Justice Department Seeks Contempt Ruling Against Immigrant Rights Group

Federal authorities have asked a judge to impose sanctions on an immigrant rights organization for questioning the accuracy of a government dataset used in a voter fraud lawsuit. The Department of Justice filed a motion in U.S. District Court seeking to refer the case for a contempt of court investigation. The agency argues that the group’s analysis was outside the scope of the legal issues before the court.

The dispute centers on data provided to the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, or CHIRLA, under court order. Chief Judge James Boasberg granted the group access to federal records containing the names of 20,000 individuals the government alleges are non-citizen voters. The access came with specific conditions. CHIRLA was required to keep the names private and use the information only to establish its legal standing in the case.

After reviewing the database, CHIRLA submitted a report to the court detailing its findings. The organization stated that 40% of the names on the Justice Department’s list did not appear on state voter rolls. The report also identified at least 22 individuals who were likely naturalized citizens. Furthermore, CHIRLA claimed the list included thousands of other actual U.S. citizens.

The Justice Department responded by asserting that the report’s focus on general inaccuracies was irrelevant to the specific plaintiffs in the lawsuit. In a court filing, the agency stated that comparisons between the government’s list and the full California voter file had no bearing on whether the particular plaintiffs had standing. The filing urged Judge Boasberg to investigate CHIRLA for potential contempt of court.

Alberto Lammers, a spokesman for the UCLA Voting Rights Project, which filed the original case, defended the group’s actions. Lammers told the Associated Press that the plaintiffs’ counsel and their experts fully complied with the court’s orders. The Voting Rights Project maintains that the analysis was a necessary part of demonstrating why the organization had the right to bring the suit.

The legal battle is unfolding in the days before the midterm election. The Justice Department has been active in litigation targeting ballots across multiple states. In California, the agency asked a district court judge to withhold 20,000 ballots based on its allegations of non-citizen voting. The judge ruled against the request, noting that withholding the ballots would disrupt the ongoing election and create a chilling effect on voters.

Similar litigation occurred in Washington state, where the Justice Department sought to withhold 400 ballots. An election official in that state found that several U.S. citizens were included on the government’s list of alleged non-citizen voters. The Justice Department’s current motion for sanctions marks a new procedural step in its effort to challenge the credibility of the group questioning its data.