The Trump administration is taking direct aim at California state election officials, issuing grand jury subpoenas to election offices statewide ahead of the final day of voting on Nov. 3.

The investigations, first reported by Bloomberg, center on alleged administration of illegal voting. They are ostensibly tied to demands by the U.S. Justice Department that California and other states use federal voter lists to determine whether a voter is a “potential noncitizen” and should be removed.

The Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters told CyberScoop it received multiple grand jury subpoenas last week related to the investigation. The office called the federal efforts an attempt to intimidate California election officials into accepting federal supremacy over state voter registration authority.

“At every step, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken a confrontational, adversarial approach,” said Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan in a statement. “Election officials are acting in accordance with state and federal law. Clear court rulings at both the U.S. District Court level and the Court of Appeals have confirmed that. Threats and intimidation have no place in elections. We will take whatever steps necessary to ensure the safety of our employees and to remain focused on serving the voters of Los Angeles County so they can exercise their voting franchise.”

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, also reportedly a target of the federal probe, did not respond to a request for comment from CyberScoop.

One California election official, Clint Curtis, the outgoing registrar of voters in Shasta County, endorsed the federal government’s efforts to remove 20,000 voters from California voter rolls. Curtis, whose term ends in January, was previously part of a failed effort to hire Tina Peters, a felon and former Mesa County, Colorado, election clerk to help with the upcoming midterms. Curtis has long believed in widespread election fraud.

He told CyberScoop earlier this year that he believed Shasta County elections in 2024 were plagued by suspicious mail-in ballots, saying they looked, felt and “smelled” different from normal mail ballots.

The U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to administer elections and Congress the power to make election laws, something courts have repeatedly upheld in dozens of legal challenges by the Trump administration.

The Department of Justice has claimed there are at least 20,000 such potential noncitizens on California’s voter lists, while the Department of Homeland Security told CyberScoop the figure could be as many as 190,000. The administration’s data, drawn from public voter lists, federal databases and commercially purchased personal information, has been repeatedly criticized by election officials, voting experts and federal courts as inaccurate and unreliable for determining voter eligibility.

Most people identified as “potential noncitizens” turn out to be naturalized citizens who have since gained voting rights, or the result of state administrative errors that mistakenly registered a small number of ineligible voters. Many of those mistakenly registered never cast a ballot.

State officials have had to defend against attempts at federal coercion as well as third-party activists who are constantly testing and probing election procedures nationwide, sometimes without understanding the laws election officials must follow to verify voters.

On Wednesday, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minnesota announced felony charges against a pair of right-wing provocateurs, James O’Keefe and Cam Higby, for unlawful voting and identity theft. According to a statement from Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, the two showed up at various election offices, provided false identities of real voters to election judges, violating state laws against misrepresenting their identity in applying for a ballot.

“Elections are the bedrock of democracy and their protection is one of our highest priorities. Individuals engaging in unlawful conduct related to our elections will be held accountable,” said Moriarty. “Our office has had regular meetings with Hennepin County Elections staff in preparation for both the primary and the general elections this year and we are fully prepared.”

Voting rights and civil society groups are also executing short- and long-term plans to combat potential voter disenfranchisement ahead of Tuesday.

Jessica Ayoub, deputy political director for the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union, said her organization has “never been more prepared” for any expected fights with the federal government or local officials seeking to disenfranchise voters, saying they first began planning for different scenarios 18 months ago, cultivating relationships with hundreds of clerks and election staff across Michigan.

“We’ve gamed out 25 potential scenarios and have rapid response strategies that we’ll deploy to ensure our elections are protected and that our democracy remains intact,” said Ayoub, who cited a desire not to publicize further details ahead of next month.

On Friday, voting rights groups filed a new lawsuit against the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security in California, seeking to block the federal government’s efforts against state election officials.

The groups are asking a judge to declare that the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority and that state officials are legally carrying out their duties. They also want the court to force the departments to contact all California election officials who received subpoenas and tell them the investigation has halted due to a court order.

