Full interview — Rob Bonta on Trump administration's lawsuit over mail-in ballots

[0:00] California Attorney General Rob Bonta thank you so much for making time for us. Good to be with you Ashley. So you filed the 100th lawsuit against the Trump administration today. Can I ask about the timing of this lawsuit? This is against ICE, their arrests in courthouses, just why now? [0:18] Well, we brought the lawsuit because we have data showing the impact of the immigration enforcement at courthouses and what it has on the impact that it has on the administration of justice in our in our court system. It has interfered with the administration of justice. It has intimidated and created fear for witnesses and victims. So they're not coming forward. Prosecutors have literally had to drop cases because the victim won't come forward or the witnesses won't come forward to help make it happen. [0:49] So it is anti-public safety. But we the Judicial Council has been collecting data and that data shows a 550 percent increase in the number of immigration enforcement incidents at or near courthouses. So that interferes with our state's sovereign right to provide for the administration of justice in our court system. It violates other laws. And so we brought our case today and it marks a somber milestone of 100 lawsuits against the president of the United States. [1:19] who you would hope would be someone who you would hope would be someone who protects rights and freedoms, who upholds and enforces the law, who defends the constitution, but he's doing the opposite. He's trampling over the constitution, infringing upon rights and freedoms, violating the rule of law. [1:32] And so we stand firm and immovable on our position that we will sue the president if he breaks the law and hurts our state every time he gets no passes on that. And today marks the 100th time. [1:45] With this specific lawsuit, what relief specifically are you hoping to get out of the courts from this one? [1:50] There's a directive at the Department of Homeland Security, which directs ICE to engage in immigration enforcement at or near state courthouses. And we are looking for a vacator, an order that says that that that directive from the Department of Homeland Security is no longer effective and ICE is no longer allowed. [2:10] And they are actually prohibited from enforcing immigration law at or near courthouses and by vacating that for the people who were arrested or at the center of some of those operations that you mentioned, what what could they get out of this? [2:25] Well, they would have relief going forward that they could, if necessary, participate in the court process to, you know, as a victim, as a witness, as a party, you know, a plaintiff. [2:37] And we are focused more on the widespread policy and ending that policy for someone who feels like they've been injured by the enactment of that policy, who wants to bring a private action. [2:52] They might have a private right of action and can sue for for damages or injury. [2:56] But we're focused on the ongoing practice and we want to have that practice stopped and blocked going forward. [3:01] A hundred lawsuits is a lot and there's a lot to pay attention to. [3:06] And I know you give an annual report as required by the legislature, but how can people keep up with all of what is going on? [3:14] How can I mean, I know your website has been trying to keep people abreast of the situation, but but how can people track these? [3:22] I'm glad you asked that question because we have updated our website and it has more information. [3:28] Thank you for asking about access to the latest on our lawsuits, you know, staying updated. [3:35] We want to keep the public informed. [3:36] We want to keep the press informed. [3:37] So we have a more robust website with more details, with links to the dockets where you can see the filings. [3:44] You can see the latest developments in the cases. [3:46] We've divided them up by sort of policy area like cases involving immigration or environment and natural resources or withholding of funding. [3:55] We have some some more summary data as well. [3:58] So we have both specifics and themes and just more robust information about the hundred lawsuits. [4:04] So please check it out. [4:06] OK, will do. [4:07] And does it include because your annual report includes lawsuits that the administration has filed against California? [4:14] Does the website include that or? [4:15] I believe it's the lawsuits that we've brought when the federal administration breaks the law and we've sued it for hurting California. [4:22] OK, and with this hundred, is that is there a dollar amount that you can put on? [4:27] I know you've said you've you've noted the return on investment, which I think you've pinned at 200 billion. [4:32] But in terms of the amount of money that has been spent to file these lawsuits, do you know? [4:35] We've protected 208 billion dollars worth of funding for California and for Californians. [4:41] It's it's it's a couple of few tens of millions of investment between the special session allocation, the general budget allocations. [4:51] We think it's a great return on investment if we're able to, with a few tens of millions, protect 208 billion. [4:56] There