California Election Nightmare - Gavin Newsom Is DONE After What Investigators Just Found

California Election Nightmare - Gavin Newsom Is DONE After What Investigators Just Found
Posted July 27, 2026THE CRISIS OF UNCOUNTED VOTES: NEARLY 150,000 CALIFORNIA MAIL BALLOTS REJECTED IN PRIMARY AMID U.S. POSTAL SERVICE SCRUTINY

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — July 2026 — In an electoral system designed with some of the most expansive accessibility frameworks in the nation, a staggering and alarming administrative breakdown has captured the attention of voting rights experts, state legislators, and federal investigators alike. Election officials across California are urgently examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were decisively rejected and left uncounted during the state’s high-stakes June primary election.
The sharp spike in discarded ballots comes despite years of aggressive legislative reforms, multi-million-dollar voter education campaigns, and structural adaptations enacted specifically to streamline participation and ensure that every eligible voice is captured. Instead, the numbers reveal a troubling vulnerability in the state's sprawling vote-by-mail apparatus—one where thousands of citizens are systematically disenfranchised not by choice, but by logistical bottlenecks, shifting postal protocols, and last-minute voter behavior.
According to comprehensive data compiled and released by the California Secretary of State’s office, exactly 148,241 mail-in ballots were thrown out during the June primary. This translates to a statewide rejection rate of 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
To contextualize the scale of this failure, the figures represent a significant and worrying jump from previous election cycles. During the 2024 primary, 108,982 mail ballots were rejected—yielding a 1.56% rejection rate. In the 2022 primary, roughly 105,818 ballots were voided. While California routinely leads the nation in total ballot volume due to its universal vote-by-mail model where every registered voter automatically receives a ballot, the raw surge to nearly 150,000 discarded votes marks the highest proportional rejection rate the state has experienced since 2014.
THE PRIMARY CULPRIT: THE SCOURGE OF LATE-ARRIVING BALLOTS
When breaking down the data by category, a single, dominant factor emerges as the primary driver of the mass disenfranchisement: ballots arriving too late to legally qualify under California statute.
State data indicates that an astounding 93,479 ballots were rejected solely because they failed to meet the strict deadline requirements enforced by election code. Under California law, mail-in ballots are granted a generous statutory grace period, permitted to arrive at county election offices up to seven days after Election Day, provided they carry a valid postmark dated on or before Election Day.
Yet, even with this week-long buffer, tens of thousands of ballots crossed county thresholds too late or carried invalid postmarks. Voting and postal experts point out that the core issue is rarely the physical transit time of the mail piece reaching the registrar’s office; rather, it is the date stamped on the envelope by the postal carrier or sorting facility. Many voters drop their completed packets into residential mailboxes or blue collection boxes on Election Day, assuming that the postmark will reflect that date. Increasingly, however, regional mail processing realities dictate otherwise.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, emphasized the structural nature of this recurring flaw.
"Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count."
Alexander and other election administrators note that the problem was severely exacerbated during the June primary by a highly competitive, wide-open, and contentious race for governor. Attracted by a crowded field and intense political ad campaigns, a massive wave of late-deciding voters held onto their ballots until the final 48 hours before the deadline, flooding the postal stream in a chaotic surge that local infrastructure struggled to absorb.
THE POSTAL CONUNDRUM: CONSOLIDATION AND POSTMARK SHIFTS
The alarming volume of late-postmarked ballots has thrust the United States Postal Service (USPS) back into the center of a national political firestorm. Election experts and county registrars have spent weeks questioning whether recent operational changes, facility consolidations, and updated processing guidelines within the federal postal network are actively subverting ballot integrity.
Earlier this year, a coalition of mostly Democratic U.S. senators formally wrote to postal leadership, expressing deep-seated alarm that ongoing mail-processing modifications could severely disrupt ballot handling during crucial federal election cycles. Under updated USPS operational guidelines, automated postmarks applied at regional distribution centers may not reflect the actual calendar day the mail piece was deposited by a citizen into a local box. Instead, the postmark frequently records the date the item was physically processed inside a regional hub.
Because the Postal Service has aggressively consolidated regional processing facilities over recent years—forcing mail to travel significantly greater distances from rural and suburban communities to reach a centralized hub—the window for securing a timely postmark has narrowed drastically. A ballot dropped into a neighborhood collection box on Election Day in an outlying agricultural community may sit uncollected overnight, travel miles to a regional plant, and receive a postmark the following day, instantly rendering the vote legally void.
Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy, stressed that the unprecedented spike demands immediate, transparent investigation.
"The growing number of those set aside for lateness compared to recent elections does really demand the question why this is happening."
Despite repeated warnings issued by California election officials prior to June urging voters to mail their packets well in advance, human behavior combined with systemic mail delays created a recipe for widespread disenfranchisement. The impact was felt unevenly across the state’s 58 counties, highlighting stark geographic disparities in postal reliability.
According to state metrics, the highest mail ballot rejection rate in the June primary occurred in Tulare County, located in the agriculture-heavy Central Valley, where a staggering 3.52% of all returned mail ballots were thrown out. Alpine County, nestled south of Lake Tahoe, and Merced County, also situated in the Central Valley, followed close behind, each recording an identical, troubling rejection rate of 3.36%. Santa Clara County led the Bay Area in rejection density, with registrar officials noting an intense late-surge phenomenon.
SIGNATURE FLAWS, MISSING DATA, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ERRORS
While late postmarks accounted for the lion's share of the uncounted votes (93,479 ballots), thousands of other Californians lost their franchise due to a variety of mechanical and administrative errors during the voting process.
State records outline several other primary categories of rejection:
-
Mismatched Signatures: Nearly 44,000 ballots were initially set aside and ultimately voided because election workers determined that the signature scrawled across the return envelope did not match the signature on file in the voter’s historical registration record. While California law permits a multi-week "curing" process where registrars contact voters to fix signature discrepancies, thousands fail to respond or clear the verification hurdle in time.
-
Unsigned Envelopes: Over 8,300 ballots were outright rejected because the voter completely neglected to sign the return envelope, rendering the submission legally anonymous and invalid.
-
Duplicate Submissions: In 743 recorded instances, state systems caught voters who had already cast another ballot—either by voting early in person or submitting multiple mail packets—resulting in the invalidation of the secondary return.
-
Envelope Anomalies: Hundreds of additional ballots were voided due to physical assembly errors, such as a ballot missing entirely from the return envelope, or multiple distinct voters stuffing their separate ballots into a single shared envelope.
Crucially, state data indicates that these uncounted ballots spanned all demographics and were not broken down by party registration in initial releases, though the sheer volume affects urban and rural counties alike.
THE BROADER POLITICAL FIRESTORM: SLOW COUNTS AND FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS
The release of these rejection figures has instantly reignited fierce partisan debates over the mechanics of California’s electoral administration. For years, California has faced relentless national criticism for its notoriously slow, ponderous vote-counting process, which frequently drags on for weeks following an election as county clerks manually process provisional ballots, cure signatures, and wait out the seven-day postal grace period.
In the wake of the June primary, President Donald Trump seized upon the state’s administrative delays to renew his sharp, long-standing criticisms of California’s election management systems. Pointing to the delayed outcomes and the massive pile of discarded mail votes, federal watchdogs have amplified their scrutiny. Simultaneously, the U.S. Department of Justice launched an active, high-profile federal investigation into the administration of elections within Los Angeles County, placing local registrars under an intense legal microscope.
Despite the political weaponization of the numbers, election security experts are unified in cautioning the public against conflating administrative rejections with electoral malfeasance. Leading nonpartisan research organizations emphasize that the high volume of rejected ballots is a symptom of bureaucratic friction and postal lag, not evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A comprehensive 2025 empirical report published by the Brookings Institution underscored that documented cases of mail ballot fraud remain statistically infinitesimal, estimating roughly four confirmed fraudulent cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast nationwide. State election officials have confirmed they have uncovered zero evidence of systemic fraud tied to the June primary. Instead, the data reflects the rigid, uncompromising parameters required to maintain chain-of-custody security in a system processing tens of millions of pieces of mail.
LOOKING AHEAD: REFORM PROPOSALS AND THE PATH TO NOVEMBER
As state administrators evaluate the fallout from the June primary, pressure is mounting on the governor’s office and the state legislature to implement structural safeguards ahead of future major electoral showdowns.
Governor Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers are currently weighing proposals to inject additional funding—including a proposed $10 million infusion earmarked specifically for targeted voter education. The initiative aims to actively train the electorate to mail their ballots weeks in advance rather than waiting for election week, thereby bypassing the bottleneck of postal processing delays.
