his statement about the grant cancellations, Frenk said the university had taken steps to combat antisemitism, and ensure the school is safe and welcoming for all, including the creation of a new Office of Campus and Community Safety and an Initiative to Combat Antisemitism.He also highlighted the university’s history of research, including planetary scientists who search for asteroids that could pose a threat to Earth, a Valley Fever Center and the role researchers played in helping create the internet.“This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,” Frenk wrote. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Gavin Newsom may call special election to redraw California congressional maps

      by

      California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, may call a special election in November to begin the process of redrawing the state’s congressional maps in response to Texas’s plans to change its own maps to help Republicans keep their majority in the House of Representatives.Donald Trump is pushing Texas and other Republican-dominated states to carry out mid-decade redistricting that will favor the GOP and potentially stop Democrats from retaking control of the House in next year’s midterm elections. Governors in Democratic-led states have responded by warning they will move to redo their own maps if Texas goes ahead with its plans, which could create an additional five Republican-leaning districts.California is viewed as the best opportunity for Democrats to pick up seats through gerrymandering, but voters will first have to approve changes to an independent redistricting commission that was given the power to draw congressional districts in 2010.Speaking at a Thursday press conference, Newsom said “a special election would be called, likely to be the first week of November” to approve the changes.“We will go to the people of this state in a transparent way and ask them to consider the new circumstances, to consider these new realities,” the governor added.The party out of power typically regains control of the House in a president’s first midterm election, as the Republicans did under Joe Biden in 2022 and Barack Obama in 2010, and Democrats did during Trump’s first term in 2018.Newsom argued that another two years of unified Republican control of Congress would be especially harmful for California, noting that Los Angeles residents were still waiting for lawmakers to approve aid from the wildfires that ravaged the region earlier this year.“They’re doing a midterm rejection of objectivity and independence, an act that we could criticize from the sideline, or an act that we can respond to in kind – fight fire with fire,” Newsom said.While Republicans could gain the most seats by redrawing Texas’s maps, Ohio, another red state, must also redraw its maps before next year’s election, and there’s talk of redistricting to the GOP’s advantage in Missouri and Indiana.Democrats are seen as having a more difficult path to improving their odds of winning the House majority through redistricting, often due to their states’ embrace of independent commissions intended to draw fair congressional amps.Voters created the California citizens redistricting commission in 2008 to draw its legislative maps, and in 2010 expanded its powers to congressional districts. Newsom said, “We’re not here to eliminate the commission,” but rather to respond to what he described as “the rigging of the system by the president of the United States.“And it won’t just happen in Texas. I imagine he’s making similar calls all across this country. It’s a big deal. I don’t think it gets much bigger,” Newsom said. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris announces she will not run for governor of California

