California’s Secretary of State and Attorney General Confess: The State Doesn’t Track Noncitizen Voter Fraud

For years, Americans have been told that concerns about noncitizens voting are a myth, a Right-wing talking point unworthy of serious attention. However, California’s own Secretary of State and Attorney General have proven otherwise, not by admitting the state has no idea whether, or how often, it’s even happening, but because the state isn’t bothering to track it.

A few weeks ago, the ACLJ submitted two California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests – one to the California Secretary of State and one to CA Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office – seeking records on how the state maintains the integrity of its voter rolls. The Attorney General’s office took an extension, ultimately responding on August 10.

The Secretary of State’s office responded first, but refused to provide any records responsive to our request. According to its answer, the statewide voter registration system simply “does not contain” a specific cancellation reason for noncitizenship. In other words, the state cannot tell us how many noncitizens have ever been removed from its voter rolls – because it doesn’t keep that information at all.

Below is a summary of our records requests to the Secretary of State, and how California responded to each:

• We asked for the number of voter registrations that were canceled because the registrant didn’t meet citizenship requirements. California said its system “does not contain a voter status reason for cancellation due to non-citizenship.”
• We asked for records on the programs the state uses to keep its voter rolls accurate and current. California pointed to training manuals showing that new registrants are checked against death records, felony records from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and DMV change-of-address records – but not citizenship (aside from a self-attested checkbox).
• We asked for records on how the state handles complaints submitted through its Election Voter Complaint form. Rather than treat this as a records request, California treated it as a question, provided no records, and said only that complaints are forwarded to Elections Division staff for further review or investigation.
• We asked for the outcomes of investigations into illegal voting. California said it simply “does not maintain” those statistics.

The Attorney General’s Office Also Just Confessed

Our second records request – to Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office – came due on August 10, and the response we received doesn’t inspire any more confidence than the Secretary of State’s did.

We asked the DOJ for three things:

• Records on the programs and activities the state uses to keep its official voter rolls accurate and current.
• Records on the state’s policies for handling investigative referrals of illegal voting.
• Records on the outcomes of those illegal-voting referrals, with private information about the individuals involved excluded.

The answer to our second request was blunt. The California DOJ responded to our FOIA, stating it has no records containing or addressing “‘policies’ that are specific to handling ‘investigative referrals for illegal voting.’”

California’s own Department of Justice – the agency charged with enforcing the state’s election laws – has no written policy for what happens when someone reports illegal voting. Not redacted. Not withheld. Nonexistent.

Despite the fact that the CA Secretary of State promised us that referrals were made for prosecution (though it keeps no record of them), the CA DOJ says they have no policy regarding such “investigative referrals for illegal voting.”

As for the other two requests – the records on how the state actually safeguards its voter rolls and what happens once an illegal-voting referral is made – the DOJ says it found records that could be responsive, but needs more time to review them for redactions and exemptions. We’re now told to expect that response on or about August 27.

The problem for California? Federal law requires every state to maintain records showing how it safeguards the accuracy of its voter rolls and to make those records available to the public. Specifically, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 52 U.S.C. § 20507, requires each state to retain, for at least two years, and make available for public inspection, records showing how it works to keep its official voter rolls accurate and current.

But California just admitted in writing that it keeps no such records regarding the removal of noncitizens from its rolls.

That’s convenient. But it’s also unlawful.

To be clear, this isn’t a case of the state simply lacking a category for record-keeping in general. California’s own system does track cancellations for other reasons – death, moving out of state, felony convictions – that strip voting rights. Those categories exist and are documented. The one category missing is citizenship.

That’s not an oversight; that’s a choice.

And here’s where the state undermines itself. In that same response from the Secretary of State, California pointed out that voters must attest, under penalty of perjury, that they meet every eligibility requirement, including citizenship, and that state law clearly bars noncitizens from registering.

Translation: Don’t worry, it’s illegal. But if the state isn’t tracking when that law gets broken, and someone is removed for violating it, and the Attorney General isn’t keeping records of investigative referrals of illegal voting, that reassurance is hollow. You cannot claim a safeguard is working if you have no records showing whether it’s ever been triggered, or how it’s been investigated.

It’s also worth noting that California doesn’t require proof of citizenship or lawful presence for a certain category of driver’s license, AB 60 – the same kind of licensing pathway that triggered New Jersey’s noncitizen voter roll problem. And driver licenses are used to establish identity.

The ACLJ isn’t done here. We’re pressing for the records that California’s DOJ says it’s still reviewing, and depending on what – or what isn’t – in that response, our options range from further legal demands to potential litigation for noncompliance with state and federal recordkeeping laws.

California has now told the country, through two separate agencies, that it doesn’t know how many noncitizens have been removed from its voter rolls, and that it has no formal policy for investigating illegal voting when it’s reported. That’s not a technicality. That’s a transparency failure in need of further investigation.

Take action with the ACLJ. Sign our petition: Defend Election Integrity and the Constitution.