California Election Nightmare - Gavin Newsom Is DONE After What Investigators Just Found
California Election Nightmare - Gavin Newsom Is DONE After What Investigators Just Found
THE 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.
🔥 MAMDANI’S 9/11 MEMORIAL APPEARANCE IS NOW CONFIRMED — AS CRITICISM BUILDS INTO A HIGH-STAKES SHOWDOWN BEFORE FRIDAY… |
MAMDANI VOWS TO ATTEND 25TH 9/11 MEMORIAL DESPITE GIULIANI'S CALL TO STAY AWAY — BUT 9/11 FAMILIES ARE DIVIDED
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani says he will attend Friday's 25th-anniversary September 11 remembrance ceremony at Ground Zero despite a growing campaign by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Gov. George Pataki, several Republican officials and some relatives of 9/11 victims urging him to stay away.
The central claim is true. Mamdani confirmed on September 7 that he plans to attend the annual reading of the names at the National September 11 Memorial, just as he attended the ceremony in 2025 before becoming mayor.
But the political framing needs two important corrections. Mamdani did not launch a combative attack on Giuliani or 'dismiss' grieving families. When asked about the criticism, he largely declined to engage and redirected attention toward the victims, their relatives and first responders.
And the 9/11 family community is not united against him. Some relatives have organized a large petition opposing his presence, while other 9/11 family members and at least one established family organization have publicly defended his right and responsibility to attend.
The dispute has become a combustible test of how New York remembers September 11 while navigating Mamdani's record, his Muslim faith, the politics of Israel and terrorism, and the legitimate anger of families who believe some of his associations are incompatible with the solemnity of Ground Zero.
Mamdani has definitely said he will attend. It is not accurate, however, to portray all 9/11 families as demanding that he stay away or to imply that his attendance itself proves disrespect for the victims.
Mamdani's Answer Was Direct: He Is Going
Speaking to reporters on September 7, Mamdani made clear that he will be at Friday's ceremony.
He said, "I'm proud to be the mayor of this city. I love this city. I love this country." He then said his focus this week would be on the families whose loved ones were killed 25 years ago and on the first responders who ran toward danger.
He also said he would attend the memorial just as he did last year.
That last point is verifiable. Mamdani attended the September 11, 2025 Ground Zero commemoration while he was the Democratic nominee for mayor. He stood among elected officials and dignitaries as relatives read the names of the dead.
This year is different because he is no longer merely a candidate. He is the sitting mayor of the city that suffered the largest loss of life in the attacks, making his presence both more symbolically important and more politically controversial.
He Did Not Really 'Brush Off' the Families
The viral description that Mamdani 'dismissed' calls for him to stay away overstates the tone of his response.
When asked about Giuliani's remarks, Mamdani said he did not have much more to add. Rather than attacking Giuliani personally, he returned to the themes of remembrance, first responders and the families of those who died.
That does not mean he accepted his critics' argument. By confirming that he will attend, he rejected their demand in substance.
But there is a meaningful difference between refusing a demand and belittling the people who made it, particularly when some of those critics lost spouses, relatives or friends on September 11.
The accurate formulation is that Mamdani rejected the call to stay away, not that he mocked or dismissed the grief of 9/11 families.
Giuliani Said Mamdani's Presence Would 'Offend' Him
Giuliani, who was mayor when al-Qaeda attacked New York in 2001, has become the most prominent voice demanding that Mamdani skip the ceremony.
In a Newsmax interview, Giuliani said that because he lost friends and remains close to many families, Mamdani's planned attendance 'offends me.' He argued that the ceremony belongs first to the families and to the country's historical remembrance of the attack.
That objection carries unusual emotional weight because Giuliani's leadership after September 11 remains a defining part of his public legacy.
But Giuliani went considerably further than criticizing Mamdani's personnel choices or political associations. He made sweeping claims about Muslims seeking to dominate the United States and drew comparisons between Mamdani and the 9/11 hijackers.
Those broader claims are not established by evidence about Mamdani. A mayor's Muslim faith does not itself show sympathy for al-Qaeda, support for terrorism or hostility to the United States.
Giuliani can fairly criticize Mamdani's policies and associations. Comparing Mamdani to the 9/11 hijackers on the basis of unsupported claims about his Muslim faith goes beyond what the public record proves.
Pataki and Other Republicans Have Joined the Opposition
Former New York Gov. George Pataki has also said Mamdani should not attend the anniversary ceremony.
Pataki's criticism has focused less on Mamdani's religion and more on figures around the mayor whom he considers hostile to Israel, dismissive of American institutions or inappropriate for a 9/11 commemoration.
Republican officials including Nassau County Executive and gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman have echoed calls for Mamdani to stay away.
The political case against the mayor therefore contains several distinct arguments: objections to his democratic-socialist politics, criticism of his past rhetoric about the NYPD, anger over his positions on Israel, and concern about advisers and allies with controversial histories.