The post California officials confirm grand jury subpoenas as states, civil groups brace to protect elections from federal encroachment appeared first on CyberScoop.

A Florida judge ruled this week that ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne is not liable in a lawsuit brought by a Dominion Voting Systems executive over a film that accuses the former electronic voting hardware and software company  executive of saying he “made sure” that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wouldn’t win reelection in 2020.

The lawsuit, brought in 2022 by Eric Coomer, a former director of product strategy and security at Dominion Voting Systems, concerns comments made in a 2020 film produced by Byrne titled “The Deep Rig.”

In the film, which alleges a conspiracy to manipulate 2020 election results in favor of Democrat Joe Biden, a man identified as Joseph Oltmann claimed he listened to a conference call led by organizers of “Antifa,” wherein another participant mentioned that “Eric” “The Dominion Guy” was also on the call.

In the film, Oltmann says a man identified as “Eric” told others on the call that Trump wouldn’t win reelection because he had “made sure of it.” Coomer denies taking part in any such call, and filed a lawsuit against Byrne and seven other individuals and entities for defamation.

U.S. District Judge Tom Barber’s decision did not address most of the substantive claims in the lawsuit, such as Byrne’s ultimate legal responsibility for the statements by Oltmann that made it into the film.

Because the lawsuit was originally filed in Colorado, it must meet a state law requirement for defamation claims involving matters of public concern. Coomer must show “clear and convincing evidence” that Byrne or others involved in making the film knew the claims were false and defamatory, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

“Where the challenged speech involves a matter of public concern, as it undeniably does here, the plaintiff also bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the challenged statement is materially false and was made with actual malice,” wrote Barber in his opinion.

The standard is not whether a reasonable person would have investigated the claims before airing them, but whether the defendant “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication, or was highly aware of its probable falsity.”

In this case, Barber said it’s not impossible to clear that standard for public figures, but under Colorado law, Coomer would have a hard time providing clear and convincing evidence that Byrne “in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann’s story.”

Barber further wrote that technology has given “a powerful microphone” and large followings to people who would otherwise be dismissed as “kooks” and conspiracy theorists. These people make statements that are “objectively and demonstrably wrong” but who hold firm to their core beliefs because they “genuinely and sincerely believe what they say with every fiber of their being, even when objective evidence may suggest otherwise.”

Still, he said the current language and meaning of the Colorado law is clear, suggesting it was a matter for higher courts or legislators to clarify or change.

“Under the actual malice standard, unless it can be proven that the speaker subjectively believed his or her statements to be untrue, the law imposes no liability,” Barber wrote. “That is a policy choice that might deserve reexamination by the appropriate decision makers – the United States Supreme Court and the Colorado courts.”

Byrne’s attorney, Peter Ticktin, called the ruling a “victory” in a statement to CyberScoop.

“This is a substantial victory for Patriot Patrick Byrne and for the principles at stake in this case,” Ticktin said. “The court’s decision speaks for itself. We are pleased that the facts and applicable law resulted in summary judgment in our client’s favor.”

Coomer sued Byrne in his personal capacity, and Dominion Voting Systems was not a party to the lawsuit. 

The voting machine giant was awarded more than $1.8 billion in combined legal settlements over the past two years from Fox News, Newsmax and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, all of whom made allegations that Dominion voting machines were used to maliciously flip or alter votes.

The post Lawsuit against Ex-Overstock CEO tied to 2020 election film falls apart over question of ‘actual malice’ appeared first on CyberScoop.

Tina Peters, the former Mesa County election clerk convicted of seven felonies related to the theft of voting machine software, said Tuesday through her attorney that she won’t accept a formal position overseeing elections in Shasta County, Calif.

Last month, Shasta County registrar of voters Clint Curtis said he intended to hire Peters as assistant registrar to help with the 2026 elections, just months after her prison sentence was cut short by a commutation from Democratic Gov. Jared Polis.

