BREAKING: Nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots rejected in California's primary!
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
"🚨 MAJOR BOMBSHELL! — CATHERINE HERRIDGE DROPS EXPLOSIVE NEW REVELATIONS ABOUT ILHAN OMAR!"
BREAKING: Catherine Herridge just dropped a bombshell that could change everything about the Ilhan Omar case...and it has nothing to do with what federal agents were looking for in Monday's raid.
Herridge is reporting that seasoned federal investigators see passport fraud as another potential avenue for criminal prosecution.
The statute at the center of it: 18 U.S.C. § 1542 — False Statement in Application. It prohibits making false statements on a passport application, using a passport obtained through false statements, or using a passport under an assumed or false name to hide criminal behavior.
And here's the part that should worry Omar's legal team: the 10-year statute of limitations on passport fraud resets every single time the individual renews their passport — if the underlying application records, such as a Social Security Number, were obtained through fraud.
So why does that matter here? Remember the birthdate change. Omar's staff had her publicly listed birth year changed from 1981 to 1982 back in May 2019. If someone lied about their true date and place of birth to obtain a Social Security Number, that fraud doesn't expire the way most people think it does. Every passport renewal restarts the clock.
And federal investigators have run this exact playbook before.
After 9/11, when the Joint Terrorism Task Force investigated Anwar al-Awlaki — the American-born cleric who became a top al Qaeda leader — a seasoned investigator ran down a scholarship scam: Awlaki had used his Yemeni passport and false claims about his birthplace to secure roughly $20,000 in USAID tuition money for Colorado State University. But the statute of limitations on the tuition fraud had already run out.
So a State Department Diplomatic Security agent found another way in. Awlaki had made false statements to secure a J-1 visa, then used a fraudulently obtained Social Security Number — falsely claiming he was born in Yemen — to obtain a U.S. passport. The passport fraud became the holding charge. Every renewal reset the 10-year clock.
Herridge's reporting doesn't say charges are coming. But it lays out a roadmap that federal investigators have walked before, and successfully.
"🚨 ROYAL FAMILY SHOCKER! — PRINCE HARRY SHARES A MAJOR UPDATE ON KING CHARLES' CANCER BATTLE!"
Prince Harry says there's 'big difference' between losing a parent and two
Prince Harry has shared an update on King Charles' health while reflecting on the lasting impact of losing his mom, Princess Diana.
In an interview with GQ, Harry was asked how his father's diagnosis had affected him.
The Duke of Sussex said of King Charles' health, "He's getting better." Notably, the monarch announced his cancer diagnosis in February 2024.
During the conversation, Harry also reflected on the different experiences of losing one parent compared with losing both. He explained that friends who had lost both parents had described feeling like orphans, even as adults.
As Zach Baron said, "I would think having suffered the traumatic death of a parent, that something like this could be very triggering in that respect... having a sick parent now," Prince Harry responded, "But yeah, I think there’s a big difference between losing one parent and losing two. From the friends of mine that have lost two, they go, ‘Well, now I’m an orphan,’ even if you’re in your 40s or 50s. I’ve never heard someone say that to me before."
"I was like, ‘Wow, I hadn’t considered that,’" he added.
It is pertinent to mention that Prince Harry was 12 years old when he lost Princess Diana. "I’ve always thought to myself since I was a young kid and conversations with other friends of mine, ‘If you had a choice, what would you choose? To have a parent ripped away from you suddenly without any preparation or having the long-term suffering, but the ability to say goodbye?’"
"And it turns out that there is no answer. because, you know, I’ve got friends and family who are suffering from cancer, I’ve had a mom that was taken away from me too soon, and I have spoken very openly about one of my biggest regrets is that last phone call I had with her," he added, also sharing that if he had known it was the final call the conversation would've been different.