      by

      Kamala Harris, the former vice-president and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, announced on Wednesday that she will not run for governor of California – a highly anticipated decision that leaves the contest to lead the country’s largest blue state wide open.“For now, my leadership – and public service – will not be in elected office,” Harris said in a statement, ending months of speculation about her political future after losing the 2024 presidential election to Donald Trump.“I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans,” she added.Harris, 60, who previously served as California’s attorney general and US senator, had been exploring a run for the state’s top job since leaving the White House in January. But, she said in the statement, “after deep reflection, I’ve decided that I will not run for governor in this election”. The decision does not rule out a future run for public office, including a third bid for the White House, after unsuccessful campaigns in 2020 and 2024.Among the other possibilities Harris is exploring is starting a non-profit or leading a policy thinktank, said a personal familiar with her thinking. Allies said she would be a sought-after surrogate and fundraiser ahead of the 2026 midterms.“I think we can expect her to continue to invigorate the younger generation who really vibed off of her energy, her authenticity, and, you know, her willingness to talk about things that you don’t normally talk about when you’re on the campaign trail,” said the California congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, one of the Democrats Harris spoke with in recent months as she weighed a run for governor.Harris’s looming decision had in effect paralyzed the race to replace Gavin Newsom, the term-limited Democratic governor, with early polling suggesting she was Californians’ top choice. The Harris-less race to lead California will now take place in a political landscape dramatically reshaped by her loss to Trump in November, which plunged the party into a period of paralysis and soul-searching.In the months since, the Democratic base has grown increasingly furious with its old guard, demanding fresh leadership and a more combative approach to what they view as Trump’s increasingly authoritarian agenda.In a nod to the discontent roiling her party, and the country, Harris said: “We must recognize that our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis. As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking – committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook.”While the decision was disappointing to supporters eager to see Harris square off again with Trump during the final years of his term, Harris had given few signals that she was deeply excited by the prospect of leading the state from the governor’s perch in Sacramento. The months-long slog to next year’s contest would have forced Harris to grapple with her role in Democrats’ losses in November, which has already drawn criticism from corners of the party eager for leaders to step aside and make space for a new generation of candidates.The crowded field of Democrats running for governor in California is so far made up of long-serving or well-known political leaders, including Xavier Becerra, the former attorney general of California who served with Harris in Biden’s cabinet as the secretary of health and human services; Antonio Villaraigosa, the former Democratic mayor of Los Angeles; the state’s lieutenant governor, Eleni Kounalakis, who is close friends with Harris; and the former representative Katie Porter.The most prominent Republicans in the race are Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside county, and Steve Hilton, the former Fox host and former adviser to then UK prime minister David Cameron. Ric Grenell, a longtime Trump ally, has also toyed with the idea of running.In a statement, Villaraigosa commended Harris’s leadership and said that her decision “reflects her continued commitment to serving at the highest levels of government”.Becerra described Harris’s decision as an “important turning point for her and our state” that would reshape the “race for governor, but not the stakes”.“California needs a governor who will treat the cost of living crisis like the emergency it is, and who will stand up to the chaos and corruption of the Trump White House,” he said in a statement.Meanwhile, Newsom, who came up in San Francisco politics with Harris, also praised the former vice-president. “Kamala Harris has courageously served our state and country for her entire career,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Whether it be as a prosecutor, attorney general, senator, or vice-president she has always kept a simple pledge at the heart of every decision she’s made: For the People. Grateful for her service and friendship – and looking forward to continuing the fight in whatever the future might hold for her.”Republicans – some of whom had been eager to elevate Harris as the face of the Democratic party – nevertheless touted her decision as a political victory for the president.“Kamala Harris’s political career is over thanks to President Trump,” said Kollin Crompton, a spokesperson for the Republican Governors Association, adding, perhaps prematurely: “Americans across the country can sigh in relief that they won’t have to see or hear from Kamala Harris any longer.”Harris had maintained a relatively low profile since she returned home to Los Angeles, offering few clues about her political future. She remained mostly out of view as protests erupted in response to the Trump administration’s immigration raids in Los Angeles earlier this summer. In a statement issued after Trump ordered national guard troops deployed Los Angeles, she said that protest was “a powerful tool” and said she supported the “millions of Americans who are standing up to protect our most fundamental rights and freedoms”.She has been selective about when to weigh in against the Trump administration’s actions. Earlier this year, Harris delivered a sharp speech in which she warned that the US was witnessing a “wholesale abandonment of America’s highest ideals” by the US president.On Wednesday, Harris vowed to remain politically engaged.“We, the People must use our power to fight for freedom, opportunity, fairness, and the dignity of all,” she said. “I will remain in that fight.”Dani Anguiano contributed to this report More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Justice department asked California to give details of non-citizens on voter rolls

