258
submitted 10 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Washington election officials announced a preliminary review of a federal list of more than 400 alleged noncitizen voters has already uncovered U.S. citizens, inactive voters and people who are not currently registered. The revelation renews concerns about the accuracy of the Trump administration’s expanding effort to identify supposedly ineligible voters.

Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) disclosed the findings Wednesday in a blistering response to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which this week threatened litigation unless Washington stopped processing ballots tied to people on a list supplied by the Department of Homeland Security.

“A preliminary investigation confirms what your letter acknowledges: This list includes United States citizens and is not reliable,” Hobbs wrote. He said refusing to process a registered voter’s ballot without individualized proof of ineligibility would be “both irresponsible and illegal.”

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Gpennyhigh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 59 minutes ago)

Goodness if they put me on the list and try to refuse my vote, they gonna have to deal with me and liberty and justice for all! Don't tread on me lol.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.social 12 points 3 hours ago

I was always under the impression that elections were held by the state and the federal government has no jurisdiction there.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 11 points 2 hours ago

The current administration doesn't care about silly things like law and precedent.

[-] Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world 25 points 5 hours ago

Ohio is voting on an amendment related to voting, and the summary on the ballot is basically "people need to show ID in order to vote".

I didn't read up on the amendment before I cast my vote, but upon reading the ballot my first thought was "we already do this... so what is the purpose of this bill". It went on to explain some other rules for what counts as identification and what not, and I just voted "no" to the amendment.

Later I had a conversation with my wife about it, and the general idea was:

  • We already show ID in order to vote
  • If we already show ID to vote, then an amendment to require it doesn't make it required, but changes what is required.
  • If it changes what is required, then most likely it is to make it harder for people to vote, and to give an excuse to remove valid votes from the registered voters.
  • If the goal is to be able to just "pick who is valid and who isn't" then it is just an legal platform to remove the votes the people in power don't want to have counted
[-] bluemellophone@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

The bigger issue is that voter ID laws have been ruled unconstitutional. It is a simple argument: the 14th Amendment requires that the goverment cannot put any “undue burden” on the right to vote; since voter ID only prevents in-person voter fraud (which is proven to be virtually nonexistent) then any cost or burden to voter ID restrictions are weighed against absolutely zero benefit.

You cannot require U.S. citizens to jump through any additional hoops when the benefit to do so is measurably zero. Voter ID laws are as constitutional as requiring everybody to have a fresh haircut in order to vote.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

they're riding the magat train to enshrine motor-voter into the constitution which is harder to change or repeal than a simple legislated state law.. which could also violate some other part of the constitution if it wasn't in it itself.

[-] stringere@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 hours ago

Every attempt to make voting harder is an attempt to restrict and subvert the vote. The claim is securing elections, but raising ID requirements addresses a problem that doesn't exist on a scale that can make a difference, it only disenfranchises the poor who may not have or be able to obtain a special new ID.

If voting ID is required then they need to be free, easily obtainable, and voting days need to be declared, paid holidays.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 28 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I think this is a better response to trying to do a full breakdown of how many of each category are wrong or missing. If there are citizens on the list at all the DHS didn't do their job and the list is an unreliable threat to lawful voters. No citizens should ever be on such a list. If you don't know who's a citizen you have no business making such a list at all.

Saying "it's mostly wrong, here's X citizens, Y people who have never been registered, Z people that don't live here in the first place" puts the onus on the voting official to investigate every name and gives conservatives ammo to pretend everyone not accounted for is an illegal voter.

[-] Snowclone@lemmy.world 45 points 9 hours ago

I hope obvious political stunt list leads to real problems for the list makers.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

I hope obvious political stunt list leads to real problems for the list makers.

I think they're not actually going for a stunt to win political points. Instead, I think they're trying to create a legal pretext to challenge the results of the election when the GOP get voted out. They'll refuse to relinquish power citing some well meaning historical laws regarding election results exceptions as a justification for their autocracy. Even if they finally concede under the rule of the courts, they may be going to just extend their control and influence beyond the established time when they should have been gone.

[-] bunkyprewster@startrek.website 9 points 7 hours ago

But are they the right kind of citizens?

this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2026
258 points (100.0% liked)

politics

31574 readers
2933 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS