# Question of Noncitizen Voting & NJ Assault Rifle Ban Struck Down

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 22 Jul 2026, 41 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/ed055a3d-0153-4c38-9a97-b48f00550006/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Jonathan Diaz, Director of Voting Advocacy and Partnerships at Campaign Legal Center, discusses how 6600 noncitizens were improperly registered to vote in New Jersey in 2023 and 2024, and the Trump administration’s apparent attempt to interfere in the upcoming elections. Alex Ebert, Bloomberg Law Senior Correspondent, discusses the Third Circuit striking down New Jersey’s ban on assault rifles. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 2: About sixty six hundred non citizens were improperly registered to
[0:13] Speaker 2: vote in New Jersey in twenty twenty three in twenty
[0:17] Speaker 2: twenty four, and up to four hundred of them went
[0:20] Speaker 2: on to improperly cast ballots. Governor Mickey Cheryl blamed a
[0:25] Speaker 2: software error in the Motor Vehicle Commission system that registered
[0:30] Speaker 2: people to vote even though they had indicated they were
[0:33] Speaker 2: non citizens when obtaining drivers' licenses and identification cards.
[0:39] Speaker 3: This entire situation is unacceptable. It's unacceptable that the vendor
[0:44] Speaker 3: released software with such a glaring error. It's unacceptable that
[0:48] Speaker 3: the NBC took a year to get this issue fixed,
[0:52] Speaker 3: and it's unacceptable that no one in the previous administration
[0:56] Speaker 3: brought this to light, demanded accountability, or took action when
[1:00] Speaker 3: it happened years ago.
[1:01] Speaker 2: The state is removing ineligible voters from the rolls and
[1:05] Speaker 2: replacing the vendor that oversees the system. But this revelation
[1:10] Speaker 2: comes less than a week after President Trump and Department
[1:14] Speaker 2: of Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen claimed that hundreds
[1:19] Speaker 2: of thousands of non citizens are on voter rolls. Across
[1:23] Speaker 2: the country and.
[1:25] Speaker 4: Just four states, we've identified two hundred and fifty thousand
[1:30] Speaker 4: non citizens registered to vote in California and Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
[1:39] Speaker 4: and Nevada.
[1:40] Speaker 2: My guest is Jonathan Diaz, director of voting Advocacy and
[1:44] Speaker 2: Partnerships at the Campaign Legal Center. Jonathan explained what happened
[1:48] Speaker 2: in New Jersey.
[1:50] Speaker 5: So it appears that there was some sort of technological
[1:53] Speaker 5: error in New Jersey's DMV system where about six thousand
[1:59] Speaker 5: or so individuals who correctly identified themselves as non citizens.
[2:04] Speaker 5: You know, they weren't trying to register to vote, nevertheless,
[2:06] Speaker 5: were erroneously registered. New Jersey's election officials and governor made
[2:11] Speaker 5: this announcement. They identified this problem, They've directed officials to
[2:15] Speaker 5: remove them from the roles. They are fixing the glitch
[2:19] Speaker 5: in their driver's license system that caused this problem, and
[2:23] Speaker 5: this is I think an example of how the system
[2:26] Speaker 5: is supposed to work. The state and local officials who
[2:28] Speaker 5: are responsible for overseeing voter registration, identified a problem, made
[2:33] Speaker 5: it clear to the public, and announced steps to mitigate
[2:36] Speaker 5: the problem. You know, they don't need the federal government
[2:39] Speaker 5: to step in and do it for them.
[2:41] Speaker 2: The governor said that fewer than four hundred of these
[2:45] Speaker 2: non citizens cast ballots. So that means that hundreds of
[2:49] Speaker 2: non citizens did cast ballots improperly in the New Jersey elections.
[2:54] Speaker 5: So well, I think it's important to remember that more
[2:57] Speaker 5: than four point one million ballots were cast in New
[3:01] Speaker 5: Jersey in twenty twenty four. So that number, you know,
[3:04] Speaker 5: even if it was four hundred in total, that's less
[3:07] Speaker 5: than one percent a one percent, it's point zero zero
[3:11] Speaker 5: nine percent of the total votes cast in New Jersey
[3:14] Speaker 5: in twenty twenty four, which is nowhere near affecting the
[3:18] Speaker 5: outcome of any federal election that took place in New
[3:21] Speaker 5: Jersey in that year.
[3:23] Speaker 2: Will this give ammunition to the Trump administration in its
[3:27] Speaker 2: quest to show that there are non citizens on voter
[3:31] Speaker 2: rolls and non citizens are voting.
[3:34] Speaker 5: You know, it shouldn't, because there's nothing in any of
[3:37] Speaker 5: the proposals that the federal government has put forward that
[3:41] Speaker 5: would have addressed this scenario. This was a simple case
[3:45] Speaker 5: of human error, of technological error. Somebody misprogrammed the system.
[3:50] Speaker 5: And so you know, requiring as the Trump administration wants,
[3:54] Speaker 5: requiring voters to provide additional proof of citizenship to show
[3:58] Speaker 5: a passport or a birth certificate to register to vote
[4:01] Speaker 5: wouldn't have stopped this because these people said that they
[4:03] Speaker 5: were not citizens, they weren't trying to register to vote.
[4:06] Speaker 5: But you know, elections are run by people. Sometimes people
[4:08] Speaker 5: make mistakes. Sometimes there is a glitch in the system,
[4:11] Speaker 5: and you know, that's why we have safeguards built in
[4:15] Speaker 5: to ensure that it can be caught and fixed for
[4:18] Speaker 5: the next time. And even in a scenario like this
[4:21] Speaker 5: where there was a technological problem that did result in
[4:24] Speaker 5: some people being erroneously registered, it's not happening anywhere near
[4:29] Speaker 5: in the numbers on the scale that the President and
[4:32] Speaker 5: the White House are suggesting that it is. You know,
[4:35] Speaker 5: this is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the votes,
[4:40] Speaker 5: so small that it doesn't affect the outcome. And so,
[4:43] Speaker 5: you know, in my view, this technological error, which is
[4:47] Speaker 5: really all that it is, does not justify the kind
[4:50] Speaker 5: of draconian restrictions that the Trump administration is proposing for
[4:57] Speaker 5: voter registration because those things they wouldn't have solved this problem,
[5:01] Speaker 5: and b would have prevented many more people than this
[5:04] Speaker 5: who are eligible from actually registering and voting.
[5:07] Speaker 2: Mark Wayne Mullen, DHS Secretary, said that in New Jersey
[5:13] Speaker 2: reviews found thirty five, one hundred and fifty two non
[5:18] Speaker 2: citizens registered. The governor said that we've asked them for
[5:22] Speaker 2: any evidence of this where they got that number, who
[5:25] Speaker 2: this is. We've received nothing back yet.
[5:29] Speaker 5: I don't know where DHS's numbers came from, nor does
[5:32] Speaker 5: New Jersey. You know, the announcement from New Jersey's governor
[5:35] Speaker 5: today seems to me to be completely unrelated from what
[5:38] Speaker 5: DOJ sent them. This was their own investigation into their
[5:41] Speaker 5: own system, which every state is doing all the time,
[5:44] Speaker 5: and I think that's that's the key takeaway here is
[5:47] Speaker 5: that state governments, who are the ones legally responsible for
[5:51] Speaker 5: running our elections, are constantly going through their voter registration
[5:56] Speaker 5: rules and their election systems to fix errors and to
[5:59] Speaker 5: make sure that they are as accurate as is humanly possible.
[6:03] Speaker 5: And what they don't need is wild accusations from the
[6:07] Speaker 5: federal government based on no evidence that they're doing it wrong.
[6:11] Speaker 5: You know, I think this incident in New Jersey shows
[6:15] Speaker 5: that states are more than capable of maintaining clean voter
[6:20] Speaker 5: roles and addressing the problems as they arise, because you know,
[6:23] Speaker 5: we have a very complicated election system and it's totally decentralized.
[6:27] Speaker 5: It's run by states and in most important ways, by
[6:31] Speaker 5: counties and municipalities. You know, one of the things that
[6:34] Speaker 5: makes it so resilient is that we don't have, you know,
[6:36] Speaker 5: a single national election infrastructure that could be compromised or
[6:41] Speaker 5: you know, have some problem with it that would affect everybody.
[6:43] Speaker 5: You know, every state runs its elections slightly differently, so
[6:46] Speaker 5: that's a lot of different structures and different systems where
[6:51] Speaker 5: there could be a technological issue, or a data entry problem,
[6:53] Speaker 5: or just a human mistake. But that's why state officials
[6:56] Speaker 5: like you know, the governor and in many places the
[6:59] Speaker 5: Secretary of State, the attorney general have oversight authorlorady and
[7:02] Speaker 5: are looking into things like this and you know, being
[7:04] Speaker 5: transparent about you know, where the system falls short and
[7:08] Speaker 5: what they're doing to fix it.
[7:09] Speaker 2: So the same software is going to be used for
[7:12] Speaker 2: the mid terms because they can't switch it over fast enough.
[7:16] Speaker 2: So that leads me to believe that if there's a
[7:20] Speaker 2: result in New Jersey that the Trump administration doesn't like,
[7:24] Speaker 2: that they'll use this to try to attack the results.
[7:27] Speaker 5: I'm sure that no matter what New Jersey officials say
[7:30] Speaker 5: or do, that the Trump administration is going to point
[7:33] Speaker 5: to this incident and you know, claim that New Jersey's
[7:37] Speaker 5: results can't be trusted. But that's why New Jersey, like
[7:40] Speaker 5: every state, has audits and recounts and you know, hand
[7:45] Speaker 5: marked paper ballots that can be checked after the fact.
[7:48] Speaker 5: And you know, that's why they're making this announcement now
[7:50] Speaker 5: and removing these ineligible individuals from the roles so that
[7:54] Speaker 5: this can't happen again in November. But regardless of what
[7:58] Speaker 5: New Jersey does, I expect the White House to use
[8:00] Speaker 5: this as ammunition, not just in you know, any claims
[8:04] Speaker 5: that they make about the results in November, but also
[8:06] Speaker 5: in their push to pass the Save America Act and
[8:08] Speaker 5: to enable federal agencies to have a bigger role or
[8:14] Speaker 5: take control of certain election administration functions despite their lack
[8:17] Speaker 5: of legal authority to do that.
[8:20] Speaker 2: I mean, it doesn't seem likely that DA just got
[8:24] Speaker 2: the numbers out of thin air. Might some of them
[8:28] Speaker 2: be reliable?
[8:29] Speaker 5: If you look at the numbers Secretary Mullen, you know,
[8:32] Speaker 5: released last week on Friday, and you compare not just
[8:36] Speaker 5: these New Jersey numbers, but you know, DHS and the
[8:40] Speaker 5: White House released data about a number of states who
[8:42] Speaker 5: have voluntarily shared their data with the federal government and
[8:47] Speaker 5: the White House, and DHS's numbers for states like Texas
[8:49] Speaker 5: and Louisiana are incredibly inflated compared to what those states
[8:54] Speaker 5: themselves are reporting. And even Texas reported lower numbers than
[8:58] Speaker 5: the White House did about you know, suspected non citizens
[9:01] Speaker 5: on their roles and then had to backtrack because they
[9:04] Speaker 5: had wrongfully identified naturalized citizens as being ineligible. So whenever
[9:11] Speaker 5: a federal or state agency makes you know, inflated claims
[9:16] Speaker 5: about huge numbers in the tens of thousands of you know,
[9:19] Speaker 5: ineligible registrants, I think we have to look at those
[9:22] Speaker 5: with some skepticism because almost inevitably they get walked back,
[9:26] Speaker 5: And especially in the case of DHS, there's just nothing
[9:32] Speaker 5: that they have given us in terms of where they
[9:34] Speaker 5: got their data, what methodology they used. We don't know
[9:37] Speaker 5: where those numbers came from. They could have pulled them
[9:39] Speaker 5: out of a hat. So if we're going to take
[9:40] Speaker 5: those numbers seriously, I think we need a lot more
[9:43] Speaker 5: information from DHS about how they came up with them.
[9:46] Speaker 2: Coming up next, more about the threats against election officials
[9:50] Speaker 2: and the Department of Justice is zero to sixteen in
[9:54] Speaker 2: its attempts to get unredacted data roles. This is Bloomberg.
[10:00] Speaker 2: Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen advanced an unsubstantiated claim
[10:06] Speaker 2: that the federal government has found two hundred and fifty
[10:09] Speaker 2: thousand non citizen voters on the roles in several states.
[10:14] Speaker 2: Mullen pledged to aggressively monitor public voter lists to pursue
[10:19] Speaker 2: potential voter fraud cases before and after the twenty twenty
[10:23] Speaker 2: sixth election. He also threatened state officials who don't go
[10:27] Speaker 2: along with the administration's election security demands.
[10:31] Speaker 4: If the election officials once we gave them the information
[10:35] Speaker 4: they need to secure their elections and they chose not to,
[10:40] Speaker 4: then those individuals can also be held accountable by fines,
[10:45] Speaker 4: by penalties, and even, depending on how far it goes,
[10:48] Speaker 4: prison time.
[10:49] Speaker 2: What does Mullen want the states to do? Is he
[10:53] Speaker 2: demanding that they put their voter rolls through the federal database, which,
[10:58] Speaker 2: by the way, using the program was recently blocked by
[11:02] Speaker 2: a federal judge over concerns about privacy and wrongful purges
[11:09] Speaker 2: of eligible voters.
[11:11] Speaker 5: That's a good question. DHS sent letters to these four states,
[11:14] Speaker 5: and those letters were pretty tame. They said, you know,
[11:18] Speaker 5: DHS had done an analysis and identified suspected, you know,
[11:22] Speaker 5: potential non citizens on the rules. Reminded the states that
[11:25] Speaker 5: you know, federal law requires them to maintain accurate voter
[11:28] Speaker 5: rules and that non citizens are prohibited from voting in
[11:31] Speaker 5: US elections. But then otherwise just kind of said, you know,
[11:34] Speaker 5: DHS is ready to help you if you need it.
[11:36] Speaker 5: The letters were very, very tame. His remarks on Friday
[11:40] Speaker 5: were not. And you know, in his speech he did
[11:44] Speaker 5: both say that DHS is directing the states to remove
[11:47] Speaker 5: all of those individuals from the rules, which number one,
[11:50] Speaker 5: DHS doesn't have the authority to direct states to do
[11:53] Speaker 5: anything with their voter rules. And number two, the states
[11:56] Speaker 5: can't just take thousands of people off the rules because
[11:58] Speaker 5: somebody in the federal government them to. There's a process
[12:01] Speaker 5: that they have to go through under both state and
[12:03] Speaker 5: federal laws to verify those claims. They have to do
[12:07] Speaker 5: their due diligence, they have to check. I imagine that
[12:10] Speaker 5: the states will they will take this seriously. But Secretary
[12:13] Speaker 5: Mullen also, much like Assistant Attorney General Harmy Dillon did
[12:17] Speaker 5: a couple of weeks ago, threatened election officials and said
[12:20] Speaker 5: that they'll be prosecuted if they don't cooperate with the
[12:23] Speaker 5: federal government. And I don't think that's an empty threat.
[12:26] Speaker 5: I think that this administration is very willing to lean
[12:31] Speaker 5: on its criminal enforcement authority and go after election officials
[12:35] Speaker 5: if they don't go along with the administration's policy priorities
[12:40] Speaker 5: when it comes to elections. Fortunately, I don't think that
[12:43] Speaker 5: those charges would hold up, and election officials have you know,
[12:47] Speaker 5: very good counsel kind of across the board have litigated
[12:49] Speaker 5: against a lot of them. They know what they're doing.
[12:52] Speaker 5: But it is alarming when senior officials in the federal
[12:55] Speaker 5: government are threatening state and local election officials with criminal prosecution.
[13:00] Speaker 5: You know, it's almost like it's like watching a mob movie.
[13:03] Speaker 5: Do what we want or else. And that's just not
[13:07] Speaker 5: the relationship that we have seen between the federal government
[13:10] Speaker 5: and the states in the past when it comes to elections.
[13:12] Speaker 5: And you know, the federal government typically provides resources and
[13:16] Speaker 5: support and assistants to state and local election officials in
[13:19] Speaker 5: carrying out their responsibilities. But this kind of aggressive posture
[13:22] Speaker 5: towards election officials is really something new.
[13:27] Speaker 2: As you mentioned, the Justice Department sent letters warning election
[13:31] Speaker 2: officials in all fifty states, you know, threatening criminal prosecution.
[13:36] Speaker 2: If election officials count any ballots cast by non citizens,
[13:42] Speaker 2: what law would they prosecute them under.
[13:45] Speaker 5: I mean, there is a federal statute that says that
[13:47] Speaker 5: only US citizens can vote in federal elections. I'm not
[13:50] Speaker 5: sure that that statute attaches liability to the chief election
[13:53] Speaker 5: official of a state. You know, that's the statute that
[13:56] Speaker 5: DJ would use to prosecute an individual who while ineligible,
[14:01] Speaker 5: And you know, I think that that is reflected in
[14:04] Speaker 5: the responses that DOJ got from some of the state
[14:07] Speaker 5: election officials, including several Republicans, who did not take kindly
[14:13] Speaker 5: to this, you know, explicit threat from the Justice Department.
[14:17] Speaker 5: The Secretary of State of Idaho sent a pretty harsh
[14:22] Speaker 5: response to the Department of Justice that was made public
[14:25] Speaker 5: that basically said, don't bully us. We know what the
[14:28] Speaker 5: laws are. It is our job to enforce them. It
[14:31] Speaker 5: is our job to carry them out. This is not
[14:33] Speaker 5: the way to you get what you want, and this
[14:36] Speaker 5: is not how a partnership between government officials is supposed
[14:39] Speaker 5: to work. The Lieutenant Governor of Utah, who is the
[14:41] Speaker 5: chief election official for that state, similarly had a very
[14:45] Speaker 5: kind of angry public response to the Department of Justice
[14:49] Speaker 5: sending these threatening letters out, you know, four months out
[14:52] Speaker 5: from an election that were not tied to any sort
[14:55] Speaker 5: of evidence or any specific investigation. It was the same
[14:59] Speaker 5: letter that went out to every state, and so, you know.
[15:02] Speaker 1: It's just.
