Corrupt California is Still Counting Ballots Even With Federal Lawsuit Looming Large

A federal lawsuit was filed May 20, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Secretary of State Shirley Weber alleging that 873,092 inactive voter registrations are still on the rolls. Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner, the Republican candidate for secretary of state, joined the American Independent Party of California and Judicial watch in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit states:

The lawsuit acknowledges that:

“no registration may be cancelled on that ground unless the registrant either (1) confirms this fact in writing, or (2) fails to timely respond to an address-confirmation notice described by the statute (the “Confirmation Notice”), and fails to vote or contact the registrar for two consecutive general federal elections.”

If a registrant fails to respond to such a Confirmation Notice, and then fails to vote (or contact the registrar) during a statutory waiting period extending from the date of the notice through the next two general federal elections, the registration is cancelled. These cancellations are mandatory under both federal and California law.

Under both federal and California law, a voter registration is referred to as “inactive” when a registrant has failed to respond to a Confirmation Notice and the statutory waiting period has commenced, but has not yet concluded.

It’s pretty clear that when someone moves out of state, if they notify the Secretary of State in writing of their move, that should remove them from the state’s voter rolls. If they move and the state notifies them, and they don’t respond, they are to be removed from the voter rolls.

Instead California has allowed more than 800,000 inactive voter registrations to remain inactive and on the rolls for at least three elections — with 151,202 on the rolls after at least four consecutive elections, the suit claims.

The lawsuit also says that Sworn interrogatory responses submitted by Defendant Weber’s office in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Weber, No. 2:24-3750 (C.D. Cal. 2024) establish that, following the close of the last EAC reporting period in November 2024 through December 9, 2025, 21 California counties (Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Napa, San Bernardino, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Trinity, Tulare, and Yuba Counties) made zero Section 8(d)(1)(B) removals.

In those same interrogatory responses, Defendant attested that another six counties made fewer than 30 removals under that provision during that period (Alpine (29 removals), Imperial (1), Lake (1), San Benito (5), San Joaquin (25), and Sutter (17)).

According to the Census Bureau, approximately 660,000 (10.8%) of California residents are not living in the same house as they were one year ago. More than 660,000 California residents moved out of state in 2024 (the most recent year for which such data is available), about 690,000 California residents moved out of state in 2023, and about 818,000 California residents moved out of state in 2022.

The lawsuit concludes:

If Defendant (SOS) was actually conducting a general program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel the registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence, it would not be possible for ten counties with a combined total of 1,796,437 registrations to cancel zero registrations in a two-year period under Section 8(d)(1)(B).

If Defendant was actually conducting a general program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel the registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence, it would not be possible for another ten counties with a combined total of 1,643,921 registrations to cancel a total of 218 registrations in a two-year period under Section 8(d)(1)(B).

All of this is to say that California is cheating by keeping former state residents on the voter rolls.

Compare corrupt California’s ridiculous and deliberately convoluted system to Florida’s:

Florida, which requires photo ID, uses a paper ballot-based voting system statewide, with optical scan tabulation as the primary method for counting votes. All ballots produce a voter-verifiable paper record, which serves as the official vote for audits, recounts, and verification according to the Florida Secretary of State. 

There are three voting methods in Florida:

• Vote-by-Mail (VBM, formerly absentee): Request a ballot from your county Supervisor of Elections (new request needed each election cycle for most voters). Ballots must be received by the deadline (typically Election Day) and include a matching signature on the certificate. Processing and tabulation can begin weeks before Election Day after public testing of equipment.
• Early In-Person Voting: Available for a period before Election Day (varies slightly by county, often starting about 2 weeks prior) at designated sites.
• Election Day Voting: At assigned precinct polling places (polls generally open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.).

If this feels familiar, this is how California used to run its elections, and not that long ago.

Every Florida county conducts a post-election audit with a manual hand count in random precincts/races or automated independent audit of at least 20% of ballots in random precincts. Audits are public.

Florida stands out among U.S. states for its fast, paper-based voting system with strong pre-Election Day processing, robust audits, and quick Election Night reporting. It balances accessibility (no-excuse mail voting and early in-person) with security measures like voter ID, signature verification, and mandatory paper trails, according to Ballotpedia. 

Notably, there is no ranked-choice voting as it was banned in Florida.

According to MIT, Florida is more “election-night ready” than most large states due to proactive mail processing and paper-optical systems, while maintaining paper auditability that aligns with national best practices.

Additionally, Florida has high voter turnout, according to MIT:

Compared to California:

The lawsuit against California notes that “The fact that 23 out of California’s 58 counties, which reported a combined total of 5,211,158 registrations to the EAC, are cancelling so few registrations under Section 8(d)(1)(B) means that Defendant (SOS) is not complying with her obligation under the NVRA to be responsible for the coordination of state responsibilities under the Act.”

And:

Let that sink in.

And, in 18 California counties, there are more voter registrations than citizens over the age of eighteen. If the lawsuit’s plaintiffs know this, so does California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, and the voter registrars of those 18 counties.