I am a native Angeleno. I have lived here my entire life. It truly is the city of make-believe. 

Los Angeles is, of course, home to Hollywood, Tinseltown, the storied entertainment capital of the world, where we make up all sorts of fake stories that entertain the world.

But now a new story of apparent make-believe has emerged from Los Angeles — that of voter fraud. And this story is unlikely to win any awards. 

President Donald Trump has made unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud related to California’s June 2 primary elections. This is nothing new and follows years of baseless claims of voter fraud by Trump, which ultimately culminated in the events of Jan. 6, 2021. 

What has changed is the Justice Department’s enthusiasm for jumping into the thicket of elections. Recently, the Department of Justice has brought suits, unsuccessfully asked for data regarding voter rolls and even sought to inspect ballots. Taken together, this is a rare demonstration of the DOJ’s desire to get involved with elections and, frankly, to use that agency’s levers of power to back up the president’s attempts at undermining the credibility of elections. 

Los Angeles’ top federal prosecutor recently assured listeners of a radio program that charges for election fraud will be forthcoming. This is happening despite DOJ regulations indicating that the department should stay out of criminal investigations until elections are certified, as well as the apparent lack of specific evidence of election fraud. 

It is worth noting here that it does, in fact, take a long time to count ballots in California. But that’s actually evidence of the integrity of the process. The majority of us vote by mail; it takes longer to count and verify those ballots. Given the state’s current system, calling elections on or shortly after election night could be actual evidence of possible fraud. 

Have the shapes of the races in Los Angeles and California changed since election night, during the long process of counting ballots? Absolutely. That’s what happens when you count votes. 

Did things look better for Republican and conservative candidates on election night than they do now? Again, absolutely. But that’s a result of a predicted phenomenon — younger, more progressive and more liberal voters returned their ballots later in the process. Counting those ballots will, of course, affect the results of the races. 

The irony that the administration has called into question the veracity of elections, while simultaneously undermining the public integrity division of the DOJ that focused on elections, should not be lost. This division is a post-Watergate creation designed to root out corruption. It now stands as a shell of its former self thanks to the Trump administration. 

Given the state’s current system, calling elections on or shortly after election night could be actual evidence of possible fraud.

Some states have and will use the ever-increasing accusations of voter fraud to pass more restrictive voting rules. Clamping down on when and how people can vote makes all the sense in the world if that actually solved a problem. The issue is there’s little to indicate that it does. For instance, one form of these laws is to require photo identification at the polls. This intuitively makes sense, but voter impersonation, which photo IDs guard against, is extremely rare. Laws requiring proof of citizenship also make intuitive sense. Cases of noncitizen voting are, also, exceedingly rare. 

Where does this all leave us? The nonfiction version of this story is that fraud in America is very rare. Unfortunately, the fictionalized version of events is becoming more common and popular. 

Few things about elections in America in 2026 should be beyond dispute, but here are a few — every valid vote should be counted, any credible allegation of voter fraud should be investigated, one instance of voter fraud is one too many and the DOJ should use its investigatory and prosecutorial power to serve the American public, not a president’s personal preferences. False narratives originating might entertain Trump’s MAGA base, but they shouldn’t be allowed to eviscerate voters’ confidence in our nation’s election.

The post What the DOJ’s investigation into Los Angeles elections is really about appeared first on MS NOW.

Our system of government is based on distrust. We revolted against a monarchy and decided to decentralize power, with the hope that bad people and bad decisions are less likely to wield actual power. We not only divide power among three branches of government, but we also divvy up power between a federal government and state governments. 

You can be forgiven if you think our system of horizontal separation (three branches of government) and vertical separation (federal and state governments) is collapsing all around us. The enlargement of the executive branch, to the detriment of the legislative branch and the states, didn’t begin with President Donald Trump. And it won’t end with him unless Congress and the states reclaim their constitutionally endowed power, or judges and the public push presidents back into their lane.  

If any government entity wants to put these conditions on the receipt of federal funds, it should be Congress, and not the executive branch through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Recently, a federal judge did just that and pushed back against the Trump administration’s attempt to condition $74 billion in nutrition and farm aid to states — including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits — on the states’ decision to acquiesce to Trump administration policies on transgender people; diversity, equity and inclusion; immigration enforcement; and other topics. We are, to be clear, talking about money that goes to feed the poorest among us, including tens of millions of children. 

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, who has apparently read the Constitution, put at least a temporary stop to the administration’s attempts to coerce the states into action. 

The case involves a suit by 20 Democratic attorneys general and the District of Columbia against the Trump administration. Their claim is straightforward: The Trump administration said states and D.C. won’t receive money to feed poor families and farmers unless they comply with the Trump administration’s policy priorities. 

As an initial matter, those challenging the Trump administration’s actions argue that the conditions on federal grants are so vague that they don’t know which state actions would or would not violate the federal conditions, and could potentially force them to obey requirements unrelated to nutrition and fair aid programs. The lack of germaneness between the purpose of the federal funding program and the requirements the federal government is putting on the states should be enough to kill these additional conditions, but here are some others. 

First, if any government entity wants to put these conditions on the receipt of federal funds, it should be Congress, and not the executive branch through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Constitution gives Congress, not the executive, the power of the purse. The president has a role to play, but it is to tell executive agencies to execute spending laws by ensuring executive agencies spend federal funds consistent with those laws. The president can and should propose budget priorities during the budgeting process, and sign or veto spending laws. But once those proposals become law, the president does not have the power to rewrite them to comply with his policy agenda. 

Second, the USDA’s attempt to condition the receipt of vital federal funds violates the Constitution by depriving them of any true choice. Congress — again, generally not an executive agency — can condition a state’s receipt of federal funds on states taking certain actions. But Congress cannot coerce states into doing so. Coercion would amount to the federal government trampling on state sovereignty. Is this really true? Yes, Chief Justice John Roberts told me so. In fact, he told me the federal government can’t put a “gun to the head” of states in an attempt to get them to adopt federal policies to get federal funds. 

The judge’s decision to issue a temporary pause on the Trump administration’s plans could be just that, temporary. But conservatives and liberals alike should hope that the judge’s decision to block this action is permanent. The question is not whether you like President Trump’s policies. The legal answer should be the same if former President Joe Biden had tried to tell the USDA to withhold the same aid from states unless they adopted liberal policies on gun regulation, climate change or abortion access. The question is whether you respect the separation of powers and state sovereignty. 

This is a high-stakes legal question striking at the heart of whether our system of government survives. It is also a high stakes practical question that could determine whether impoverished children and families receive money for food. 

The post It’s up to Congress and the courts to fight Trump’s attacks on states’ sovereignty appeared first on MS NOW.