Administration Seeks to Set Aside Ballots From 400 Washington Voters
The Justice Department has asked Washington state to set aside ballots from over 400 people it says may be noncitizens, a move reporters link to a broader pattern.
The Trump administration asked Washington state on Monday to set aside any ballots received from more than 400 people it alleges are registered to vote without US citizenship, according to The Guardian. The Guardian reports the request came less than two weeks after a similar demand directed at California.
NBC News reports the Justice Department made the request, describing it as the administration's latest attempt to take part in ballot counting and certification, functions that are handled by state officials. NBC News frames the step as part of a continuing effort to get involved in processes that have traditionally been run at the state and local level.
PBS NewsHour reports that the effort is the latest by the administration to identify noncitizen voters, while noting that noncitizen voting is exceptionally rare. PBS NewsHour's coverage places the allegations against the backdrop of that rarity, which is central to how the request is being judged.
The Guardian links the requests to states with competitive midterm races that could help decide control of the Senate and House. According to the Guardian, the administration's actions are part of wider attempts to create doubts about the election or its outcome in those states.
The reporting available does not describe how the 400 individuals were identified, what verification steps were taken, or how Washington officials have responded. Those details are not addressed in the coverage gathered here.
Background
Voter eligibility in the United States is governed mainly by state and local election officials, who maintain voter rolls, verify registrations and run the counting and certification of results. Federal law requires that voters be US citizens, and federal agencies have long had roles in enforcing election law, including prosecuting fraud. However, the day-to-day administration of elections has remained largely a state matter, and that division of responsibility is a recurring point of dispute.
Efforts to find noncitizens on voter rolls have a long history in American politics. Several states have periodically run audits comparing registration lists with motor vehicle records or other government databases. These checks often produce lists of flagged names, but flagged names are not the same as confirmed votes. Registration errors, outdated information, people who naturalized after registering, and clerical mismatches can all lead to records that look suspicious on paper but turn out to be legitimate.
Research and prosecutions over many years have generally found that noncitizen voting is rare. Cases that do occur tend to be small in number and are often discovered through routine review rather than large-scale sweeps. This is the context in which PBS NewsHour notes the rarity of the problem, and it is why officials and analysts often ask how many flagged records end up being confirmed as ineligible.
Ballot handling is also governed by detailed procedures, including deadlines for receiving and counting mail ballots, notice requirements, and processes for challenging individual ballots. Courts have historically been the venue where disputes about these procedures are resolved, often under tight timelines close to elections. Requests to set aside groups of ballots raise questions about which legal authority applies and what process must come first.
Certification, the formal step in which officials confirm results, is typically carried out by county and state bodies under state law. Federal officials have limited direct authority over that step, which is why any federal effort to influence it tends to draw close scrutiny from election administrators and legal observers.
Why it matters
The request matters for two reasons that pull in different directions. The first is the integrity of the voter rolls. If individuals on the list are ineligible, election officials have a legitimate interest in removing them and preventing their votes from counting. Public confidence depends in part on the belief that rolls are accurate and that eligibility checks are real.
The second reason is the question of who decides. Ballot counting and certification are, under most state laws, the responsibility of local and state officials. A federal request to set aside ballots, particularly one made in the middle of a campaign, puts pressure on that division. Even if the request is later withdrawn or overturned, the act of making it can shape public perception of whether results will be trusted.
Timing is also significant. Because the requests come during a period when several states have competitive House and Senate races, the actions can be read in different ways depending on a reader's views. Supporters of tighter election enforcement may see the step as overdue. Critics may see it as an attempt to unsettle outcomes before they are known. The reporting gathered here does not establish which reading is accurate, and the difference will likely depend on the evidence and the legal outcome.
For voters, the practical stakes are concrete. Anyone whose ballot is set aside may face uncertainty about whether it will count. For election workers, additional federal demands can add workload and legal risk during a period already under pressure. For the wider public, the sequence of California and Washington requests may suggest a pattern, and patterns tend to shape how future actions are interpreted.
What to watch
Watch how Washington state officials respond, including whether they comply, decline, or seek a court ruling. Their legal position will depend on state statutes governing ballot handling and on the procedures that apply to any challenged ballot.
Look for information about how the roughly 400 individuals were identified and whether each record is being checked individually. Verification details will matter a great deal to whether the request holds up.
Pay attention to what happens in California, where a similar demand was made earlier. Outcomes there may offer an early indication of how courts and election officials treat such requests.
Also track whether additional states receive comparable demands, and whether any filings or court dates are set before the midterm elections. Timelines are likely to be short, and changes could come quickly.
Viewpoints
Commentary from our columns: three angles on this story.
The Rulebook law, policy and institutions
The central question in Washington is not whether noncitizens should vote. Federal and state law already say they cannot, and nearly everyone agrees on that. The real question is procedural. Who has the authority to tell a county to set aside ballots that have already been cast, and under what process? In most states, counting and certification sit with state and local officials, and the rules for challenging a specific ballot are detailed for good reason. Those rules exist so that a voter's right is not undone by a broad request sent through the wrong channel. If the federal government believes a legal violation has occurred, the established path runs through the courts and through the officials who hold statutory duties. A request that bypasses that path, however well intentioned, invites a fight over jurisdiction that can outlast the election itself. Institutions work best when each actor stays inside its lane, and the strength of a claim is measured by whether it survives that scrutiny.
The Ground Level what it means for ordinary people
For a person who cast a mail ballot in Washington, this story is not abstract. Imagine receiving a letter, or simply learning from the news, that your vote might be set aside. Most people would want to know whether it is a mistake, what they need to do, and whether they will be told. Election workers, who already handle long hours and heavy scrutiny, would be the ones fielding those questions at counters and phone lines. Many of the people named on any list of this kind are likely to be citizens whose records simply need checking. Clerical errors, old forms and name mismatches are common in large databases. The practical question for ordinary voters is how the process treats them while it plays out. Clear notice, a fair chance to respond and a straightforward path to having a valid ballot counted matter far more to daily life than the political debate around the request.
The Optimist the hopeful reading
There is a hopeful reading here, and it starts with the fact that checking voter rolls is something election officials are supposed to do. Washington has the tools, the staff and the legal framework to review every name on a list and to confirm eligibility one record at a time. If the 400 flagged entries are examined carefully, some will prove to be errors, and those can be corrected. Others may reveal real problems that election officials can fix going forward. Either outcome strengthens the system. Public attention also tends to make election administration more transparent, and transparency builds trust over time. The episode could become a reminder that accuracy and fairness can be pursued together. If the process is careful, open and grounded in the law, voters across the political spectrum have reason to expect that the count will reflect the people who are actually entitled to cast a ballot.