Yellow Jacket InitiativeBy E. Lawrence Anderson, Yellow Jacket Initiative
As of Monday, October 26, 2026, about 3:10 p.m. ET (12:10 p.m. PT). Sources: the district court filings in United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), Dkts. 97, 97-1 and 100; both dockets as shown on CourtListener, read again about 3:10 p.m. ET.
Two filings in United States v. California came in over the weekend, before Judge David O. Carter's hearing on Tuesday, Oct 27, at 1:00 p.m. PT. One shows what federal prosecutors asked California counties to do. The other is the Justice Department's last brief before the court rules.
The letters. On Saturday, Oct 24, California filed a declaration from an attorney in the Secretary of State's office (Dkt. 97-1). She states that county officials forwarded letters from U.S. Attorney's Offices, and that her office "has been notified that similar letters have been received by at least 40 counties—a majority of California's 58 counties." That count is the Secretary of State's. We have seen three of the letters, filed as exhibits. All three are dated Thursday, Oct 22, signed by Eric Grant, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and hand-delivered to the registrars of Fresno, Madera and Sacramento counties. Each encloses that county's part of the federal list: 670 "likely aliens" for Fresno, 78 for Madera and 602 for Sacramento.
What the letters ask, in their words: "Within 48 hours, we ask that you commit to working with DOJ and DHS to identify who on the accompanying list is a citizen and who is not. That means sending us the nonpublic information associated with each suspected alien's registration." That includes "a social security number, a copy of a state ID or driver's license," and the registration application. For anyone whose citizenship the county cannot confirm, the letters ask officials to "segregate—not cancel—those individuals' vote-by-mail ballots," and not to process returned ballots "until citizenship can be determined."
They also state the Department's reading of the law: "If persons knowingly tabulate ballots cast by individuals identified by federal agencies as noncitizens, they risk becoming aiders and abettors to a federal crime." They close by urging cooperation "before taking actions that risk significant federal scrutiny and legal exposure."
The case for the letters. They ask; they do not order. They say the Department "is not requesting a purge, cancellation of registrations, or any programmatic action." Noncitizen voting in federal elections is a federal crime (18 U.S.C. 611), and a U.S. Attorney may tell officials how the Department reads the law. The letters say the list came from "a multilayered, multiagency investigative methodology at DHS" and attach two declarations describing it.
California's side. In its brief filed with the letters (Dkt. 97), the State says Los Angeles County's sample of the list shows that "less than half have active voter registration records," "over a third have canceled registrations," and "nearly three-quarters of the list have never voted"; and that among those whose birthplace was reported, "over a third indicated they were born in the United States." Those are the County's and the State's figures. The State argues the relief would violate the federal ban on removing voters within 90 days of an election. The letters say that rule "applies only to systematic list-maintenance programs."
The Justice Department's reply. On Sunday, Oct 25, the United States filed its reply (Dkt. 100). Its first footnote says that because of the appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit, "this Court lacks jurisdiction over issues pertaining to the United States' request for emergency relief." It files anyway, it says, "in order to preserve all rights and out of an abundance of caution." The judge had ordered the reply for that day.
On the list's accuracy, the reply does not defend a number. It says officials "swore under oath" that the list holds people who are "highly likely to be noncitizen aliens." It then answers California's sample this way: "Although California has not shared its methodology with the Federal Government, even assuming that California is right, that means it is still tabulating thousands—if not over 10,000—unlawful votes." That figure is the Department's, and it rests on the condition stated in the same sentence.
A second footnote says a letter to Nevada that California cited used data and methods "distinct from the refined processes used to support this lawsuit." And it argues the relief asks California only to "perform a ministerial task—segregate ballots," using a procedure already in state regulations (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 20363). The reply says California's answer is that the procedure applies to a formal recount, and calls that "a legalistic distinction without an equitable difference."
The appeal. The Ninth Circuit (No. 26-7070) heard argument by video on Sunday, Oct 25, at 1:00 p.m. PDT. On that docket as we read it at about 3:10 p.m. ET today, the latest entry was a Sunday-morning filing (DE 58), with no order. The district docket's latest entry was a Monday application by an attorney to appear in the case (Dkt. 101), with no ruling. Those dockets are a public mirror that can lag the courts' own systems, so a ruling may exist that we have not seen.
Not established: how many counties received letters (40 is the Secretary of State's notice count, not a count of letters); whether other U.S. Attorney's Offices sent them (the three we read are all from one office); how any county responded; whether any ballots have been set aside; and the accuracy of the list. Briefs are each side's arguments, not findings.
Calendar: the district court hearing is Tuesday, Oct 27, one day from today. Election Day is Tuesday, Nov 3, eight days from today.
Earlier: A hearing set, an appeal filed: what the record shows in United States v. California (Oct 24).
Primary sources: United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 97 (State Defendants' Supplemental Opposition, Oct 24, 2026); Dkt. 97-1 (Declaration of Rachel Evans and Exhibits 1-5, Oct 24, 2026); Dkt. 100 (United States' Reply, Oct 25, 2026); district docket; Ninth Circuit docket.
Read the text.
Independent Research. All Documents Freely Reproducible.