      by

      The Department of Justice has asked several large California counties to provide detailed personal information of non-citizens who got on to the state voter rolls, an unusual request that comes as the Trump administration has asked about a dozen states to provide wide swaths of information about voters and election practices.The justice department’s voting section sent identical letters to local election officials in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego on 9 July. The request asks the officials to provide the total number of non-citizens who had their voter registrations cancelled since 2020 as well as a copy of their voter registration records, voting history, date of birth, driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of a social security number. The department sent a similar request to Orange county last month and then sued the county after officials redacted some information.“It’s deeply troubling,” said David Becker, the executive director for the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “It reflects a pretty shocking misunderstanding of federal law regarding list maintenance.”The request for information on non-citizens comes as the Trump administration has arrested and moved to deport thousands of immigrants. Submitting a voter registration form while ineligible to vote is a crime so non-citizens that do so could be prosecuted and potentially deported. This kind of voter fraud, however, is extremely rare.All three counties said they were reviewing the justice department’s request. The justice department did not return a request for comment.The justice department’s voting section has sent out extensive requests for information to nearly a dozen states recently, many of them focused on how states are removing people from the rolls and suggesting that states are not doing enough to cancel voter registrations of people who are ineligible to cast a ballot. It has also asked many states to turn over all of their voter registration records. At least two states, New Hampshire and Minnesota, have refused so far. “The Department of Justice did not, however, identify any legal basis in its June 25 letter that would entitle it to Minnesota’s voter registration list. Nor did it explain how this information would be used, stored, and secured,” a lawyer for the Minnesota secretary of state’s office wrote on 25 July.It is a focus that underscores how the justice department’s voting section is shifting away from enforcing anti-discrimination in voting laws and instead hunting for voter fraud.“For years now, we’ve seen suits from those conservative groups saying that jurisdictions aren’t purging enough folks from their rolls and claiming that they’ve identified non-citizens on the rolls and that kind of thing. And now we’re seeing the Department of Justice do something very similar,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “This is a civil rights division and a voting section in particular that are very focused on trying to prove some kind of fraud.”Federal law requires states to regularly check their rolls for people who are ineligible because they have moved or died, with safeguards in place to ensure that eligible voters are not erroneously moved. Republicans have long complained that states are not aggressive enough in removing voters, while Democrats have pointed to errors states have made to justify the continued existence of the safeguards.Trump has often repeated the false claim that non-citizens are voting in significant numbers in US elections, including last month when he said Los Angeles and other Democratic-leaning cities were using “Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base” and “cheat in elections”. A provision in Trump’s March executive order on elections instructs the attorney general to prioritize enforcing laws that prevent non-citizen voting. Numerous studies have shown that non-citizen voting is exceedingly rare.“This refocus is troubling in part because it means taking away focus from actually enforcing the legal protections for voting rights that the voting rights section has historically been enforcing,” Morales-Doyle said. “It seems to be investing a bunch of resources in going after a problem that is infinitesimally rare.”There have been isolated instances of non-citizens becoming registered in recent years, but it is often due to confusion about their eligibility. In 2018, for example, a federal prosecutor in North Carolina charged 20 non-citizens with illegally voting and several of them said they had no idea they were ineligible.Last month, election officials in Orange county, California, told the justice department that 17 non-citizens had become registered to vote since 2020. Sixteen of those people self-reported they were non-citizens, according to the Los Angeles Times.The election officials provided the information in June after justice department officials made a similar request to the one submitted to Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. While election officials turned over the names and dates of birth of those who registered, they redacted their social security and driver’s license numbers, citing state privacy laws, the Los Angeles Times reported. When Orange county officials offered to work on a confidentiality agreement under which they could provide the records, justice department responded by suing the county for the records.“These efforts make it clear President Trump is preparing to use the power of his office to interfere in the 2026 election,” said Samantha Tarazi, CEO and co-founder of Voting Rights Lab, a non-profit that is tracking the justice department’s outreach to states. “What started as an unconstitutional executive order – marching orders for state action regardless of its fate in court – has grown into a full federal mobilization to seize power over our elections.To justify its request for records to the California counties, the justice department pointed to two federal laws, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Help America Vote Act (Hava) that set requirements for how states must maintain their voter rolls. Neither statute requires states to continually search for non-citizens on their voter rolls, Becker said.“There is literally nothing in federal law anywhere that requires states to continually search for non-citizens on their voter lists,” he said. “States can do this if they choose to. But the federal government plays absolutely no role in that unless a state affirmatively asks them to.”The justice department cited a provision of the NVRA that requires states to come up with a general program for removing voters from the rolls because they have either died or moved. It also cited a provision of Hava that requires states to have a system for removing ineligible voters from the rolls and not to accept a federal voter registration application unless voters provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their social security number.“I don’t understand how having the name and [personal identifying information] of any voter tells you anything about whether a county is or isn’t complying with the NVRA and Hava,” Levitt said. “The civil rights division hasn’t really established a legitimate need for the information they’re demanding. Which means they’re not really entitled to the information.” More