← Public evidence ledger
The Federalist
Article misinformation risk ★★★☆☆ 3.3/5 Significant problems · 3 checked claims

California Shows Exactly Why Having The Right Election Laws Is So Important

The Federalist argues California’s election laws (automatic registration, widespread mail-balloting, and permissive ballot collection) remove safeguards and produce untrustworthy results, citing automatic voter registration since 2018 and a Public Interest Legal Foundation analysis it says found thousands of problematic registrations.

Open the original The Federalist article ↗

Misleading
Public importance 70/100

“Since 2018, anyone interacting with the Department of Motor Vehicles and other state agencies is automatically added to the voter rolls.”

Attributed to The Federalist (article)

✓ Proof standard met 5 reachable references Independent-source requirement passed
Original context and attribution

The article asserts California law since 2018 automatically adds people who interact with the DMV and other state agencies to voter registration rolls as part of its criticism of the state's election laws.

What the proof shows

The article’s broad claim mixes a true change with omitted qualifications. California’s 2015 law (implemented in practice in April 2018) created the California New Motor Voter program that automatically transmits voter-registration information from qualifying DMV transactions to election officials — but only for applicants who attest they meet voter-eligibility requirements and who do not affirmatively opt out. Other state agencies designated under the National Voter Registration Act must offer people the opportunity to register (or provide links/forms), but they do not automatically add everyone who interacts with them to the voter rolls. The Federalist phrasing that “anyone interacting with the DMV and other state agencies is automatically added to the voter rolls” omits the attest/opt‑out and transaction‑type/agency distinctions and therefore gives a misleading impression.

Corrected version

Since April 2018, California’s New Motor Voter program has automatically transmitted voter‑registration information to election officials for eligible people who complete qualifying DMV transactions and who attest to eligibility and do not opt out; other state agencies designated under federal law must offer registration opportunities but do not automatically register everyone who interacts with them.

Automated evidence confidence: 0%

References and proof

Every link was reachable when published. Each proof point states how that source bears on the claim.

Official data Supports

California Motor Voter ↗

California Secretary of State
Proof point

Eligible applicants completing a driver license, identification (ID) card or change of address transaction online, by mail or in person at the DMV will be automatically registered to vote by the California Secretary of State, unless they choose to opt out of automatic voter registration.

Primary source Supports

AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program. - Bill Text ↗

California Legislature (AB 1461 bill text)
Proof point

An act to add Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 2260) to Division 2 of the Elections Code ... Establishes the California New Motor Voter Program.

Official data Supports

Chapter 1: Executive Summary (NVRA Manual) ↗

California Secretary of State NVRA manual
Proof point

In California, under the California Motor Voter program, every eligible applicant who visits a DMV office to apply for or renew a DL/ID or to change an address is automatically registered to vote, unless they choose to opt out of automatic registration.

Official data Contradicts

NVRA Voter Registration Agencies (list) ↗

California Secretary of State
Proof point

The National Voter Registration Act requires states to designate state government agencies and offices that provide public assistance or services to people with disabilities as voter registration agencies ... these agencies must offer people the opportunity to register to vote (and collect declination forms), rather than automatically register everyone.

Research Supports

Implementing Automated Voter Registration in California ↗

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC)
Proof point

Under the CNMV, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) registers all customers who affirm their eligibility to vote and do not actively decline registration.

Missing important context
Public importance 70/100

“Public Interest Legal Foundation analyzed California’s voter rolls last year and found approximately 94,500 deceased, 57,700 registered in other states, 7,700 with placeholder/fictitious birthdates, and thousands of same-address duplicates.”

Attributed to The Federalist (quoting Public Interest Legal Foundation)

✓ Proof standard met 7 reachable references Independent-source requirement passed
Original context and attribution

The article cites a Public Interest Legal Foundation analysis it says identified those specific numbers of problematic or inaccurate registrations on California's voter rolls.

What the proof shows

The Federalist correctly attributes the numeric findings to the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF): PILF’s September 19, 2025 analysis flagged ~94,516 deceased registrants, ~57,725 interstate duplicates, ~7,677 placeholder/fictitious birthdates, and thousands of same-address duplicates. However PILF’s report flagged those items within a specific sampled subset (roughly a 2‑million “dormant”‑registrant sample defined by being active, registered ≥10 years, and not voting in the last 10 years), used particular matching methods (SSDI, obituary, credit‑bureau crosschecks), and compared California only to a limited set of other states for interstate matches. PILF’s counts are “flagged” matches, not confirmations that illegal votes were cast, and the methodology and sampling frame limit how those raw counts should be generalized to all Californians. The Federalist’s statement of the numbers is accurate as a citation of PILF’s findings but omits these important methodological caveats.

Corrected version

In a September 19, 2025 sampled review of roughly 2 million “dormant” California registrations, the Public Interest Legal Foundation flagged 94,516 records as apparently deceased, 57,725 as matching registrations in certain other states, 7,677 with placeholder or fictitious birthdates, and about 3,104 same‑address duplicates; these were flagged using SSDI/obituary/record matches and limited interstate comparisons — flagged matches, not proof of illegal voting, and the sample and methods constrain how the counts should be generalized.

Automated evidence confidence: 0%

References and proof

Every link was reachable when published. Each proof point states how that source bears on the claim.

Independent reporting Supports

California Shows Exactly Why Having The Right Election Laws Is So Important ↗

The Federalist
Proof point

Public Interest Legal Foundation analyzed California’s voter rolls last year and found approximately 94,500 deceased, 57,700 registered in other states, 7,700 with placeholder/fictitious birthdates, and thousands of same-address duplicates.

