DOJ Charges 28 Noncitizens in California. What About 20,000 Voter Registrations?

A 72-year-old man living in California allegedly registered to vote in 2019 by falsely declaring himself a United States citizen. According to federal prosecutors, he subsequently voted in 2020, twice in 2022, and again in the 2024 presidential election.

His name is Omar Alexander Muñoz, a Belizean national and lawful permanent resident. Prosecutors also accuse him of falsely denying his previous claims of American citizenship when completing his naturalization paperwork.

If the allegations are proven, this was not a single administrative mistake. It was repeated participation in American elections by someone who did not possess the citizenship required to vote.

Muñoz is one of 28 individuals charged by the U.S. Department of Justice on October 19, during a coordinated federal operation that has intensified the confrontation between President Donald Trump's administration and California election officials.

Eleven defendants were arrested Monday as part of Operation Protect the Vote, involving all four federal prosecutorial districts in California.

The question now extends well beyond those 28 individuals: How did people without American citizenship allegedly enter the voter-registration system, and how effectively is California verifying who is eligible to vote?

The Cases Reveal Allegations Spanning Multiple Elections

According to the Justice Department, all 28 defendants are lawful permanent residents, commonly known as green-card holders.

That distinction matters. These individuals were legally residing in the United States. They were not necessarily undocumented immigrants. However, lawful permanent residency does not confer the right to vote in federal elections.

The criminal allegations involve fraudulent voter registrations, unlawful voting, and false statements made during the naturalization process.

In another case, prosecutors accuse Camino Giles Jiménez, a Mexican national living in Kerman, California, of voting in three American elections despite knowing he was not a citizen. His most recent alleged vote was cast during California's June 2026 primary.

Other defendants allegedly registered or voted during the 2024 presidential election and later denied their previous electoral activity while applying for citizenship.

Some of the felony allegations carry maximum penalties of five years in federal prison, while certain noncitizen-voting charges carry a maximum one-year sentence.

These remain criminal accusations, not convictions. The defendants are entitled to the presumption of innocence and to have the government's evidence tested in court.

Nevertheless, the prosecutions raise an important institutional question. If federal investigators can identify individuals who allegedly voted without citizenship, what safeguards existed when those registrations were originally accepted?

The Bigger Investigation: More Than 20,000 Names

The criminal cases have emerged during a separate confrontation between California and the Trump administration.

On October 13, federal authorities provided Los Angeles County election officials with a list of more than 20,000 people whom the government considers likely noncitizens registered to vote.

Federal investigators said they analyzed voter-registration information alongside immigration-related records to identify potentially ineligible registrants.

The Justice Department requested that the affected mail-in ballots be set aside until citizenship could be verified.

California did not comply with that demand, and on October 15, the federal government filed a lawsuit seeking judicial intervention.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter emphasized that every one of the 28 newly charged defendants appears on the government's larger list.

That connection is significant. It establishes that the federal government has identified specific criminal defendants among the individuals it flagged for further examination.

What it does not establish is that all 20,000 people are noncitizens or that all of them have voted illegally.

A potential match in a government database is not the same thing as a completed investigation. Someone who was previously a permanent resident may subsequently have become a naturalized American citizen. Accurate verification must account for that possibility.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber has challenged the federal government's methodology and the deadline imposed on state officials.

Her office said it did not directly receive the federal list, while Los Angeles County received a password-protected thumb drive. California officials also questioned whether the information was sufficiently reliable to justify election-related action within 48 hours.

The disagreement has now reached federal court.

Yet the criminal cases introduce an additional dimension: the administration is no longer presenting only a statistical estimate of potentially ineligible voters. It is presenting individual criminal cases that prosecutors say are supported by evidence.

The Difference Between Verifying Identity and Verifying Citizenship

California requires people registering to vote to affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they are United States citizens.

Registration records are also checked against government identification information, including driver's license and Social Security data.

But identifying a person and establishing that person's citizenship are not necessarily the same process.

A lawful permanent resident can possess a driver's license, Social Security number, employment authorization, and other legitimate government documents without being eligible to vote.

The existence of a valid government identity does not automatically establish the constitutional and statutory eligibility required to participate in a federal election.

That distinction is central to the current investigation.

California automatically mails ballots to registered voters. Receiving a ballot does not mean someone has returned it or that it has been counted. Mail ballots undergo signature-verification procedures before being accepted.

The underlying issue is whether the registration system effectively prevents ineligible individuals from reaching that stage in the first place.

The Justice Department argues that California's safeguards are insufficient. California officials maintain that their system is secure and that widespread noncitizen voting has not been demonstrated.

With approximately 23.2 million registered voters in California, the 28 criminal cases alone do not establish a statewide pattern capable of changing election results.

They do, however, raise questions about how registrations were approved and whether warning signs were overlooked for years.

Another Major Development: Proposition 39

There is an especially important political connection that extends beyond the federal investigation.

On November 3, California voters will decide Proposition 39, a constitutional amendment addressing voter identification and citizenship verification.

The proposal would require voters casting ballots in person to present government-issued identification. Mail voters would provide the last four digits of a designated government identification number, and election officials would be required to verify that the information matches registration records.

It would also require government agencies to make efforts to verify citizenship, report verification results, and provide free voter identification cards upon request.

The proposal comes with significant financial implications. California's Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that implementation could cost tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

And the political fight surrounding the measure has already attracted substantial funding.

According to California campaign-finance records covering contributions through October 6, committees supporting Proposition 39 reported approximately $15.8 million, while committees opposing it reported approximately $29.6 million.

Combined, that represents more than $45 million in reported contributions connected to a dispute over the rules governing elections.

Why are these figures important?

Because the argument over election security is no longer confined to federal courtrooms. It is also being contested through campaign organizations, political messaging, financial contributions, and ultimately the ballots Californians will cast.

The criminal allegations announced this week arrive at precisely the moment voters are being asked to reconsider how their election system verifies eligibility.

Proposition 39 would not retroactively resolve the cases now being prosecuted. Its significance is that Californians are being asked to decide what additional safeguards should exist going forward.

Election Integrity Cannot Depend on Assurances Alone

The Justice Department's investigation is also part of a broader national enforcement effort. Federal officials said Monday that 113 people across 20 states had been charged with illegal-voting and registration-related offenses over the preceding seven weeks.

Those figures do not establish that election fraud is widespread. They do demonstrate that federal authorities are actively pursuing cases involving people accused of violating election laws.

A credible electoral system must be able to establish two things simultaneously: that every eligible American can exercise the right to vote, and that people without that right cannot unlawfully participate.

Those principles are not contradictory. They are essential to the same constitutional system.

For California, the immediate questions are straightforward. How many of the government's 20,000 flagged registrations are genuinely ineligible? What evidence supports those determinations? How many ballots, if any, were actually cast by ineligible individuals? And what changes would prevent similar problems without wrongly rejecting legitimate American voters?

The coming legal proceedings should help determine the answers.

But the larger principle reaches every state in America.

The right to vote is one of the defining privileges and responsibilities of American citizenship. It deserves more than political assurances, unsupported allegations, or bureaucratic complacency.

On November 3, millions of Americans will make decisions about the direction of their country. They deserve an electoral process whose integrity can be demonstrated through evidence, accountability, and lawful verification.

Election integrity is not merely about counting ballots correctly. It begins with ensuring that every ballot counted belongs to someone legally entitled to cast it.