Tom Hicks | November 7, 2026
Apparently, the United States Department of Justice has come up with a revolutionary new approach to election integrity. First, you accuse hundreds of people of voting illegally. Then you demand that election officials stop counting their ballots. And somewhere along the way, preferably before a federal judge gets involved, you might want to check whether the people you’re accusing are actually American citizens.
I know. Crazy concept.
But that’s apparently where we are in Donald Trump’s America, where the people who spend half their waking hours screaming about election fraud have managed to turn protecting elections into something resembling a Three Stooges routine. Except Moe, Larry, and Curly generally knew what day it was.
The Justice Department didn’t.
In a letter demanding action against approximately 405 supposedly questionable voters in Washington state, federal prosecutors identified Election Day as November 2. Which would’ve been fascinating, considering the election was actually November 3. You’d think somebody at the Department of Justice might have a calendar. Or a phone. Or access to that fancy new invention called Google.
Hell, ask the janitor. Somebody in that building must know what day it is.
And if that were the extent of the screwup, I’d happily spend the next few paragraphs making fun of the federal government’s apparent inability to distinguish Monday from Tuesday. Unfortunately, the calendar problem was just the appetizer. The main course involved a defective voter list, actual American citizens being flagged as potential illegal voters, and federal prosecutors threatening to haul state election officials into court if they didn’t do what they were told.
Now we’re getting into territory where the jokes start tasting a little sour.
405 NAMES, 24 HOURS, AND A FEDERAL-SIZED PAIR OF BALLS
On October 26, federal prosecutors Charles Neil Floyd and Pete Serrano sent Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs a letter informing him that the Department of Homeland Security had identified more than 400 people it suspected of being noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls. According to the government, those people had cast more than 1,500 votes in previous elections.
That’s a serious accusation. If it’s true, investigate it, prove it, and prosecute anybody who actually broke the law. I’m not interested in defending illegal voting, regardless of whose candidate benefits. Hell, if somebody cast an illegal vote for a candidate promising free beer and a lifetime supply of Fritos, I’d still want the law enforced.
I’d probably want to meet the candidate, but that’s a separate issue.
What I have a problem with is the federal government showing up with a list that looks like it was assembled during a three-martini lunch and demanding that state officials treat it like the Ten Commandments.
The DOJ wanted Hobbs to review the names within 24 hours, identify any citizens, and instruct local election officials to hold ballots associated with anyone still on the list until citizenship could be verified. The letter also threatened emergency court action if the state didn’t comply within 48 hours.
Think about that for a minute. The federal government wanted state election officials to potentially interfere with hundreds of ballots on the strength of information that hadn’t been adequately verified, and it wanted the whole thing handled in about the time it takes Amazon to deliver a replacement coffee maker.
Except Amazon usually manages to get the address right.
And here’s where the story takes a turn from bureaucratic stupidity into something considerably more troubling. Because when Washington actually started examining the names, it discovered that some of the people the federal government was treating as suspected noncitizens were, in fact, American citizens.
You know. The people whose right to vote the Justice Department is supposed to be protecting.
Whoops. Read the DOJ’s October 26 letter
Enjoying the view from outside the political bullshit factory? Subscribe to Off Script. Around here, we follow the facts, ask questions powerful people would rather avoid, and occasionally call a steaming pile exactly what it is. No party membership required. Just a functioning bullshit detector.
APPARENTLY, THE SPREADSHEET WAS TOO COMPLICATED
Now, if you’re going to accuse hundreds of people of being ineligible voters, you’d think the bare minimum would be providing the state with enough information to identify them.
Names. Addresses. Voter identification numbers. Something useful.
The Justice Department apparently had other ideas.
Instead of providing a workable electronic spreadsheet, federal prosecutors sent Washington a PDF containing what amounted to a printed spreadsheet. And because that wasn’t quite inconvenient enough, it lacked identifying information that would have made checking the names considerably easier.
I’m beginning to suspect the government’s election-integrity operation was being run by somebody whose greatest technological achievement was figuring out how to attach a document to an email.
Hobbs’s office found duplicate entries. It found people who weren’t currently registered or had inactive registrations. And it found citizens among the people the government had flagged.
But here’s the part that really gets me. The DOJ’s own letter acknowledged that some of the people on its list might have become naturalized American citizens since the records being used were created.
Read that again.