Furthermore, voting rights advocates are lobbying for enhanced digital tracking alerts that would notify voters instantly via text message if their signature is flagged or mismatched, giving them a wider window to cure the error before certification deadlines lock them out.
For the nearly 150,000 Californians whose voices went unheard in June, structural reforms will come too late. But as the state stares down upcoming legislative battles and national scrutiny, the burning question remains whether California can bridge the chasm between universal accessibility and administrative perfection before the next wave of ballots hits the mail.
Report this article
Select a reason for reporting:
Inaccurate information Copyright violation Spam / advertisement Offensive content Other '; footer.hidden = true; overlay.hidden = false; document.body.style.overflow = 'hidden'; } function hideSection() { if (section) section.hidden = true; } function openModal() { if (alreadyReported) { showSuccess(); return; } overlay.hidden = false; document.body.style.overflow = 'hidden'; } function closeModal() { overlay.hidden = true; document.body.style.overflow = ''; footer.hidden = false; overlay.querySelectorAll('input[name="report_reason"]').forEach(function(r) { r.checked = false; }); document.getElementById('reportMessage').value = ''; errorBox.hidden = true; submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; imageItems = []; imgGrid.innerHTML = ''; updateAttachBtn(); } btn.addEventListener('click', openModal); closeBtn.addEventListener('click', closeModal); cancelBtn.addEventListener('click', closeModal); overlay.addEventListener('click', function(e) { if (e.target === overlay) closeModal(); }); document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) { if (!overlay.hidden && e.key === 'Escape') closeModal(); }); // --- Error helper --- function showError(msg) { errorBox.textContent = msg; errorBox.hidden = false; } // --- Submit --- submitBtn.addEventListener('click', function() { var selected = overlay.querySelector('input[name="report_reason"]:checked'); if (!selected) { showError('Please select a reason.'); return; } errorBox.hidden = true; submitBtn.disabled = true; var itemsToUpload = imageItems.filter(function(it) { return !it.uploadedUrl; }); if (itemsToUpload.length === 0) { doSubmit(selected.value); return; } submitBtn.textContent = 'Uploading…'; var done = 0, failed = 0; itemsToUpload.forEach(function(entry) { entry.statusEl.textContent = '…'; entry.statusEl.className = 'report-img-item__status'; entry.statusEl.hidden = false; resizeImage(entry.file, MAX_LONG_PX, function(resized) { uploadFile(resized, currentSlug, function(err, url) { done++; if (err) { failed++; entry.statusEl.textContent = 'Failed'; entry.statusEl.className = 'report-img-item__status err'; } else { entry.uploadedUrl = url; entry.statusEl.textContent = '✓'; entry.statusEl.className = 'report-img-item__status done'; } if (done === itemsToUpload.length) { if (failed > 0) { showError('Could not upload ' + failed + ' image(s). Remove the failed ones (red) or submit without them.' ); submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; } else { doSubmit(selected.value); } } }); }); }); }); function doSubmit(reason) { submitBtn.textContent = 'Sending…'; var uploadedUrls = imageItems .map(function(it) { return it.uploadedUrl; }) .filter(Boolean); var payload = { reason: reason, message: document.getElementById('reportMessage').value.trim(), post_slug: currentSlug, post_url: window.location.href }; if (uploadedUrls.length) payload.image_urls = uploadedUrls; fetch('/api/post-report', { method: 'POST', headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', 'X-Requested-With': 'XMLHttpRequest' }, body: JSON.stringify(payload) }) .then(function(r) { return r.json(); }) .then(function(data) { if (data && data.ok) { markReported(currentSlug); alreadyReported = true; bodyEl.innerHTML = '✓ Thank you for your report.'; footer.hidden = true; setTimeout(function() { closeModal(); footer.hidden = false; hideSection(); }, 2000); } else { showError((data && data.message) ? data.message : 'Something went wrong. Please try again.'); submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; } }) .catch(function() { showError('Connection failed. Please try again.'); submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; }); } })();Comments 0
Posting as GuestCBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...

CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn

The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.
Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.
Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability
Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.
“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.
He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.
His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.
That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.
Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute
The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.
Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Kennedy disagreed.
“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.
He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”
Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.
But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?
Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.
Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump
The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.
She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.
Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.
Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.
“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.
He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.
That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.
The Real Takeaway From the Interview
The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.
Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.
Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.
The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.
Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.