Justice Department subpoenas Los Angeles County election workers over ballot dispute

The U.S. Justice Department sent grand‑jury subpoenas to employees of the Los Angeles County Registrar‑Recorder’s office last week, the office confirmed to NPR on Thursday. The subpoenas, which require the workers to appear in court on Nov. 4, were part of a broader federal push to flag ballots cast by people the DOJ believes may be non‑citizens. The move follows a press conference by Registrar Dean Logan on June 2, where he warned that the subpoenas marked an escalation in tensions with state election officials.

The subpoenas arrive amid a months‑long clash between the DOJ and California election officials over a federal effort to identify non‑citizens on the state’s voter rolls. In recent weeks, the department mailed letters to local election offices, warning that officials could face “significant federal scrutiny and legal exposure” if they refuse to set aside ballots the DOJ has marked as “likely” non‑citizens. The letters warned that knowingly counting such ballots could make officials “aiders and abettors to a federal crime.”

At least two registrar employees have been served with the subpoenas, though it is not yet clear whether they are the focus of a criminal investigation. The Justice Department declined to comment on the subpoenas when asked. The subpoenas come a day after U.S. District Judge David O. Carter rejected a DOJ request to require California officials to discard thousands of ballots flagged as possibly cast by non‑citizens, saying the list was unreliable and the move could disenfranchise voters. Carter warned the DOJ to stop threatening election workers, a rebuke the registrar’s office welcomed.

The DOJ is appealing Carter’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appeal succeeds, the department could resume pressure on local officials to audit and possibly discard ballots. Election workers say the legal battle threatens their ability to run elections without fear of federal prosecution. The outcome will shape how aggressively the federal government can intervene in state election administration and could set a precedent for future voter‑eligibility disputes.