[15:04] Speaker 5: It's just political messaging. Really, it's the administration trying to
[15:07] Speaker 5: show that they are being tough on this issue. It's
[15:10] Speaker 5: you know, people in DOJ and DHS trying to signal
[15:13] Speaker 5: to the president that they are taking it seriously. And
[15:16] Speaker 5: it's really having an effect on the state and local
[15:19] Speaker 5: election officials. Who are the ones being put on the
[15:21] Speaker 5: chopping block here, and they're the ones doing all the work.
[15:23] Speaker 5: They're the ones maintaining clean voter rules and you know,
[15:26] Speaker 5: running elections with no help from the federal government and
[15:29] Speaker 5: in fact now just just threats and bullying.
[15:32] Speaker 2: I have to say, though, prosecuting election officials because a
[15:37] Speaker 2: non citizen votes sounds like an empty threat, because that
[15:43] Speaker 2: would be such a difficult prosecution. Of course, the Trump
[15:47] Speaker 2: administration has been known to file charges even when the
[15:51] Speaker 2: proof is weak.
[15:52] Speaker 5: I think you're probably right, But you know, if they
[15:55] Speaker 5: do that, you know, election officials jobs don't end on
[15:58] Speaker 5: election day, they have lots of responsibilities in the weeks
[16:01] Speaker 5: and months that follow to canvass the results, to tabulate
[16:05] Speaker 5: the results, They have to do audits and recounts and
[16:08] Speaker 5: certify and all of that stuff. And even if they
[16:11] Speaker 5: are baseless charges, it takes a lot of time and
[16:14] Speaker 5: a lot of resources to defend against prosecution by the
[16:17] Speaker 5: federal government. And election officials are already spread very thin
[16:23] Speaker 5: as far as resources are concerned, just to do their jobs,
[16:26] Speaker 5: just to run the elections. And you know, if you're
[16:29] Speaker 5: a secretary of state, or even worse, if you are
[16:31] Speaker 5: a county election official with limited resources and you are
[16:35] Speaker 5: trying to complete your legal obligations to canvas and tabulate
[16:39] Speaker 5: and certify election results, and then all of a sudden,
[16:43] Speaker 5: you have to go to a federal courthouse to you know,
[16:46] Speaker 5: to an arraignment because DJ has filed criminal charges against you.
[16:49] Speaker 5: Even if those charges are ultimately dismissed a few months later,
[16:53] Speaker 5: it's a huge resource drain. It's incredibly disruptive to the
[16:56] Speaker 5: administration of the election and it's you know, emotionally and
[17:00] Speaker 5: physically taxing for election officials who haven't done anything wrong.
[17:03] Speaker 5: So even if ultimately the threats are empty, and DJ
[17:06] Speaker 5: is not able to convict anybody of anything, even just
[17:10] Speaker 5: the threat of prosecution or charges that maybe ultimately get dropped.
[17:15] Speaker 5: That puts a huge strain on election officials, on the
[17:18] Speaker 5: election system. And I worry that DJ is trying, you know,
[17:23] Speaker 5: along with the DHS and the White House, to undermine
[17:27] Speaker 5: the election system, both by putting this pressure on election
[17:30] Speaker 5: officials and by trying to convince the public of their
[17:34] Speaker 5: imagined problems with how our elections are run in an
[17:37] Speaker 5: effort to make it easier for them to overturn the
[17:40] Speaker 5: results if they don't like them.
[17:41] Speaker 2: So, do you think this would be then a repeat
[17:44] Speaker 2: of twenty twenty where Trump and his allies went to
[17:48] Speaker 2: court and claim the election was fraudulent or do you
[17:53] Speaker 2: anticipate something different or even worse.
[17:57] Speaker 5: It's hard to say, and I don't want to speculate
[17:59] Speaker 5: too much because I don't want to just like spin out.
[18:02] Speaker 5: You know, every single possibility in a way that you
[18:05] Speaker 5: know might might scare people with things that are not realistic.
[18:08] Speaker 5: But I think the big difference between now and twenty
[18:11] Speaker 5: twenty is that, you know, during the twenty twenty election,
[18:15] Speaker 5: most if not all, of the challenges to the results
[18:18] Speaker 5: came from outside of the government. It was the campaign
[18:22] Speaker 5: side of things that was really kind of driving the
[18:25] Speaker 5: car there, because you had people like Bill Barr, you know,
[18:30] Speaker 5: who was a loyal foot soldier in the Trump administration
[18:33] Speaker 5: for much much of his tenure, but who drew the
[18:36] Speaker 5: line at you know, getting the Justice Department involved in
[18:40] Speaker 5: challenging the results with no evidence. I don't think Todd
[18:43] Speaker 5: Blanche would have the same hesitations. I don't think that
[18:47] Speaker 5: cash Patel is going to be a guard rail here
[18:51] Speaker 5: and you know, keep the FBI from getting involved in
[18:55] Speaker 5: pursuing whatever false claims the president wants to pursue. Donald
[18:59] Speaker 5: Trump has much more unified control of his party, of
[19:04] Speaker 5: his government now than he did in twenty twenty. And
[19:07] Speaker 5: we've already seen the law enforcement arms of the federal government,
[19:11] Speaker 5: both through dj and DHS, already leaning on election officials
[19:15] Speaker 5: and trying to get themselves involved in election administration in
[19:19] Speaker 5: ways that they didn't during the first Trump term. He's
[19:21] Speaker 5: issued executive orders about elections this time around, and he
[19:24] Speaker 5: didn't do that last time. You know, those orders have
[19:27] Speaker 5: been largely blocked by the courts. But he's doing a
[19:30] Speaker 5: lot more with different arms of the federal government already.
[19:34] Speaker 5: So you know, if the midterms don't go his way
[19:37] Speaker 5: or his party's way, I expect that there'll be a
[19:40] Speaker 5: lot of spaghetti thrown at the wall. I think he's
[19:42] Speaker 5: going to try, you know, and pull every lever at
[19:44] Speaker 5: his disposal to change those results. And the reason he's
[19:47] Speaker 5: doing that is ultimately he doesn't have any power to
[19:50] Speaker 5: decide how the midterms go. That is up to the voters,
[19:53] Speaker 5: and so you know, he's getting increasingly desperate. I think
[19:57] Speaker 5: the speech and the declassification of documents and everything that's
[20:00] Speaker 5: happened in the last week is proof of that. But
[20:02] Speaker 5: you know, ultimately it is going to be up to
[20:05] Speaker 5: up to voters, up to the public, up to you know,
[20:08] Speaker 5: organizations like Campaign Legal Center who are litigating these issues
[20:12] Speaker 5: to ensure that the will of the voters ultimately prevails
[20:16] Speaker 5: in November, no matter which way it goes.
