JEDI-SEC | Security Research & Digital Defense

Tag: Election Security

  • Federal court tosses Trump lawsuit challenging Alaska Senate certification

    A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from the federal government seeking to preemptively block Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola from assuming office if she wins her race.

    The Department of Justice sued Alaska last month, arguing that an alleged scheme by Peltola to recruit Daniel J. Sullivan, an independent candidate who shares a name with incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, would confuse voters.

    Peltola’s campaign, the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and civic groups including the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Common Cause all filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the federal government lacks standing and constitutional authority to weigh in on Alaska’s elections.

    They also said the court cannot grant relief because there is no legal way to determine whether a voter mistakenly voted for one Sullivan over the other without violating the secret ballot.

    U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason reached the same conclusion, noting in an order “the absence of any explanation from the United States as to how its requested relief could redress its alleged injury while simultaneously maintaining the secrecy of the ballot.” She also wrote that she “cannot grant the United States the relief it seeks because the United States has failed to establish the redressability prerequisite for Article III standing.”

    Gleason’s opinion recounts Daniel J. Sullivan’s independent candidacy. Alaska Director of Elections Carol Beecher decertified it in June, later testifying that she did not believe he was running in good faith. State courts disagreed and restored his candidacy, and the Alaska Supreme Court upheld that ruling. 

    Alaskan election officials still took steps to distinguish the two candidates, listing their full names and labeling them “Incumbent,” “Republican candidate” and “Independent.” Alaska’s ranked-choice system lets voters rank both Sullivans, so they are not limited to a single candidate.

    State officials and election experts also noted that nearly 60,000 Alaskan voters have already cast early or mail ballots, and there is no feasible way to reissue them.

    The government’s one-sentence response said the state could segregate ballots and asked the court to allow a federal investigation into whether any voters were deceived. Gleason rejected that approach, saying the government offered no explanation of how ballot segregation or a law enforcement inquiry into voters’ intent could be carried out while preserving ballot secrecy.

    Gleason also questioned the government’s constitutional basis, writing that the executive branch has no legitimate role in determining which candidates appear on Alaska’s ballots. The government said it was not seeking to change the time, place or manner of the election, but Gleason noted that its requests, including limits on certification, ballot segregation and an investigation of voters’ intent, all concern those matters, which are the state’s responsibility.

    The lawsuit drew heavy media attention and concern from democracy advocates, but legal experts widely viewed it as exceptionally weak.

    “Today’s ruling marks a victory for Alaska state sovereignty and Alaskan voters,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former voting rights attorney at DOJ. “By soundly rejecting the administration’s unlawful and now unsuccessful attempt to interfere, the court concurred with the State of Alaska that this is purely a matter of state law and that, under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has no role in determining how Alaska certifies its Senate election.”

    Source: CyberScoop · 2026-11-01

  • California officials confirm grand jury subpoenas as states, civil groups brace to protect elections from federal encroachment

    The Trump administration is taking direct aim at California state election officials, issuing grand jury subpoenas to election offices statewide ahead of the final day of voting on Nov. 3.

    The investigations, first reported by Bloomberg, center on alleged administration of illegal voting. They are ostensibly tied to demands by the U.S. Justice Department that California and other states use federal voter lists to determine whether a voter is a “potential noncitizen” and should be removed.

    The Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters told CyberScoop it received multiple grand jury subpoenas last week related to the investigation. The office called the federal efforts an attempt to intimidate California election officials into accepting federal supremacy over state voter registration authority.

    “At every step, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken a confrontational, adversarial approach,” said Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan in a statement. “Election officials are acting in accordance with state and federal law. Clear court rulings at both the U.S. District Court level and the Court of Appeals have confirmed that. Threats and intimidation have no place in elections. We will take whatever steps necessary to ensure the safety of our employees and to remain focused on serving the voters of Los Angeles County so they can exercise their voting franchise.”

    California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, also reportedly a target of the federal probe, did not respond to a request for comment from CyberScoop.

    One California election official, Clint Curtis, the outgoing registrar of voters in Shasta County, endorsed the federal government’s efforts to remove 20,000 voters from California voter rolls. Curtis, whose term ends in January, was previously part of a failed effort to hire Tina Peters, a felon and former Mesa County, Colorado, election clerk to help with the upcoming midterms. Curtis has long believed in widespread election fraud.

    He told CyberScoop earlier this year that he believed Shasta County elections in 2024 were plagued by suspicious mail-in ballots, saying they looked, felt and “smelled” different from normal mail ballots.

    The U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to administer elections and Congress the power to make election laws, something courts have repeatedly upheld in dozens of legal challenges by the Trump administration.

    The Department of Justice has claimed there are at least 20,000 such potential noncitizens on California’s voter lists, while the Department of Homeland Security told CyberScoop the figure could be as many as 190,000. The administration’s data, drawn from public voter lists, federal databases and commercially purchased personal information, has been repeatedly criticized by election officials, voting experts and federal courts as inaccurate and unreliable for determining voter eligibility.

    Most people identified as “potential noncitizens” turn out to be naturalized citizens who have since gained voting rights, or the result of state administrative errors that mistakenly registered a small number of ineligible voters. Many of those mistakenly registered never cast a ballot.

