Post

JB: but you're the master of your complaint. And you could have filed the complaint a month before you did, right? DOJ: we could have filed *a* complaint, but we didn't have our list of 20K voters processed at that point 7/

JS: Judge Carter said he set the hearing for Tuesday. I wonder how has there been a constructive denial of your TRO when Carter is actively contemplating your application and set a hearing? 8/

DOJ: I point to AARP v Trump which hold that inaction in the face of an extreme urgency is a constructive denial. So given the amount of votes being processed, and the judge setting a hearing for 8 days later, we see it as a construction denial 9/

JB: question on the merits. The times places and manner of holding elections shall be persecribed in each state by the legislature. California prohibits non-citizens from voting. They require certification on mail in ballots. They have a procedure for dealing with challenges... 10/

JB: the executive is unhappy with that. They don't like the manner in which CA conducts its elections, but it seems to me that under the elections clause, they have the right to determine the manner of elections, including sorting out non-citizens. 11/

JB: seems to me you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with California's laws. How can we do that here? DOJ: 18 USC 611 is a federal election law dealing with non-citizens voting JB: But the CONSTITUTION says "the congress may at any time alter such regulations" 12/

DOJ: we do believe California law and 611 make it illegal for non-citizens to vote. We believe California is not interested in enforcing that law JB: even though there is a specific process to challenge ballots in CA, you just don't think it's good enough? 13/

DOJ: our issue is with CA actions. They're not enforcing their own law. JB: how are they not enforcing their laws when the require an attestation under penalty of perjury? 14/

DOJ: when we provide CA with proof that the attestations are not correct by sending them a list of non-citizens, the attestations can't stand JS: Don't you have a 10th Amendment problem by telling CA what they have to do? 15/

DOJ: we're not asking for votes not to be counted. We're asking for the ballots to be sequestered. This is a judicial remedy for violation of law JB: but your declarations use terms like "reliable info" "credible info" etc, but CA legistlature has set out a different standard 16/

JB: Doesn't CA have the right to say before we disqualify a voter we need extraordinary proof? DOJ: if that's required by law, that goes against 611. Our position is that would preempt... 17/

DOJ: 611 is clearly about elections Bumatay: Does it matter that it was passed as part of the INA? DOJ: well it's clearly an election law Bumatay: DOJ only sent LA county the list of 20K. Is that only LA or statewide? 18/

DOJ: it's a statewide list. We have now sent it to the state Bumatay: why was it only sent to LA county? DOJ: well the state has the list now. They should order the rest of the counties to create the segregation remedy we're looking for 19/

JS: Let's talk about how your list was generated. Lots of talk about third party data and analytics, but it doesn't explain what that means. What third parties were used? DOJ: I do not have that information. I can say it goes through a very rigorous process 20/

JS: Seems as if the US is relying on data from outside the federal government. Did you purchase a private list of CA voter rolls? DOJ: no, but we were supplied a list that was purchased from California. 21/

JS: what gives you confidence in the list? DOJ: There's a process where they can make a determination whether the list is credible. We sent the list to LA County and they responded back with a sample of 200. They didn't say they were all citizens. 22/

JS: the original letter talked about 190K potential non citizens, now we're down to 20K. What changes? DOJ: it's the rigorous process 23/

JS: if you take a step back, you're not able to explain who the third parties are, and the reliability of the list depends on them, but somehow the district court was supposed to resolve all this in a matter of hours when we don't even know who the third parties are? You don't even know! 24/

DOJ: hmm. well. while I might not know the third party, we have two DHS employees who have sworn the list is reliable, so that's my answer. As far as what the court was supposed to do, we asked for a TRO, and they should have issued it and THEN have a hearing. 25/

DOJ: we couldn't wait 8 days for relief... JS: you keep saying 8 days, but Oct 19 and 21 were the first time you said 11/3 as a deadline, and Oct 28 is the hearing 26/

DOJ: we submit that declaration isn't accurate. CA can segregate ballots. Presumably they have a segregation process. If they would just work with us, I guarantee you it would be much easier than they make it out to be. 28/

JB: so if we can look at the reliability of CA declaration, we can also look at the reliability of your list, right? DOJ: that's certainly correct JB: your declarations are offering expertise. I don't see anything in there which would come close to establishing the type of reliability you need 29/

JB: I don't see anything that reliably says there ARE non citizens, just that there MAY be. DOJ: well, the irreperable harm that can happen, and we're in the preliminary injuction stage, we're asking for CA to segregate the ballots. 30/