[20:18] Speaker 2: Let's turn now to the Department of Justice's quest to
[20:23] Speaker 2: get states to hand over unredacted voter roles. Doj is
[20:30] Speaker 2: oh in sixteen in that quest, So sixteen consecutive losses
[20:36] Speaker 2: in court handed to them by both Democratic and Republican appointees.
[20:43] Speaker 2: Why does the Justice Department want these unredacted voter roles.
[20:47] Speaker 5: It's a good question, because the Justice Department doesn't really
[20:51] Speaker 5: have a role when it comes to voter registration. You know,
[20:56] Speaker 5: I think that it has become apparent over the last
[21:00] Speaker 5: several months, year and a half that the administration is
[21:05] Speaker 5: engaged in an increasingly desperate attempt to manufacture some kind
[21:12] Speaker 5: of evidence to support the president's false claims about elections.
[21:15] Speaker 5: And the folks that DOJ are either convinced or just
[21:20] Speaker 5: trying to make the president happy, but they're convinced that
[21:23] Speaker 5: they will be able to find evidence of illegal registrations
[21:28] Speaker 5: or non citizens on the rules if they can just
[21:30] Speaker 5: get their hands on the state's unredacted voter files and
[21:34] Speaker 5: waive some kind of magic wand to investigate all of
[21:37] Speaker 5: those millions of voters. But unfortunately for them, the federal
[21:41] Speaker 5: government has no legal authorization to obtain those files or
[21:45] Speaker 5: do anything with them. And so when thirty states and
[21:48] Speaker 5: DC refused to turn over their citizens private data to
[21:52] Speaker 5: the federal government, DOJ sued. They filed thirty one lawsuits
[21:56] Speaker 5: and I think as of this morning they have lost
[21:59] Speaker 5: sixteen of those and one zero.
[22:01] Speaker 2: Yes, So that's sixteen consecutive losses in court, and that
[22:07] Speaker 2: was handed down by both Democratic and Republican appointed judges,
[22:11] Speaker 2: a bad streak and one loss at the Sixth Circuit.
[22:14] Speaker 2: So what are the reasons that judges across the ideological
[22:18] Speaker 2: spectrum are turning DOJ down.
[22:21] Speaker 5: Well, so there's a few different rationales that the judges
[22:23] Speaker 5: are offering. But you're right that it has been consistent
[22:27] Speaker 5: in all of the cases that have reached your decision
[22:29] Speaker 5: so far from judges from across the ideological spectrum, including
[22:33] Speaker 5: judges appointed by Donald Trump. But you know, DJ is
[22:36] Speaker 5: claiming that it needs the full unredacted voter files to
[22:42] Speaker 5: enforce either the Civil Rights Act or the Help America
[22:45] Speaker 5: Vote Act, you know, two federal statutes that that DOJ
[22:47] Speaker 5: does have the responsibility to enforce. But the judges are just.
[22:50] Speaker 1: Not buying it.
[22:52] Speaker 5: You know, DOJ is giving conflicting rationales in court that
[22:57] Speaker 5: are inconsistent with the purpose of the statute and their
[23:01] Speaker 5: basis for the request. These requests are highly unusual. You know,
[23:04] Speaker 5: DJ has enforced these statutes for decades without making these
[23:08] Speaker 5: kinds of requests. And it's clear based on other kind
[23:12] Speaker 5: of out of court statements that DOJ leaders and folks
[23:14] Speaker 5: at DHS have made that the real purpose for DOJ
[23:18] Speaker 5: seeking this information is to not just attempt to verify
[23:24] Speaker 5: the citizenship of voter registrants, which is again not DOJ's job,
[23:28] Speaker 5: but also to facilitate immigration enforcement. And DOJ just does
[23:32] Speaker 5: not have the legal authority to demand this data from
[23:37] Speaker 5: the States and certainly doesn't have the legal authority to
[23:41] Speaker 5: do what they are planning to do with it.
[23:45] Speaker 2: So in that Sixth Circuit decision, the Sixth Circuit has
[23:49] Speaker 2: a conservative majority. It was two to one with the
[23:52] Speaker 2: dissenting judge at Trump appoint d. The DOJ is asking
[23:56] Speaker 2: for rehearing by the full sixth Circuit, where the balance
[24:01] Speaker 2: will be Republican appointees. I assume, so my things change
[24:07] Speaker 2: when the full sixth Circuit here's the case.
[24:10] Speaker 5: It's certainly possible. And despite their you know, sixteen district
[24:14] Speaker 5: court losses, they've also appealed many of those to other
[24:18] Speaker 5: circuit courts, So, you know, the first, the fourth, the seventh,
[24:21] Speaker 5: the ninth circuit courts across the country are now hearing
[24:23] Speaker 5: these appeals. But I think that the Trump administration is
[24:28] Speaker 5: really banking on you know, conservative circuit courts seeing things
[24:32] Speaker 5: their way. I don't know that that's a really safe bet,
[24:36] Speaker 5: given how many conservative district court judges have really strongly
[24:39] Speaker 5: ruled against them. You know, this isn't the sort of ideological,
[24:45] Speaker 5: really politically charged sort of issue that you know, we've
[24:49] Speaker 5: sometimes seen judges break across partisan lines on. It's been
[24:52] Speaker 5: across the board, just resounding losses for the Justice Department,
[24:56] Speaker 5: because the statutes are very clear. It's not just DOOG,
[25:00] Speaker 5: you know, DHS, the White House. There are so many
[25:04] Speaker 5: arms of the federal government that are attempting to insert
[25:07] Speaker 5: themselves into election administration in ways that we've really never
[25:13] Speaker 5: seen before. And I think especially you know, conservative minded
[25:18] Speaker 5: judges who maybe are more inclined to favor small government
[25:23] Speaker 5: or be skeptical of federal overreach are looking at these
[25:27] Speaker 5: actions with a lot of skepticism because it really is
[25:31] Speaker 5: so far outside what the traditional role of the federal
[25:34] Speaker 5: government in elections is and what very limited authorities DJ
[25:39] Speaker 5: has been given by Congress in this area.