Later, in an interview with CyberScoop, Curtis said he intended to hire Peters as an outside consultant without access to sensitive county election systems. He also said Peters hadn’t yet accepted the position.

At the time, Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin, pointed CyberScoop to a statement indicating Peters’ interest in helping the county. On Tuesday, he sent a new statement from Peters that backed away from a formal job role.

“Let me be clear: I have not accepted any position with the Shasta County Elections Office,” the statement said. “There have been discussions about ways I might assist with election integrity and ballot-authenticity efforts, but no formal role has been accepted.”

Peters went on to say her concerns extended beyond Shasta County, to “all 3,114” counties in America and “whether every citizen can trust that our elections are free, fair and transparent.”

The prospective hiring of Peters sparked a backlash, including from Shasta County’s Board of Supervisors, which had just formally censured Curtis for allegedly abusive verbal behavior toward staff, and from Democratic politicians statewide.  Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office told CyberScoop it was monitoring the county’s  elections for compliance with state and federal laws.

Peters blamed the media for portraying her as a threat to elections, saying she remains “committed to lawful, transparent election integrity efforts that protect the vote of every American citizen.”

“The media continues to mischaracterize my case with words like ‘breaching,’ ‘tampering,’ and similar claims,” Peters said. “My charges were not for changing votes, altering election results, or manipulating any election outcome. Those words are used to create a false impression and distract from the real issue: whether the American people have transparent, verifiable elections they can trust.”

Peters broke into Mesa County’s election office to prove voting machines had shifted votes to Democrat Joe Biden, but  data instead confirmed the county’s 2020 vote totals were accurate. Before her release, Peters at one point expressed written regret to the state for her crimes.

Despite that, on Tuesday Peters again endorsed the idea that all electronic voting machines are untrustworthy, and any elections using them as inherently suspect.

Experts have long said that vulnerabilities exist in U.S. voting machines, but certain longstanding practices, like backup paper ballots, post-election, risk-limiting audits, and relying on decentralized equipment and vendors can also manage risks and catch anomalies. According to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, nearly 98% of Americans vote on electronic voting machines with paper backups.

Despite a years-long effort and dozens of court challenges, neither Peters nor other Trump allies have ever provided credible proof that manipulation of U.S. voting machines, voter fraud or other problems impacted the 2020 presidential election.

The post Tina Peters, through attorney, backs off formal role in Shasta County elections appeared first on CyberScoop.

Clint Curtis, the registrar for voters in Shasta County, Calif. said he plans to hire convicted felon and election denialist Tina Peters as one of his top deputies.

Curtis said he plans to hire Peters next month as an assistant registrar, according to local news outlets, which cited text exchanges with Curtis.

CyberScoop has reached out to Shasta County’s elections office for comment.

If Peters is hired, it would represent a marriage between a conspiracy-minded election official from another state and an equally distrusting electorate.

Donald Trump won Shasta County approximately two-thirds of voters in the county in all three presidential elections dating back to 2016. Its conservative residents have adopted Trump’s rhetoric that election fraud, voting machine hacks, noncitizen voting and other problems plagued the system, and have turned their anger at local officials.

Cathy Darling Allen, Shasta County’s former registrar of voters, told CyberScoop in 2024 that she retired after decades of administering elections in the county due to persistent attacks and harassment from voters who embraced baseless election fraud conspiracy theories. 

Peters, a former Mesa County, Colo. election official, had been serving a 9-year sentence for seven felonies, including identity theft, breaking into an election office, disabling surveillance cameras, and stealing voting system software.

Peters’ prosecutor, Colorado’s state clemency advisory board, and Mesa County officials have all defended her sentence and described her as entirely unrepentant for her crimes.

Election experts have called Peters’ theft of voting system software one of the most serious breaches of election systems in history. She shared the stolen code with conservative activists, and the code eventually surfaced online.

Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, commuted Peters’ sentence earlier this year, citing pressure from the Trump administration and arguing that her punishment violated her First Amendment rights. In doing so, Polis intervened before an appeals court could decide whether Peters deserved a reduced sentence.

“She may continue making claims about elections that I believe are false,” Polis wrote in a May Substack post defending the decision. “She may continue promoting ideas that I strongly disagree with. I hope she doesn’t. But in America, people are not sent to prison for expressing political views, however misguided those views may be.”

In response to questions about Peters, Polis’ press office referred CyberScoop to the Colorado Department of Corrections.

Department of Corrections spokesperson Alondra Gonzalez told CyberScoop in an email that as part of her parole conditions, Peters is required to get a job or participate in a full time educational or vocational program and reside in Colorado. Parolees can request to transfer to another state, but those requests would be subject to rules and procedures under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision and require approval from both states.
Gonzalez told CyberScoop that the department has not received a request for an interstate transfer from Peters at this time.

The Shasta County board of supervisors formally censured Curtis earlier this month following investigations by the county and outside consultant firm The Oppenheimer Group found he was verbally abusive or physically threatening toward staff.

At an Aug. 11 public meeting, Shasta County Supervisor Matt Plummer cited more than 700 pages of evidence and more than half a dozen eyewitnesses.

The investigations included claims that Curtis at times threatened to “punch,” “slap in the face,” “kill” or “execute” his subordinates. Another claim alleges Curtis once threatened to remove a door where an employee was allegedly hiding from him and have the person pulled out by their hair.

Plummer prefaced his comments by saying the board’s action is “not about election integrity” and that Curtis retains all of his authority to carry out budgeted election administration for the county.

“This is about determining when a department head allegedly and through two investigations, has substantiated allegations of violating personnel codes, the codes that guide how we as a county intend to interact with our employees, what do we do about it?” Plummer said.

Senators Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wrote to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber to express their “grave concern” over the possibility that Peters would have access to state election systems.

“If Shasta County puts Ms. Peters in a position to again violate election laws following her convictions, county taxpayers could be burdened with unwelcomed and potentially hefty expenses,” Padilla and Schiff wrote. “If county officials proceed with this misguided plan, we request that you provide the maximum oversight possible to ensure that Ms. Peters does not improperly access ballots, voting systems, or sensitive information that could impact the rights and privacy of the over 100,000 registered voters in Shasta County in violation of…state or federal election law.”

The post A California county wants to hire Tina Peters to help run its elections appeared first on CyberScoop.

State and local officials and election security experts largely panned a Thursday night primetime speech by President Donald Trump, saying it was reflective of White House “desperation” to find any credible evidence to support their claims that U.S. elections have been rigged against the two-term president.

While the White House teased explosive new claims about the potential compromise of U.S. elections by China, Trump’s speech was a rehash of claims that both have no supporting evidence and have been repeatedly debunked when investigated. 

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former voting and civil rights attorney at the Department of Justice, said none of Trump’s claims or allegations were new or substantively different from previous theories he’s been espousing over the past six years.

“The White House promised a bombshell and they delivered a dud,” Becker said on a call with reporters Friday. “There was nothing that even calls into question past elections — certainly not the 2020 election.”

The administration declassified a huge tranche of documents from the intelligence agencies, and news outlets continue to sift through them, but thus far nothing has been found that remotely validates the administration’s claims about foreign interference from China costing Trump the 2020 election.

In fact, some of the most relevant documents found at this point have supported the opposite conclusion, with agencies assessing that while China engaged in influence campaigns around the election, it was not attempting to outright interfere with U.S. election infrastructure, hack voting machines or manipulate ballots.

John Solomon, a former journalist and opinion writer at The Hill brought in by the White House to lead the investigation, also told reporters Thursday that his search hasn’t turned up evidence that the 2020, 2022 or 2024 elections were affected by fraud.