    State officials have had to defend against attempts at federal coercion as well as third-party activists who are constantly testing and probing election procedures nationwide, sometimes without understanding the laws election officials must follow to verify voters.

    On Wednesday, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minnesota announced felony charges against a pair of right-wing provocateurs, James O’Keefe and Cam Higby, for unlawful voting and identity theft. According to a statement from Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, the two showed up at various election offices, provided false identities of real voters to election judges, violating state laws against misrepresenting their identity in applying for a ballot.

    “Elections are the bedrock of democracy and their protection is one of our highest priorities. Individuals engaging in unlawful conduct related to our elections will be held accountable,” said Moriarty. “Our office has had regular meetings with Hennepin County Elections staff in preparation for both the primary and the general elections this year and we are fully prepared.”

    Voting rights and civil society groups are also executing short- and long-term plans to combat potential voter disenfranchisement ahead of Tuesday.

    Jessica Ayoub, deputy political director for the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union, said her organization has “never been more prepared” for any expected fights with the federal government or local officials seeking to disenfranchise voters, saying they first began planning for different scenarios 18 months ago, cultivating relationships with hundreds of clerks and election staff across Michigan.

    “We’ve gamed out 25 potential scenarios and have rapid response strategies that we’ll deploy to ensure our elections are protected and that our democracy remains intact,” said Ayoub, who cited a desire not to publicize further details ahead of next month.

    On Friday, voting rights groups filed a new lawsuit against the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security in California, seeking to block the federal government’s efforts against state election officials.

    The groups are asking a judge to declare that the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority and that state officials are legally carrying out their duties. They also want the court to force the departments to contact all California election officials who received subpoenas and tell them the investigation has halted due to a court order.

    Source: CyberScoop · 2026-10-30

  • Lawsuit against Ex-Overstock CEO tied to 2020 election film falls apart over question of ‘actual malice’

    A Florida judge ruled this week that ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne is not liable in a lawsuit brought by a Dominion Voting Systems executive over a film that accuses the former electronic voting hardware and software company  executive of saying he “made sure” that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wouldn’t win reelection in 2020.

    The lawsuit, brought in 2022 by Eric Coomer, a former director of product strategy and security at Dominion Voting Systems, concerns comments made in a 2020 film produced by Byrne titled “The Deep Rig.”

    In the film, which alleges a conspiracy to manipulate 2020 election results in favor of Democrat Joe Biden, a man identified as Joseph Oltmann claimed he listened to a conference call led by organizers of “Antifa,” wherein another participant mentioned that “Eric” “The Dominion Guy” was also on the call.

    In the film, Oltmann says a man identified as “Eric” told others on the call that Trump wouldn’t win reelection because he had “made sure of it.” Coomer denies taking part in any such call, and filed a lawsuit against Byrne and seven other individuals and entities for defamation.

    U.S. District Judge Tom Barber’s decision did not address most of the substantive claims in the lawsuit, such as Byrne’s ultimate legal responsibility for the statements by Oltmann that made it into the film.

    Because the lawsuit was originally filed in Colorado, it must meet a state law requirement for defamation claims involving matters of public concern. Coomer must show “clear and convincing evidence” that Byrne or others involved in making the film knew the claims were false and defamatory, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

    “Where the challenged speech involves a matter of public concern, as it undeniably does here, the plaintiff also bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the challenged statement is materially false and was made with actual malice,” wrote Barber in his opinion.

    The standard is not whether a reasonable person would have investigated the claims before airing them, but whether the defendant “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication, or was highly aware of its probable falsity.”

    In this case, Barber said it’s not impossible to clear that standard for public figures, but under Colorado law, Coomer would have a hard time providing clear and convincing evidence that Byrne “in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann’s story.”

    Barber further wrote that technology has given “a powerful microphone” and large followings to people who would otherwise be dismissed as “kooks” and conspiracy theorists. These people make statements that are “objectively and demonstrably wrong” but who hold firm to their core beliefs because they “genuinely and sincerely believe what they say with every fiber of their being, even when objective evidence may suggest otherwise.”

    Still, he said the current language and meaning of the Colorado law is clear, suggesting it was a matter for higher courts or legislators to clarify or change.

    “Under the actual malice standard, unless it can be proven that the speaker subjectively believed his or her statements to be untrue, the law imposes no liability,” Barber wrote. “That is a policy choice that might deserve reexamination by the appropriate decision makers – the United States Supreme Court and the Colorado courts.”

    Byrne’s attorney, Peter Ticktin, called the ruling a “victory” in a statement to CyberScoop.

    “This is a substantial victory for Patriot Patrick Byrne and for the principles at stake in this case,” Ticktin said. “The court’s decision speaks for itself. We are pleased that the facts and applicable law resulted in summary judgment in our client’s favor.”

    Coomer sued Byrne in his personal capacity, and Dominion Voting Systems was not a party to the lawsuit. 

    The voting machine giant was awarded more than $1.8 billion in combined legal settlements over the past two years from Fox News, Newsmax and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, all of whom made allegations that Dominion voting machines were used to maliciously flip or alter votes.

    Source: CyberScoop · 2026-10-28