Looks Like The Analysis Slamming DOJs

On Saturday the Associated Press printed a piece headlined “Over 40% of names on DOJ list of alleged noncitizens are not on Calif. voter rolls, analysis finds,” which fairly shortly turned big news.

As is true with many mainstream news tales, while their headline is technically right, it leaves a lot out and hints at a conclusion that would not be right. And, now it seems to be just like the analysis and the media consideration from it may chunk CHIRLA, the State of California, and Los Angeles County in the hindquarters.

So, this is what occurred. 

On Friday our favourite federal jurist, Judge James Boasberg, ordered the Department of Justice to flip over the record of 20,930 it decided are seemingly noncitizens on California’s voter rolls to unlawful alien advocacy group Committee for Humane Immigrant Rights — Los Angeles, recognized as CHIRLA, in a case filed in September in DC District Court. This is separate from litigation filed by the DOJ against the State of California and Los Angeles County that sought to have those election officers segregate ballots returned from people on that record until their citizenship could possibly be decided.

The AP’s headline makes it appear as if a scholarly analysis from a disinterested impartial celebration made these findings, and social media posts from other lefty journalists deliberately pass over the identify CHIRLA. CHIRLA is the group we have reported on extensively that funds a community of anti-ICE doxxing teams and which orchestrated violent protests in Los Angeles and past during the summer season of 2025.

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles (CHIRLA) funds a community of anti-ICE doxxing teams comparable to the Signal chats in Minneapolis, trains violent agitators, and has performed a key position in anti-ICE violence in California – all funded by taxpayers. Thank you @KatiePavlich for having me on!

— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) April 23, 2026

Boasberg ordered the record be given to CHIRLA so they may evaluate it to their membership record to see if any of their members have been on it, as a approach to set up standing. Data scientists from the UCLA Voting Rights Project, a CHIRLA ally and the group’s counsel, then in contrast that record to the “CHIRLA members and clients naturalized citizen list.” I’m not sure if that means they also have a CHIRLA members and shoppers record of people who aren’t residents or naturalized residents, but if they do have such a record, they’re good to not reference or put it to use in litigation.

UCLA Voting Rights Project is hardly nonpartisan. Its Senior Strategy Advisor and Voting Rights Counsel is Xavier Becerra, the previous HHS Secretary who’s now the Democrat candidate for California governor. Becerra has signed all of the filings in the case. I’m not sure if there’s a particular moral code that violates, but the optics aren’t great. 

About the findings from the analysis, according to the AP (emphasis mine):

The research discovered that 8,880 of the names, representing 42% of your complete record, don’t correspond to anybody in California’s current voter file. It also discovered at least 22 are U.S. residents, and many more could correspond to those of confirmed residents.

California’s current voter file was used in the analysis, one thing the DOJ does not have access to — because Judge Carter ruled back in January that California did not have to give it to them (in USA vs. Weber). So, how did UCLA VRP gain access to a current voter roll? Well, the consultants from UCLA have a contract with California’s Secretary of State to analyze voting trends utilizing the California voter file, but it is not clear that its use in litigation is allowed under the contract (CrimsonState has submitted a California Public Records Act request for the contract).

According to sworn declarations filed by the DOJ in the USA vs. State of California case, its record was developed from a model of California’s voter roll that was obtained by DHS, and which was current as of August 2025. So, this is not a credible criticism of the DOJ’s record.

Assuming that the UCLA VRP analysis is right, that means that state and local authorities did their jobs and did at least some cleanup of the voter rolls between August 2025 and now. And, that leaves roughly 60 % of the people on the record who are at the moment registered to vote. 

Next, they declare that 22 people on the record are U.S. residents. The actual wording from the consultants’ report is:

“Based on scientific database matching methodology, I am certain that there [sic] at least 22 entries on the CHIRLA citizen list that fully match to the DHS ineligible list.”

What is the evidence that those 22 people are literally U.S. residents? Has CHIRLA independently verified that the particular person is a citizen before placing them on their record? We know that there are at least 6,100 people on CHIRLA’s citizen record, but do not know exactly how many. If they’re only claiming (claiming, without proof) that 22 are U.S. residents, that’s a very small proportion of people affected.

Affected by what precisely, we should always ask. The DOJ wasn’t asking California officers to throw out the ballots of anybody on the record, or to have all of those names eliminated from voter rolls. They have been trying for extra data to show that the particular person in query is certainly a U.S. citizen.

Finally, CHIRLA might need actually stepped in it. Since their consultants used both the current voter file and CHIRLA’s citizen members and shoppers record to attempt to set up standing for their lawsuit and the injunctive aid requested, the Defendants are entitled to have that data as properly, and DHS made a movement to that impact on Sunday. CHIRLA submitted their record ex parte to Boasberg for an in digital camera examination (that means, he would review it without sharing with Defendants). DHS is, clearly, opposed to that, and is requesting both the full current voter file used and CHIRLA’s citizen member and shopper record.

Something tells me that Newsom and Bonta aren’t going to be too excited about this development.

The backside line right here is that even if it seems that 40 % of the people on that record are usually not on the voter rolls, that’s a good factor. Now we need to study the other 60 %.

UPDATE 6:10 PM ET, Nov 1, 2026:

The Department of Homeland Security filed a movement Sunday afternoon asking Judge Boasberg to sanction CHIRLA for utilizing DHS’ noncitizen record in methods that have been clearly forbidden by Boasberg’s order, which was only to be used in relation to their standing arguments, and was only to be disseminated to Plaintiff’s “counsel of record, their legal assistant, their expert, and his data assistant.” Citing the hurt executed to federal law enforcement efforts by the extra analysis and promotion of those findings in the media (significantly the “40 percent are not on the voter roll” portion), DHS is asking that all parts of the skilled report not associated to standing of CHIRLA’s members be stricken, that Plaintiff’s criticism be dismissed, and that Plaintiff and counsel be required to “certify that they have complied with the Court’s restrictions on dissemination and have not promoted their contumacious conduct to representatives of the media and other third parties to cast doubt on the government’s law-enforcement efforts.”

Boasberg has ordered Plaintiffs to reply to the movement by 9 AM Eastern time on Monday, November 2.

(This piece was edited post-publication to right the standing of UCLA Voting Rights Project in the subject litigation. They are counsel for CHIRLA, not co-Plaintiffs. We remorse the error.)

Editor’s Note: Democrats are fanning the flames and raising the rhetoric by evaluating ICE to the Gestapo, fascists, and secret police.

Help us continue to report the reality about ICE and its courageous accomplishments to make America secure again. Join CrimsonState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to obtain 60% off your membership.