Those arguments should be evaluated individually rather than bundled together into a claim that a Muslim mayor is inherently unfit to stand at Ground Zero.
A Petition Organized by 9/11 Relatives Has Drawn Nearly 100,000 Signatures
The opposition is not limited to politicians.
Giovanni Galante, whose wife Grace was killed in the North Tower, helped organize an online petition asking Mamdani not to attend the 25th-anniversary ceremony. Other relatives of victims have publicly supported the petition and said they believe the mayor's presence would be disrespectful because of people he has supported or appointed.
By early September, supporters said the petition had gathered roughly 100,000 signatures.
That is a significant political signal, but the number needs careful description. It does not mean 100,000 relatives of 9/11 victims signed it. It is an online petition organized by some 9/11 family members and open to the broader public.
Several relatives have said they plan to ignore Mamdani or turn away from him rather than create a confrontation during the ceremony.
The petition demonstrates substantial opposition. It does not establish that the entire 9/11 family community wants Mamdani excluded.
Other 9/11 Families Explicitly Support His Presence
The family community is divided.
CBS New York interviewed relatives of victims who defended Mamdani's inclusion and argued that elected leaders have traditionally attended the ceremony regardless of party or ideology.
September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, an organization founded by relatives of people killed in the attacks, issued a statement saying it supports the presence at Ground Zero of anyone who comes to pay respects, mourn the dead and honor the victims.
The organization specifically said Mamdani has stated his intention to honor families, survivors and first responders and that attending is consistent with the responsibility New York City mayors have traditionally carried.
That organization does not speak for every family any more than the anti-Mamdani petition does. The existence of both camps is precisely why headlines should not flatten this into '9/11 families versus Mamdani.'
The Official Ceremony Is Built Around the Families, Not the Politicians
The National September 11 Memorial & Museum says Friday's commemoration will begin at 8:30 a.m., with the first moment of silence at 8:46 a.m., the time American Airlines Flight 11 struck the North Tower.
The core of the ceremony is the reading of the names by family members.
The reading honors 2,983 people: the 2,977 victims killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and the six people killed in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Political leaders regularly attend, but the ritual is deliberately centered on victims and relatives rather than speeches by officeholders.
That structure gives both sides of the Mamdani argument a point. Critics can reasonably insist that no politician should become the story. Mamdani can reasonably answer that the mayor's job is to stand quietly with the city while the families remain at the center.
Mamdani Has Already Taken Several Official 9/11 Actions
The current controversy is unfolding against a record of formal commemorative activity by the Mamdani administration this year.
On September 2, Mamdani participated in an FDNY World Trade Center Memorial Wall plaque dedication ceremony and called the attacks 'horrific.'
On September 4, he signed Executive Order 21 establishing September 11 as an annual Citywide Day of Remembrance and Service. The order directs the city to honor victims, first responders, survivors, rescue and recovery workers, and families affected by the attacks and later 9/11-related illnesses.
A second executive order updated the city's continuity-of-operations planning and created a senior interagency structure to strengthen preparedness for emergencies.
Earlier in the year, Mamdani visited the 9/11 Memorial & Museum with FDNY leadership and attended a wreath-laying there during the visit of King Charles III.
Those actions do not erase legitimate criticism of his other positions. They do make it inaccurate to suggest he has refused to acknowledge September 11 as a terrorist attack or has avoided official remembrance.
Mamdani's record contains multiple public statements and official actions describing September 11 as a horrific terrorist attack and honoring its victims and first responders. Claims that he refuses to recognize the attack as terrorism are contradicted by the public record.
The Ramzi Kassem Controversy Is Real — but Needs Precision
One of the strongest factual controversies behind the opposition involves Mamdani's chief counsel, Ramzi Kassem.
Kassem is a CUNY law professor and national-security lawyer who previously represented Ahmed al-Darbi, a Guantanamo detainee who pleaded guilty before a U.S. military commission to war-crime charges tied to al-Qaeda maritime plots, including the 2002 bombing of the French oil tanker Limburg.
Al-Darbi's sister was married to Khalid al-Mihdhar, one of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon on September 11.
Kassem was present when Mamdani signed the city's September 11 executive orders. After signing, the ceremonial pen was passed to him, prompting sharp criticism from some 9/11 relatives and Republican officials.
City Hall said Kassem attended because his legal team drafted the orders as part of his official duties.
The optics were predictably explosive. A mayor marking September 11 handing a ceremonial pen to a lawyer known for representing a convicted al-Qaeda member was always likely to anger some families.
Kassem's representation of an accused or convicted terrorism defendant does not establish that Kassem supported al-Qaeda or his client's crimes. Defense representation is a legal role, not evidence of ideological allegiance.
The Family Connection to a 9/11 Hijacker Should Not Be Misstated
Critics frequently describe al-Darbi as 'linked to a 9/11 hijacker.' That is true in a specific family sense: his sister was married to Khalid al-Mihdhar.