The government knew its information could include people who had become citizens, yet it still wanted election officials to withhold their ballots until the state sorted everything out.
That’s one hell of a way to celebrate somebody becoming an American.
Congratulations on your citizenship. Here’s your passport, your voting rights, and a complimentary invitation to prove yourself all over again because somebody in Washington hasn’t updated a database.
Hobbs wasn’t particularly impressed. He told the prosecutors that without individualized evidence of ineligibility, refusing to process a registered voter’s ballot would be irresponsible and illegal. He also invited them to provide actual proof so the state could investigate.
Imagine that. A government official asking for evidence before taking action.
What a radical concept. Read Secretary Hobbs’s October 28 response
If somebody you know still believes a government database is automatically infallible, share this with them. Preferably before they start demanding that everybody else’s vote be thrown in the dumpster.
THE JUDGE ENTERS THE ROOM. THE BULLSHIT LEAVES THROUGH THE SIDE DOOR.
By November 5, this little adventure in election administration had attracted the attention of U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead.
And the judge drew a distinction that shouldn’t require a federal courtroom to explain.
The Justice Department is allowed to investigate illegal voting. It’s allowed to share information with state election officials. It’s even allowed to ask those officials to cooperate.
What it cannot do, under the circumstances presented in this case, is use threats of prosecution to pressure election officials into withholding ballots from registered voters simply because their names appear on a questionable federal list.
You’d think the people who spend their professional lives enforcing the law might appreciate the distinction between requesting cooperation and threatening somebody until they cooperate.
Apparently, we needed a judge to explain it.
Whitehead issued a temporary restraining order barring the DOJ and DHS from making those coercive demands while Washington continued counting votes. He also refused to put the order on hold while the government pursued an appeal.
And here’s what matters: the judge didn’t declare that every person on the list was eligible. He didn’t prohibit federal investigations. He didn’t give anybody permission to vote illegally.
He told the federal government that it couldn’t use this list and these threats to override the state’s established election procedures.
That’s an important difference, although I fully expect somebody on social media to spend the next three weeks insisting the judge legalized voter fraud.
Because apparently reading a court order is considerably more difficult than yelling about one.
The restraining order lasts 14 days, and a hearing on whether to extend the restrictions is scheduled for November 18. Washington counties must certify their results by November 24, with statewide certification scheduled for December 3.
The Justice Department says the ruling is temporary and maintains that it has the authority to work with states to protect election integrity. Fair enough. The legal fight isn’t finished.
But for now, the federal government has been told to stop trying to muscle election officials into withholding ballots on the strength of a list whose reliability is disputed. Read the November 6 Washington State Standard report
AND WASHINGTON ISN’T THE ONLY STATE GETTING THIS TREATMENT
If this were one isolated incident, I’d be inclined to chalk it up to a particularly spectacular display of bureaucratic incompetence.
But Washington isn’t the only state where the Trump administration has tried to use federal citizenship information to challenge the counting of ballots.
In California, the Justice Department pursued a much larger effort involving approximately 20,000 voters. Federal courts have been examining the government’s authority to demand that election officials set aside ballots, and the legal disputes have produced different rulings on the limits of those demands.
Which brings us to the larger problem.
Government databases are useful tools. They are not sacred texts delivered from Mount Sinai. Records can be outdated, incomplete, duplicated, or simply wrong. And when you’re dealing with citizenship, the difference between what somebody’s status was and what it is can be the difference between an ineligible voter and an American citizen exercising a fundamental right.
The DOJ’s Washington letter acknowledged precisely that possibility.
So why was the government demanding that ballots be withheld before those questions had been resolved?
That’s the question I want answered. And I’d like something a little more substantial than another speech about election integrity.
THE RIGHT TO VOTE SHOULDN’T COME WITH A GOVERNMENT GUESSING GAME
Look, I’m not naive enough to believe every government employee is competent, every database is accurate, or every election runs perfectly. I’ve been watching government operate for decades. Sometimes I’m amazed the damn lights come on when somebody flips a switch.
But there’s a difference between making an honest mistake and demanding that other people suffer the consequences of your mistake before you’ve bothered to correct it.
If the federal government has credible evidence that someone voted illegally, bring it forward. If somebody committed a crime, pursue the case. That’s what prosecutors are for.