[25:41] Speaker 2: They have gotten voter roles from some Republicans led states, right.
[25:46] Speaker 5: That's right. There are several states about fifteen or sixteen
[25:49] Speaker 5: maybe who did voluntarily turn over their full unredacted voter
[25:54] Speaker 5: files so that the federal government could run them through
[25:58] Speaker 5: the SAVE system, which is a program within DHS that
[26:02] Speaker 5: used to be fairly limited. It was limited really to
[26:04] Speaker 5: verifying the immigration status of folks who were seeking to
[26:09] Speaker 5: apply for federal benefits. The federal government under the second
[26:12] Speaker 5: Trump administration has radically modified that system to introduce a
[26:17] Speaker 5: whole bunch of different data sources about non immigrants from
[26:21] Speaker 5: you know, the Social Security Administration, from uscis, from the
[26:24] Speaker 5: State Department, in an effort to try and build a
[26:28] Speaker 5: kind of national citizenship registry that they can then use
[26:33] Speaker 5: for things like verifying voter eligibility or immigration enforcement or
[26:39] Speaker 5: whatever purpose they want. That effort has also been blocked
[26:42] Speaker 5: by federal courts. You know, there's an injunction from a
[26:44] Speaker 5: court in DC that found that DHS was not authorized
[26:48] Speaker 5: to make all of these changes to the SAFE system,
[26:51] Speaker 5: which is of course directed by Congress. They violated the
[26:54] Speaker 5: Federal Privacy Act by taking all of these data sources
[26:59] Speaker 5: from other arms of the federal government and using them
[27:01] Speaker 5: for purposes that they were not authorized to use them for,
[27:04] Speaker 5: or sharing them with agencies who were not authorized to
[27:07] Speaker 5: have that data. And so, you know, it's again, it's
[27:10] Speaker 5: another example of really shocking overreach by the federal government
[27:16] Speaker 5: inserting itself into the voter registration and election administration process
[27:23] Speaker 5: that is, you know, entirely handled by state and local governments.
[27:28] Speaker 5: The federal government doesn't run our elections. They don't you know,
[27:31] Speaker 5: they don't check our voter rules, you know. So it's
[27:33] Speaker 5: it's really, I think part of a broader effort by
[27:36] Speaker 5: the Trump administration to cast doubt on the integrity of
[27:40] Speaker 5: our elections, to find or manufacture evidence in support of
[27:46] Speaker 5: the conspiracy theories threat spread by the president and his
[27:49] Speaker 5: allies about the twenty twenty election and any other election
[27:53] Speaker 5: that he or his allies lose. And you know, fortunately,
[27:58] Speaker 5: the courts are really kind of holding the line and
[28:02] Speaker 5: saying no, doj and dhs. You can't just build election
[28:07] Speaker 5: administration infrastructure without congressional authorization. The Constitution gives the responsibility
[28:13] Speaker 5: to run elections to the states unless Congress passes a bill,
[28:17] Speaker 5: and they haven't done that.
[28:19] Speaker 2: Thanks so much for sharing your insights with us. Jonathan.
[28:22] Speaker 2: That's Jonathan Diaz, director of voting Advocacy and Partnerships at
[28:26] Speaker 2: the Campaign Legal Center. Coming up next on the Bloomberg
[28:29] Speaker 2: Law show the Third Circuit strikes down New Jersey's assault
[28:34] Speaker 2: weapons ban, sending a circuit split to the Supreme Court.
[28:38] Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. The Court
[28:43] Speaker 2: of Appeals for the Third Circuit struck down New Jersey's
[28:47] Speaker 2: assault rifle ban, ruling that the state can't stop residents
[28:51] Speaker 2: from purchasing semi automatic rifles and magazines that hold more
[28:56] Speaker 2: than ten rounds of ammunition. The ruling conflicts with decisions
[29:01] Speaker 2: from other federal circuits that upheld assault rifle bands in
[29:05] Speaker 2: other states. Joining me is Bloomberg Law Senior correspondent Alex Ebert.
[29:10] Speaker 2: Alex tell us about the Third Circuits reasoning and striking
[29:14] Speaker 2: down this law.
[29:16] Speaker 6: The Third Circuit here steps into the breach created after
[29:20] Speaker 6: we've had Heller, Bruin, Raheemi, and now Wolford to say,
[29:25] Speaker 6: where is the Supreme Court going here and how would.
[29:27] Speaker 1: They decide this case?
[29:29] Speaker 6: And they say, like Heller, because these firearms are commonly
[29:34] Speaker 6: used for a lawful purpose self protection, hunting, etc. Then
[29:40] Speaker 6: they fall under protection of the Second Amendment and states
[29:42] Speaker 6: can't ban their use. You know, we're talking here about
[29:46] Speaker 6: one of the most popular firearms in the country. They're ubiquitous.
[29:51] Speaker 6: Millions of these things are owned, and so the question
[29:54] Speaker 6: that these judges tried to tackle is looking at Heller
[29:58] Speaker 6: because of the popularity here and the fact that the
[30:01] Speaker 6: Supreme Court has told us we need to look for
[30:03] Speaker 6: historic analogs, how do we square those things and do
[30:08] Speaker 6: we stop New Jerseyans for purchasing one of the most
[30:11] Speaker 6: common popular firearms in the country.
[30:13] Speaker 2: And so they couldn't find any historical analogs.
[30:17] Speaker 6: Or they historical analog piece of it was really fraught
[30:21] Speaker 6: and complex. We've had a couple of oral arguments in
[30:24] Speaker 6: this case. In it New Jersey has pointed to historic
[30:28] Speaker 6: analogs referring to weapons like bowie knives, slung shots, which
[30:32] Speaker 6: are weapons that were used mainly by sailors, and other
[30:36] Speaker 6: weapons that were banned in part or restricted greatly, especially
[30:41] Speaker 6: around the time of reconstruction in the eighteen sixties. But
[30:45] Speaker 6: the majority here they're going back to seventeen ninety one
[30:49] Speaker 6: and they're saying around the time of the founding, these
[30:52] Speaker 6: analogs matter more and we didn't see those kind of bands.