The one new major claim by Trump — that the Department of Homeland Security determined hundreds of thousands of noncitizens were registered to vote across four states — is almost certainly false or overinflated, given that it contradicts post-election state audits that have routinely found single or double-digit numbers of noncitizens registered to vote within a single state across multiple elections.

Over the past six years, similar claims by GOP secretaries of state and political activists purporting to find mass numbers of noncitizens registered to vote have turned out to be grossly inflated due to shoddy data analysis, and the vast majority of cases involving “suspected noncitizens” turn out to be U.S. citizens who are legally registered to vote.

The White House has provided little to no information on the methodology used to flag and identify supposed noncitizen voters, other than alluding to the use of “commercial data” and federal databases. A federal court recently ordered DHS to dismantle the SAVE database, its primary database for verifying the citizenship status of U.S. voters, because it was unreliable and violated longstanding privacy laws. 

 Apart from DHS admitting its own data on citizenship is incomplete, Becker said using a list that relies on matching voter files with commercial data is not a reliable way of determining citizenship.

“It is impossible to take a public voter file with very little information that is uniquely identified, like a driver’s license number, and compare it to a commercial database and say for sure the Maria Rodriguez or the John Lee or the Shawn O’Hara you have on that is the same person,” he said.

Election officials also responded forcefully. Nevada Democratic Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar said that Trump has spent a decade attempting to manufacture a crisis around voter fraud and the president’s speech Thursday night was an extension of that effort. 

“As Nevada’s chief elections officer, it’s my job to call balls and strikes — so when the President lies, I am obligated to call him out,” Aguilar said in a statement. “The facts have not changed: Nevada’s elections are among the safest, most secure and accessible in the nation.”

It’s not just Democrats that have objected to the administration’s efforts. GOP states have gone to court to block the Department of Justice from obtaining their voter data, and Idaho’s Republican secretary of state responded to a DOJ letter threatening prosecution of election officials as “not well met” and potentially illegal under state ethics laws. 

Trump’s speech potentially casts additional light on recent White House decisions, such as firing all three commissioners on the Election Assistance Commission. The agency helps certify voting machines for security, and all three commissioners have served across administrations and maintain close relationships with state and local election officials.  

Pamela Smith, CEO of the nonprofit Verified Voting, said that while the EAC can’t take certain actions that need commissioner approval, “critical functions like voting system testing and certification can continue under the existing framework and should not be affected.”

In 2020, Trump’s initial claims of widespread election fraud were undercut by leaders at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which said there was no evidence the election was compromised. The removal of EAC commissioners could represent an attempt to preempt any efforts to rebut or criticize White House claims that elections and voting machines have been compromised.

Some have worried that Trump could use the speech as a pretext to declare a national emergency or cancel elections.

Tom Lopach, CEO of the Voter Participation Center, said “you don’t dismantle election security infrastructure if you’re serious about protecting elections.”

“You dismantle it if you’re planning to claim, without evidence, that the system failed you,” he said. 

While Becker takes Trump’s broadsides against state election authority seriously, he also said it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that, in his view, the administration is losing the argument across the board.

More than a dozen federal courts have unanimously rejected the federal government’s attempts to forcibly obtain state voter data, while other courts have rejected core pieces of his election-related executive orders. State officials have publicly — and at times, angrily — pushed back on the administration’s demands as blatant federal overreach. 

Becker predicted that such an act would be quickly shot down by courts as well, noting that the U.S. has never canceled or postponed an election in its 250-year history, including when British troops were marauding on American soil during the War of 1812 or even at the height of the Civil War.

It’s important not to conflate the White House’s bluster and intentions with its actual authorities or capability to seize control of U.S. elections.

“This is what panic and desperation look like,” Becker said. “They’ve had 18 months in total control of the federal government and they have found nothing that would support President Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, and so they’re just trying to grab as much garbage as they can and throw it up against the wall, and it’s not sticking.”

The post State officials, election experts pan Trump speech: ‘This is what desperation looks like’ appeared first on CyberScoop.