Washington's Top Election Official Looked at the DOJ's Noncitizen Voter List and Found Actual Citizens on It, So the Ballots Stay

Byline: Dakota Jones
Desk: Political & Government, Campaigns & Elections
Air date: October 28, 2026

The headline version

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs has rejected a Justice Department demand to set aside roughly 400 ballots tied to voters federal officials allege are noncitizens.

His reason is direct: a preliminary review by his office found that the list includes U.S. citizens, duplicate entries, and people who are not currently registered or are on inactive status. A list that mixes those categories is not, by itself, individualized proof that a particular registered voter is ineligible.

“Without individualized proof of ineligibility, it would be both irresponsible and illegal for election officials to decline to process a registered voter's ballot,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to Acting U.S. Attorney in Seattle Neil Floyd.

That is the central issue. The state is not saying that it has independently established the eligibility of every person on the federal list. It is saying the list, as provided, is not reliable enough to justify setting aside ballots. Those are different claims. Elections benefit when we keep them different.

What Washington found in the list

Hobbs said his office’s preliminary review identified U.S. citizens among the names. He did not provide a count of how many citizens were found. He warned that the citizens already identified may be “the tip of the iceberg” of voters who could be wrongly disenfranchised.

The review also found people who are not currently registered and people whose registrations are inactive. And it found duplicate entries.

Those details matter because a name on a government list is not automatically a match to a current, eligible voter, much less proof that the voter is ineligible. Before officials take action against an individual ballot, the relevant question is whether there is individualized evidence about that individual, not merely an allegation attached to a list.

Hobbs invited federal officials to provide such evidence. He said the state would review it.

That leaves a path for case-specific information to be considered. It does not leave room for a blanket instruction to set aside ballots based only on material the state says is incomplete and difficult to verify.

Why the state says the list is difficult to use

Hobbs described what he called “glaring deficiencies” in the federal material. His objections were not just about formatting. They went to the basic question of how election officials could assess the claims and match them to voter records.

According to his letter, the list:

• Did not explain how it was compiled or identify the sources used.
• Included no backup documentation.
• Arrived as a PDF of a printed spreadsheet, rather than an electronic file.
• Lacked publicly available fields such as voter ID numbers and addresses, making it “difficult, if not impossible” to match entries to registrations.
• Included duplicate entries.
• Listed Election Day as Nov. 2, even though it is Nov. 3.

A PDF can be perfectly useful for reading. It is less useful when officials need to compare individual entries against registration records, especially if essential matching information and supporting documentation are missing. That is not an abstract technical complaint. It is the difference between a name that appears on a page and a verified match to a specific voter.

Hobbs said the errors suggested the list was “created in a rushed manner.” He also called the incorrect election date a basic factual error that was “unacceptable” and risked confusing voters.

When officials are being asked to interfere with ballot processing, accuracy is not decorative. It is the job.

The timing is part of the dispute

The Justice Department request arrived close to Election Day. Washington had mailed ballots to all active registered voters by Oct. 16. Election Day is Nov. 3.

Hobbs called the timing “profoundly disappointing.” He said his office regularly consults with the Justice Department in the months before elections and that any concerns should have been raised then.

The concern is straightforward: a demand to set aside ballots made shortly before Election Day creates pressure to act quickly, while the material at issue is, according to the secretary of state, difficult to verify. That is a poor combination for careful election administration.

Hobbs also objected to the way the concerns were presented, saying federal officials should have provided the list and supporting evidence to his office. The point is not that election officials should ignore credible evidence. Hobbs said the opposite: send individualized proof, and the state will review it. The point is that a public allegation and an unverified list are not substitutes for evidence that can be checked.

What federal officials alleged

On Monday, Oct. 26, Floyd said Homeland Security investigators had found 405 noncitizens who had voted in Washington elections. He said he was confident there were thousands more to be uncovered.

The Justice Department demanded that the state set aside ballots from the 405 people it alleged were noncitizens. The number and allegation belong to the federal side of the dispute; they should not be mistaken for a finding that Washington has verified each listed person’s identity, registration status, or eligibility.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington said the Justice Department received Hobbs’s letter and “will take some time to review it and decide next steps.”

So the immediate picture is clear, even if the dispute is not resolved: federal officials made an allegation and requested action; Washington reviewed the list, identified problems, rejected the blanket request, and invited case-by-case proof.

What this means for Washington voters

If you are following the election from Seattle, Olympia, or elsewhere in Washington, the key takeaway is not that every concern has been settled. It has not. It is that a voter should not lose the right to have a ballot processed because of a list that officials say contains citizens, duplicates, and entries that cannot be reliably matched.

Hobbs’s decision keeps the focus on evidence tied to an individual voter. That is the practical standard he set out in his letter. Federal officials can provide documentation, and the state says it will review it.

For voters, the available facts do not support guessing about whether a particular person’s ballot is affected. The federal list has not been made available in the information summarized here, and Hobbs did not give a count of citizens found. The responsible course is to rely on official election information, not speculation.

For election administrators, the message is just as practical: accurate data, clear sources, and usable records matter. A list with duplicate entries, no backup documentation, missing matching fields, and the wrong election date does not become more dependable because the calendar is tight. If anything, urgency makes verification more important.

FAQ

Did Washington agree that every person on the DOJ list is a U.S. citizen?

No. Hobbs said a preliminary state review found U.S. citizens, duplicate entries, and people who were not currently registered or were on inactive status. He did not say that every person on the list was a citizen.

What did the Justice Department ask Washington to do?

It demanded that the state set aside ballots from 405 people it alleged were noncitizens who had voted in Washington elections.

Why did Hobbs reject the demand?

He said the list lacked documentation and reliable matching information, contained duplicate entries and a wrong election date, and included people his office found were citizens or not currently registered or active. He said ballots should not be withheld without individualized proof of ineligibility.

Can federal officials still provide evidence?

Yes. Hobbs invited officials to submit individualized proof and said his office would review it. The U.S. Attorney’s Office said the Justice Department would review Hobbs’s letter and decide next steps.

What is the date of the election?

Nov. 3. Hobbs noted that the list incorrectly gave Nov. 2.

Final thoughts

This is a dispute about more than a spreadsheet. It is about what officials need before they act against a voter’s ballot, and whether a late, difficult-to-match list can meet that standard.

Hobbs’s answer is no, not without individualized proof. The DOJ’s allegations remain allegations; the state’s preliminary review has identified problems, but has not supplied a total count of citizens found. The next step is for federal officials to provide evidence that can be checked, and for the state to review it.

That is not a flashy process. It is the point. Verify the claim, match it to the individual, and do not treat a flawed list as a finished finding.

For more reporting from LD3 Productions, visit the LD3 Productions newsroom.

Sources

1. KING 5: Chris Ingalls, “Washington Secretary of State rejects DOJ voter list, calls it ‘irresponsible and illegal’,” October 28, 2026.
2. AP News, “Justice Department says 400 voters in Washington may be noncitizens,” October 26, 2026. Underlying federal allegation and demand.