are also things that are priceless, like constitutional rights and freedoms, birthright citizenship, the right to vote. [5:02] We protected those multiple times, making life more affordable by striking down illegal tariffs that raise costs for Californians, pushing the National Guard. [5:11] That's unlawfully federalized out of California. [5:13] Those are all things that I think are priceless. [5:15] You can't really put a dollar value on, but it is a few tens of millions to pay for our legal teams, hiring of more lawyers and, you know, paralegals, the teams that bring these cases. [5:26] And we want to be prepared to defend California, including California's funding, our rights, our freedoms, our future, our progress. [5:32] OK, switching gears, but a similar topic. [5:34] I mean, the Trump administration also filed a lawsuit today against California, this one claiming that there are 20,000 people on the state's voter rolls who are noncitizens. [5:44] What's your response to that? [5:46] Completely unimpressed. [5:48] We think that the case is completely without legal merit, without factual basis. [5:53] They have provided absolutely no justification for the claim. [5:58] They are an administration that has advanced conspiracy theories that are debunked, that are baseless about the existence of widespread voter fraud when there is no widespread voter fraud, [6:08] where every count and recount and hand count and audit and court case has shown there's no widespread voter fraud. [6:13] But they continue to say that there is, including Trump himself, at the State of the Union address and at evening primetime press conferences. [6:21] And so the timing is very suspect and I think suggests bad faith. [6:25] They're bringing this case now in the middle of an ongoing election here in California. [6:29] At the same time, they're also doing immigration enforcement with a surge in California, I think, to intimidate people from going to the polls, [6:36] because they are indiscriminate in who they arrest, search, detain, including U.S. citizens and other people who are lawfully present, [6:45] and certainly including people who are eligible to vote. [6:47] So I'm unimpressed by their letter, by their lawsuit, and we have to see this in context. [6:53] This is an ongoing effort. [6:54] They've done this to other states already, Nevada being one of them, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. [6:58] In Nevada, they said, we think that there are 14,000 individuals on your voter rolls who we believe, and the word believe is key, are likely to be ineligible to vote. [7:13] And the State of Nevada officials said, okay, let's look at them. [7:17] And the federal government ended up demonstrating that zero, zero of the 14,000 who they claimed were ineligible were actually ineligible. [7:26] They told us in July that the Secretary of State, the federal government told the Secretary of State in July that there were 190,000 people that they believed were likely to be ineligible. [7:38] And then a couple of days ago, they sent us a letter saying, oh, it's 20,000. [7:42] So what happened to the other 170,000? [7:44] No explanation. [7:45] And what is the basis for thinking this 20,000 are ineligible? [7:48] No basis for it. [7:49] No substantiation. [7:51] No documentation. [7:53] Just stating it conclusory. [7:55] After completely failing to demonstrate anyone was ineligible in Nevada, we believe this is more of the same. [8:04] This is just politics during an election going after the biggest blue state in the nation with no basis, no legal merit to it, and that it will fail in court. [8:16] And we feel very confident going to a court and responding through our court papers to their lawsuit that they brought today. [8:23] So they, and well, noting the, the, this isn't a widespread issue and California has 23 million voters. [8:31] They're mentioning 20,000 and in the lawsuit, it does say how they came to this conclusion. [8:37] They essentially took the, um, U S customs and immigration enforcement information and match that with the information of these voters. [8:46] Um, I mean, given that it is in the context of California's voters, like why not just do what Nevada did and just check and verify that they're wrong? [8:56] What they have admitted in their complaint that they are doing appears to be something they are prohibited from doing based on a district, uh, Washington DC court order. [9:06] That is, that governs them. [9:07] They've been ordered by a court to not cross check state voter rolls against their database and then demand that states remove people from their voter rolls. [9:17] Uh, why? [9:19] Uh, well, because there are state laws, there are federal laws, and there is this court case, uh, that they, all of which they may be violating. [9:27] There is a federal law that says there's a 90 day quiet period where you're not to remove people from voter rolls. [9:33] There's rules around ensuring that every vote is counted. [9:37] Everyone is sent a vote by mail ballot. [9:39] We have, um, important, uh, safeguards in place that local registrars of voters and the secretary of state follow and honor and check to make sure that, uh, eligible voters are, uh, are sent a vote by mail ballot and that their