[30:57] Speaker 2: This was a decision by the full third zon so
[31:01] Speaker 2: On Bank. It was ten to five. Is this circuit
[31:05] Speaker 2: more conservative or more liberal?
[31:08] Speaker 6: The third Circuit has a slight tip toward conservative appointed judges.
[31:14] Speaker 6: This happened just recently with the appointment of Emil Beauvet
[31:19] Speaker 6: and Mascot, two recent Trump appointees, and so they have
[31:22] Speaker 6: slightly tipped the court toward a conservative bent. Once that's happened,
[31:27] Speaker 6: we've seen them take en banc cases like this one
[31:31] Speaker 6: to move the law in a direction that comports with
[31:34] Speaker 6: how these judges see it.
[31:35] Speaker 2: This came to an o bank hearing in a weird way.
[31:39] Speaker 2: So normally you have a three judge panel making a
[31:42] Speaker 2: decision and then a losing party may request an on
[31:47] Speaker 2: bank hearing. But here they just scrapped a decision by
[31:50] Speaker 2: the three judge panel.
[31:52] Speaker 1: They scrapped it, that's right.
[31:53] Speaker 6: They did it before a decision was issued, which is uncommon.
[31:58] Speaker 6: This might be because we had a panel decision in
[32:02] Speaker 6: sensitive places another issue regarding New Jersey regulation of where
[32:06] Speaker 6: you can take your firearms and especially on private property
[32:10] Speaker 6: where safety is an issue, and the judges here decided
[32:14] Speaker 6: we're going to take this firearm ban and magazine ban.
[32:18] Speaker 6: We're going to take an on bank and have it
[32:19] Speaker 6: heard by the whole court before the panel can even
[32:21] Speaker 6: issue a decision.
[32:23] Speaker 2: That is unusual, to say the least, tell us about
[32:27] Speaker 2: the dissenting opinion.
[32:29] Speaker 6: The split we have here is really interesting because we
[32:31] Speaker 6: have some liberal judges or those appointed by liberal presidents
[32:36] Speaker 6: in the majority, and we have a conservative judge in
[32:39] Speaker 6: the Descent. And the Descent says here, listen, you're creating
[32:43] Speaker 6: what amounts to a popularity test. You're saying that if
[32:48] Speaker 6: gun owners and the gun industry can sell and people
[32:53] Speaker 6: purchase something ahead of where states can regulate it, then
[32:57] Speaker 6: that imports a right to own this, regardless of how
[33:01] Speaker 6: dangerous something might be. That's the big contention that you'll
[33:04] Speaker 6: hear from folks that are in favor of restricting right.
[33:08] Speaker 6: You can't just decide that something is protected because it's popular,
[33:12] Speaker 6: or you can't decide something's unprotected because it's unpopular. That's
[33:16] Speaker 6: the thrust of what the Descent is saying. But they're
[33:19] Speaker 6: also saying, look at these analogs from the eighteen sixties,
[33:24] Speaker 6: they're going to give you some sort of close historic
[33:28] Speaker 6: precedent for states regulating in this area.
[33:31] Speaker 2: This is the first time a federal appeals court has
[33:34] Speaker 2: struck down a State's assault weapons ban.
[33:37] Speaker 1: Right.
[33:38] Speaker 2: Other circuits have ruled on this, Yes.
[33:40] Speaker 6: Other circuits have ruled on it. It is the first
[33:43] Speaker 6: one against the dog pile that we've seen in other circuits,
[33:47] Speaker 6: including opinions with judges on them that have been appointed
[33:51] Speaker 6: by President Trump. And the folks I've spoken with on
[33:55] Speaker 6: background that are familiar with this litigation from the firearm
[33:58] Speaker 6: rights perspective, they're really hopeful that this could tee up
[34:02] Speaker 6: a strong argument before the US Supreme Court, who is
[34:05] Speaker 6: going to be taking this issue on an assault rifle
[34:08] Speaker 6: ban in the next term.
[34:10] Speaker 1: They see a lot.
[34:10] Speaker 6: Of promise in this idea of something being considered dangerous
[34:16] Speaker 6: and unusual being tied to whether or not as popular,
[34:20] Speaker 6: and giving power to the people to choose what they
[34:23] Speaker 6: see they need for self defense. So they're really encouraged
[34:27] Speaker 6: by this ruling, and they're also frankly really encouraged by
[34:31] Speaker 6: a Biden appointee being the person to write a decision
[34:35] Speaker 6: saying we're going to look for precedent in the seventeen
[34:39] Speaker 6: nineties instead of the eighteen sixties, where you just have
[34:42] Speaker 6: a lot less regulation of firearms because these sort of
[34:46] Speaker 6: weapons were not as concerning and they were really essential
[34:50] Speaker 6: to fighting off the British.
[34:52] Speaker 2: The Supreme Court agreed to hear kapeals of rulings upholding
[34:57] Speaker 2: assault rifle bands in Illinois and can even though there
[35:01] Speaker 2: was no split in the circuits at that point.
[35:04] Speaker 6: That's correct. Even though there was no split in the
[35:06] Speaker 6: circuits at that point. And you hear folks on background
[35:10] Speaker 6: from the liberal perspective who advocate for more restriction of
[35:14] Speaker 6: the guns sort of concerned that the Third Circuit would
[35:18] Speaker 6: go into this gap here created by the Supreme Court
[35:22] Speaker 6: and make a decision when perhaps they wouldn't have to
[35:25] Speaker 6: and they could have waited. But you also have to
[35:28] Speaker 6: recognize that the Supreme Court at this point hasn't taken
[35:31] Speaker 6: on the high capacity magazine question, so whether or not
[35:34] Speaker 6: you can have you know, magazines that have ten or
[35:37] Speaker 6: more bullets or you know, dozens more in some cases.
[35:40] Speaker 6: And so the Third Circuit here is pushing into something
[35:43] Speaker 6: that the Supreme Court may not get to in their
[35:47] Speaker 6: case this year.