Research Supports

2025 California Voter Roll Study ↗

Public Interest Legal Foundation
Proof point

Topline findings include: Deceased Registrants from Statewide Sample: 94,516; Interstate Duplicate Registrants: 57,725; Same-Address Duplicate Registrants: 3,104; Placeholder/Fictitious Dates of Birth: 7,677.

Research Supports

9.19.25 CA Data Findings Overview (PILF PDF) ↗

Public Interest Legal Foundation (research brief, PDF)
Proof point

A grand total of 94,516 registrants in California are flagged as apparently deceased from a sample of 2 million active registrants.

Independent reporting Supports

PILF Uncovers Alarming Errors in California’s Voter Rolls (press release) ↗

Public Interest Legal Foundation (press release)
Proof point

PILF’s comprehensive review, based on a sample of 2 million active registrants, found: 94,516 deceased registrants flagged from comparisons with the Social Security Death Index and obituary records; 57,725 interstate duplicates...

Official data Contradicts

Voter List Maintenance Study: The Use of Third‑Party Commercial Data for Accurate Voter Lists (EAC, Aug. 2025) ↗

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Proof point

Voter list maintenance is complex; jurisdictions use multiple data sources (SSA death data, NCOA, and third‑party commercial data) and pilot studies show varied results and limitations.

Independent reporting Contradicts

Dead Loved Ones in L.A. Received Primary Ballots, Families Say ↗

Hoodline
Proof point

The findings do not show that ballots were actually cast in the names of deceased people, but the group's numbers highlight how big the record-keeping job becomes...

Official data Supports

Committee on House Administration — Oversight letters (Jan. 22, 2026) ↗

U.S. House Committee on House Administration
Proof point

Investigative reporting has uncovered an alarming number of ineligible voters on the state's voter rolls, e.g., '94,516 deceased registrants' referenced in oversight correspondence.

Mostly accurate
Public importance 70/100

“California sends ballots to every active registration on the problematic voter rolls.”

Attributed to The Federalist (article)

✓ Proof standard met 6 reachable references Independent-source requirement passed
Original context and attribution

The author argues that because California mails ballots to all active registered voters, inaccurate registration rolls result in ballots being sent to ineligible or duplicate registrations.

What the proof shows

California law requires county elections officials to mail vote‑by‑mail materials and to mail a ballot to each active registered voter for every election; county web pages and the Secretary of State confirm counties mail ballots to active registrants. However, the claim omits important context: registrants placed on inactive or cancelled status are not mailed ballots, state and county list‑maintenance rules exist to mark undeliverable or moved records inactive, and ballot‑verification and duplicate‑ballot safeguards (signature matching, tracking systems, and procedures to void duplicate ballots) reduce the risk that ballots mailed to erroneous records result in counted double or ineligible votes. Thus the Federalist’s factual core (ballots are mailed to active registrations) is correct, but the piece understates legally required exceptions and post‑mailing safeguards.

Corrected version

California law requires county elections officials to mail a vote‑by‑mail ballot to each active registered voter for each election; inactive or cancelled registrations are excluded and state/county procedures (list maintenance, tracking, signature verification, and duplicate‑ballot checks) are used to limit ballots sent to ineligible or duplicate registrations.

Automated evidence confidence: 0%

References and proof

Every link was reachable when published. Each proof point states how that source bears on the claim.

Official data Supports

Codes Display Text — California Elections Code (selected sections: 3000–3020) ↗

California Legislative Information (leginfo.ca.gov)
Proof point

No later than 29 days before the day of the election, the county elections official shall begin mailing the materials required by Section 3010. The county elections official shall have five days to mail a ballot to each active registered voter by the 29th day before the day of the election ...

Official data Supports

Frequently Asked Questions About Voter Registration Records ↗

San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters
Proof point

Voters with active records are mailed Voter Information Guides and mail ballots for every election in which they are eligible to vote. ... Inactive voters that do not confirm or respond ... will be cancelled if they fail to vote in the succeeding two federal general elections.

Official data Supports

Vote by Mail Ballot Information ↗

Sonoma County Registrar of Voters
Proof point

Governor ... signed into law Senate Bill 152, which mandates that every active, registered voter be mailed a ballot for every election ...

Official data Contradicts

Election Day — Elections Officers' Digest ↗

California Secretary of State
Proof point

The elections official shall keep a record of each vote by mail voter ballot sent to and received from a voter and shall verify, prior to counting any duplicate ballot, that the voter has not attempted to vote twice. If it is determined that a voter has attempted to vote twice, both ballots shall be void.

Official data Contradicts

Voting Law Compliance Handbook (updated January 2024) ↗

California Secretary of State
Proof point

There is a statewide voter registration system that is used to crosscheck all of California’s county registration files for duplicates, which helps to keep the voter registration files updated. ... The situation you describe is one of the most common causes of duplicate registrations on the voter registration rolls.

Independent reporting Contradicts

Fact‑check: White House evidence doesn’t prove Trump statement that California 'rigged' election ↗

PolitiFact
Proof point

Much of the White House’s evidence criticizes California’s system of mailing ballots to all active registered voters. ... Election workers verify identity by matching signatures on the mail ballot envelopes with the registration records.

COMMUNITY EVIDENCE

Discussion

Disagreement is welcome. Spam and abuse are not.

No published comments yet. Add evidence or challenge the reasoning.

Members can comment for free

Create a free membership or sign in.