vote by mail ballot, if they cast it is counted. [9:55] So the rule of law and the facts are our North star. [9:58] Um, you know, these wild baseless claims by the federal government are, are not something that we, uh, believe is, is appropriate to, uh, engage in with them. [10:08] Um, if they're able to provide facts, data, information, show it to us, uh, we're open to receive, to reviewing that. [10:15] And I say, we, because, um, the attorney general's office is the council for the secretary of state. [10:20] Um, this is, um, the, these inquiries have been directed to the secretary of state and we are her attorney. [10:26] Um, but they haven't provided us with any shred of data or evidence or basis for their claims, which in the past have proved to be wild. [10:34] And we think that the past is a good indicator of the present as well. [10:38] It sounds like the 20,000 are documented immigrants, people who are doing the right thing, going through the process, which is how they were able to figure out. [10:47] And I'm just quoting the federal government here. [10:50] Um, do you worry though, that these people could be at risk of some sort of deportation or arrest or that they could be put in a predicament? [10:59] Maybe they didn't even know they were registered to vote. [11:01] I mean, is, is this an area that maybe after the election, since the law, according to you, it could be on your side here where you don't have to figure this out. [11:10] But is this at least an issue worth revisiting afterwards? [11:15] Look, if, if the federal government wants to act in good faith, share with us information, um, uh, we're open to that. [11:22] But they haven't done that. [11:23] They haven't shared with us any information that they filed a lawsuit where they made claims and still haven't shared with us any information. [11:29] They just have a conclusory statement that these 20,000 people, when it was 190,000 before, without any explanation of why it was reduced to 20,000 and why the 20,000 even exists. [11:38] And with the context of Nevada, where they claim there were 16,000, um, ineligible voters and there ended up being zero without any explanation for that either. [11:47] So, um, do we have our, our, our, our, our doubts? [11:50] Yes. [11:51] Are we suspect? [11:52] Yes. [11:52] Do we think they're acting in good faith? [11:54] Absolutely not. [11:55] And is the timing suspect during an ongoing election? [11:58] Absolutely. [12:00] Um, are they targeting California once more? [12:02] Absolutely. [12:03] So, you know, I, I, I think they don't, they haven't earned the trust of, um, uh, from us to believe that they're doing anything that's credible based on law or facts. [12:14] But we're open to evidence, interested in facts and seeing it, but they have not presented to it. [12:20] They've just rushed to court and made these wild claims. [12:23] They've been wild in the past. [12:24] We think they're wild now. [12:25] Um, but look, anyone who is, uh, ineligible to vote and, and who attempts to or tries to vote, that's wrong. [12:34] They should be held accountable. [12:35] That should be stopped. [12:35] They should be prosecuted. [12:36] They should be held accountable for that. [12:38] Um, that's not what this is. [12:39] This is a scorched earth, uh, effort by the federal government and on a broad basis to advance, debunk conspiracy theories, try to sow distrust about the elections, um, and particularly in blue states like California. [12:53] And, uh, we're not going to engage in that with them. [12:56] Is there anything else you think we should know before we let you go? [12:58] Um, yes, uh, that while this is our lawsuit, we unfortunately, and it is a somber moment, we do not believe it'll be the last lawsuit that we'll be forced to bring. [13:09] If the, if the president breaks the law, we'll sue him. [13:10] If he doesn't, we won't. [13:12] And he's shown no signs of slowing down. [13:14] So I know there's a lot of your viewers who are worried about this election. [13:17] They're, they're right to vote. [13:18] They're worried about things like the executive orders from the Trump administration trying to, um, interfere with the U.S. [13:24] Postal Service and vote by mail or trying to create additional barriers to the right to vote or have vote by mail ballots that are timely cast, not counted, or also concerned about rogue sheriffs who break the law and seize ballots. [13:36] And we have been on the case every time we've blocked and stopped the illegal activity. [13:39] We will continue to do everything in our power to protect the fundamental right to vote, to ensure that our elections are free, fair, reliable, accurate. [13:47] Um, and we will protect, uh, California's rights, their funding, their future, um, no matter what comes next. [13:54] And so we're ready. [13:55] We're full of energy. [13:56] And, uh, at the California DOJ, we're ready to protect California's, uh, rights, freedoms, and future. [14:01] All right. [14:02] Attorney General Rob Bonto, we really appreciate your time. [14:04] Thank you. [14:05] Thanks, Ashley. [14:05] Thank you. [14:06] Thank you. [14:06] Thank you. [14:06] Thank you. [14:08] Thank you. [14:10] Thank you. [14:12] Thank you. [14:14] Thank you. [14:15] Thank you.