[35:48] Speaker 2: Why would they take that up unless there are at
[35:50] Speaker 2: least four votes who want to reverse those decisions, because
[35:54] Speaker 2: otherwise they would just leave the decisions in place until
[35:57] Speaker 2: there is a circuit split. But I've been proven wrong before,
[36:01] Speaker 2: and so how many states about have similar regulations?
[36:06] Speaker 6: Yeah, so there's about a dozen states that have assault
[36:10] Speaker 6: rifle bands and a few more that have high capacity
[36:14] Speaker 6: magazine bands. And so the tricky thing here is that
[36:18] Speaker 6: these things are extremely common June, and folks on the
[36:21] Speaker 6: left or the right, or you know, restriction and rights
[36:25] Speaker 6: advocacy will agree these are incredibly common weapons and incredibly
[36:30] Speaker 6: common tools. So you know, you're going to see little
[36:33] Speaker 6: girls in Wisconsin where I'm from, using them for hunting, right,
[36:37] Speaker 6: They're very common. And so you know, part of the
[36:39] Speaker 6: argument is can these states restrict and do they have
[36:43] Speaker 6: the right to while the rest of the country doesn't
[36:46] Speaker 6: want to?
[36:47] Speaker 1: And does the court step in?
[36:48] Speaker 2: And at what point and why did they remand the
[36:51] Speaker 2: case back to the district court.
[36:53] Speaker 6: So New Jersey's law here is somewhat expansive from the
[36:58] Speaker 6: perspective of gun rights advocates. It covers, you know, different
[37:04] Speaker 6: features on weapons and some shotguns and things like that,
[37:08] Speaker 6: certain things that make them more likely or able to
[37:11] Speaker 6: be used in mass shootings, which is what New Jersey
[37:14] Speaker 6: is putting its foot down and saying we want to prevent.
[37:16] Speaker 6: So from the state's perspective, they have broader categories beyond
[37:20] Speaker 6: some automatic rifles they're trying to limit access to because
[37:24] Speaker 6: they're worried about its use in gun violence. And from
[37:27] Speaker 6: the state of the gun rights advocates, they're saying, listen,
[37:30] Speaker 6: a lot of these things are really common for use
[37:33] Speaker 6: in other lawful you know, things, shooting tournaments, hunting, you
[37:38] Speaker 6: name it. Advocates in this space find this Third Circuit
[37:42] Speaker 6: decision really interesting because it touches on something they're going
[37:46] Speaker 6: to be watching Justice amy Cone and Barrett on. We
[37:49] Speaker 6: have the situation where the Chief Justice and Barrett haven't
[37:53] Speaker 6: really come down either way for or against rights to
[37:57] Speaker 6: owning assault rifles. And we also have this big question
[38:02] Speaker 6: out there about how Justice amy Coney Barrett will treat
[38:06] Speaker 6: either a lack of conflict or conflict between precedents the
[38:11] Speaker 6: states are relying on from the seventeen nineties and what
[38:15] Speaker 6: states are relying on in the eighteen sixties.
[38:17] Speaker 1: And so what.
[38:18] Speaker 6: Advocates tell me is a big question floating out there
[38:21] Speaker 6: is can states rely on restrictions when there were more restrictions,
[38:25] Speaker 6: you know, at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[38:28] Speaker 1: Enactment about guns.
[38:30] Speaker 6: If there was nothing touching on that at the time
[38:33] Speaker 6: of the founding or does that silence at the time
[38:36] Speaker 6: of the founding limit what states can rely on when
[38:39] Speaker 6: they're reaching back and saying we have a history of
[38:43] Speaker 6: regulating firearms in this way.
[38:46] Speaker 2: Have you talked to legal experts about how they think
[38:48] Speaker 2: the Supreme Court might handle this?
[38:51] Speaker 6: It is not an open and closed thing. We have,
[38:54] Speaker 6: you know, liberal advocates looking at this decision and saying
[38:58] Speaker 6: they don't see how the Supper Court could adopt exactly
[39:02] Speaker 6: this because it creates questions about, you know, when you
[39:06] Speaker 6: make a call on if something is popular, and when
[39:09] Speaker 6: you make a call on if the state could regulate it.
[39:12] Speaker 6: We also have conservative advocates hoping that the justices will
[39:16] Speaker 6: you know, lean in and consider the things that these
[39:18] Speaker 6: judges are saying in the Third Circuit because it could
[39:21] Speaker 6: give gun owners, you know, stronger latch into the law
[39:25] Speaker 6: to fight for the rights that they seek.
[39:28] Speaker 2: I think the Heller decision, instead of clarifying things, has
[39:32] Speaker 2: just made it more confusing, and ever since Teller, the
[39:36] Speaker 2: lower courts are trying to figure it all out.
[39:38] Speaker 6: When Heller came down, we have this like scrutiny regime
[39:42] Speaker 6: right and the idea of like a test as to
[39:47] Speaker 6: whether something is unusual and dangerous works in a scrutiny
[39:50] Speaker 6: regime because then it's balancing between like the rights of
[39:54] Speaker 6: the gun owners and the.
[39:55] Speaker 1: Public to protect.
[39:56] Speaker 6: But in a world where we're talking about historical analogs,
[39:59] Speaker 6: it does don't make as much sense because now that's
[40:02] Speaker 6: like living constitutionalism. It's like against the idea that you
[40:06] Speaker 6: look back in time to history, because you have these
[40:08] Speaker 6: perpetual slices in time for when guns become popular or regulated.
[40:13] Speaker 1: It's a time machine problem.
[40:16] Speaker 6: And the more I peel back this onion and the
[40:19] Speaker 6: more I talk with people, the more I'm not like
[40:21] Speaker 6: satisfied with like how you square Heller and this idea
[40:26] Speaker 6: that if something is not unusual or unusually dangerous, you
[40:31] Speaker 6: know you can have a right to it, and this
[40:33] Speaker 6: idea that there has to be a historical analog because
[40:35] Speaker 6: newly unusual and historically dangerous stuff comes up all the time.
[40:39] Speaker 1: And so I'm not satisfied. I don't see a path
[40:42] Speaker 1: forward that's easy.
[40:44] Speaker 2: I think a lot of experts on the Second Amendment
[40:47] Speaker 2: may agree with you. Alex, thanks so much. That's Bloomberg
[40:51] Speaker 2: Lawn Senior correspondent Alex Ebert

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.