But if the government wants to interfere with the counting of a registered voter’s ballot, the burden ought to be on the government to establish a lawful basis for doing so.
Not on the voter to prove, for the second or third time, that they’re entitled to a right they already possess.
The part that bothers me most isn’t the wrong date, the lousy spreadsheet, or even the sheer arrogance of giving state election officials an ultimatum while handing them inadequate information.
It’s the assumption underneath all of it: that the federal government can make an accusation, and everybody else is supposed to rearrange their rights around it.
That’s a dangerous habit for any administration to develop.
And it ought to scare the hell out of anybody who thinks the Constitution is more than a decorative piece of parchment.
THE BULLSHIT DETECTOR 💩
Three claims from the great American bullshit buffet. None related to today’s main story, because stupidity doesn’t confine itself to one department of government.
THE STINK SCALE
💩 A Little Whiff — Misleading, but probably fixable.
💩💩 Something Smells — Somebody’s leaving out important details.
💩💩💩 Steaming Pile — The claim falls apart under scrutiny.
💩💩💩💩 Full-Blown Bullshit — Reality has left the building.
💩💩💩💩💩 Weapons-Grade Bullshit — Industrial-strength nonsense.
CLAIM 1: A PRESIDENT CAN PARDON ANYBODY FOR ANY CRIME.
BULLSHIT: 💩💩💩💩 Full-Blown Bullshit
WHY: Presidential pardons cover federal offenses, subject to constitutional limitations. State criminal convictions are another matter entirely.
A president can’t stroll into a state courthouse, wave his hand like a bargain-basement magician, and make somebody’s conviction disappear. Although I suspect there are people who would happily sell him a gold-plated wand and tell him otherwise. Source: U.S. Constitution, Article II
CLAIM 2: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE LEGALLY EXEMPT FROM INSIDER-TRADING LAWS.
BULLSHIT: 💩💩💩💩 Full-Blown Bullshit
WHY: The STOCK Act explicitly confirms that members of Congress and congressional employees are subject to insider-trading prohibitions.
Now, whether those laws are enforced aggressively enough is a perfectly legitimate question. And whether members of Congress should be allowed to trade individual stocks while they’re writing laws that affect those companies is another discussion worth having.
But the claim that Congress gave itself a blanket exemption? Nope.
There’s enough actual congressional bullshit to keep us occupied without inventing more. Source: STOCK Act
CLAIM 3: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PROVES YOU’RE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
BULLSHIT: 💩💩💩 Steaming Pile
WHY: Eligible noncitizens can receive Social Security numbers, too. Possessing one doesn’t establish citizenship.
I realize that’s disappointing to people who believe every complicated legal question can be settled by typing nine digits into a computer. But the Social Security Administration isn’t handing out citizenship certificates disguised as little blue-and-white cards. Source: Social Security Administration
ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO
If the federal government knows its voter list might include American citizens, should it be allowed to demand that their ballots be withheld while it figures out who’s who?
Or should the people threatening legal action be required to get their own damn facts straight first?
I’d like to hear what you think, including from people who disagree. Just bring an argument. A meme somebody’s uncle posted on Facebook doesn’t qualify as supporting evidence.
MORE FROM TOM HICKS MEDIA
If you enjoy Off Script, take a look at Blind Spot, where we dig deeper into the machinery behind American politics and the things that tend to get buried beneath the daily shouting.
For something completely different, What the Hell? explores the stranger corners of actual history. Sometimes the truth is so ridiculous that satire just throws up its hands and goes home.
And there’s Frank N. Krancke, whose Is It Just Me? column tackles the everyday nonsense that makes a grown man wonder whether civilization was such a terrific idea after all.
Find the entire family at Tom Hicks Media — The Complete Collection.
KEEP THE BASTARD TALKING
Off Script is independent commentary. Nobody at party headquarters gets to approve the copy, and nobody gets a free pass just because I happen to agree with them on something else.
If you enjoy the work, Buy Me A Coffee. It’s entirely voluntary, always appreciated, and considerably cheaper than whatever therapy bill American politics is eventually going to stick us with.
If this article made you laugh, swear, or wonder how the hell we got here, pass it along. And if you haven’t subscribed, pull up a chair. There’s always room for somebody willing to think for themselves.
#OffScript #VotingRights #ElectionIntegrity #DOJ #Constitution #WashingtonState #TomHicksMedia