But al-Darbi's guilty plea concerned later al-Qaeda maritime plots, not participation in the September 11 attacks themselves.
Likewise, Kassem's connection is one step further removed: he was al-Darbi's attorney.
Those distinctions matter because the political impact of the association is obvious without implying a direct operational connection to 9/11 that the facts do not support.
Mamdani's Muslim Faith Has Become Part of the Political Fight
Mamdani is New York City's first Muslim mayor, and that fact has inevitably shaped public reaction to his role in the 25th anniversary.
For critics who believe he has been insufficiently forceful about Islamist extremism, his attendance carries symbolic tension. For Muslim New Yorkers, attempts to exclude the city's elected mayor because of his faith can revive the collective suspicion many Muslims experienced after September 11.
Both history and present-day policy can be discussed without conflating a religion practiced by millions of Americans with the extremist ideology of al-Qaeda.
The 9/11 attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists who claimed a radical Islamist justification. That fact is part of the historical record.
It does not follow that a Muslim elected official shares their beliefs or bears responsibility for their crimes.
Giuliani's Standing Makes the Clash More Symbolic — Not More Legally Decisive
Few Americans are more closely identified with New York's public response to September 11 than Rudy Giuliani.
His voice therefore carries exceptional historical symbolism when he says a current mayor does not belong at the commemoration.
But Giuliani does not control the memorial ceremony or possess a veto over another elected official's attendance.
The online petition likewise represents a request and a political statement, not a court order or statutory disqualification.
The actual ceremony is administered around the victim families and the Memorial's commemorative program, while elected officials attend as invited public figures.
The Strongest Criticism of Mamdani Does Not Require Excluding Him Because He Is Muslim
There is a serious, evidence-based case for scrutinizing Mamdani's choices around the anniversary.
Critics can question the judgment of the Kassem pen handoff.
They can challenge Mamdani's past rhetoric about policing, his relationships with controversial activists and his political positions on Israel and the Middle East.
They can ask whether City Hall has handled the sensitivities of 9/11 families with enough care.
And relatives of victims have every right to say they do not want to interact with him at a ceremony devoted to their dead.
Those arguments are stronger when they focus on conduct and judgment rather than asserting that a Muslim mayor is inherently comparable to the terrorists who attacked the city.
The Strongest Defense of Mamdani Does Not Require Dismissing the Families
Mamdani's supporters also weaken their case if they treat every objection as prejudice.
Some of the people asking him to stay away lost spouses, relatives and close friends. Their anger is real and cannot fairly be reduced to partisan hatred.
The Ramzi Kassem controversy presents legitimate questions of symbolism even if legal representation should never be confused with endorsement of a client's crimes.
The mayor can insist on attending while still recognizing that his presence will be painful or infuriating to some people whose losses give them a uniquely personal stake in the anniversary.
That is the difficult balance a mayor inherits when representing a city whose most solemn civic ritual remains inseparable from individual grief.
Friday Will Test Whether Politics Can Stay in the Background
The 25th anniversary was always going to attract extraordinary national attention.
The Memorial says the families will again read the names, observe the moments of silence and gather on the plaza where the Twin Towers once stood.
Mamdani, Giuliani and other major political figures are expected to be present in the same space.
The danger is that a ceremony designed around the dead becomes another proxy battle over Trump, socialism, Islam, Israel and New York politics.
Mamdani says he wants the focus to remain on the families and first responders. His critics say his very presence makes that harder.
The measure of Friday will ultimately be whether all of the political figures attending can allow the names being read to matter more than themselves.
What Can Actually Be Said With Confidence
Zohran Mamdani has confirmed that he will attend the September 11, 2026 commemoration at Ground Zero on Friday.
He attended the same annual ceremony in 2025 before becoming mayor.
Rudy Giuliani has publicly urged Mamdani to stay away and said the mayor's attendance would offend him.
George Pataki, other Republican figures and some relatives of 9/11 victims have also opposed Mamdani's presence.
An online petition organized by relatives of victims has attracted roughly 100,000 signatures, but those signatories should not be described as 100,000 9/11 family members.
Other relatives of victims support Mamdani's attendance. September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows has expressly defended the presence of people who come to Ground Zero to pay respects and honor the dead.
Mamdani did not respond to Giuliani with a personal attack. He said he would attend and redirected attention to victims, families and first responders.
His administration has taken multiple official commemorative steps in 2026, including establishing September 11 as an annual Citywide Day of Remembrance and Service and updating city emergency-preparedness procedures.
Chief counsel Ramzi Kassem previously represented Ahmed al-Darbi, an al-Qaeda member who pleaded guilty in a military commission case involving maritime terrorism. Kassem's legal representation does not itself prove sympathy for al-Qaeda.
Al-Darbi's sister was married to one of the 9/11 hijackers, but al-Darbi was not convicted of participating in the September 11 attacks.
Giuliani's broader comments comparing Mamdani to the hijackers and suggesting that his Muslim faith shows a desire to dominate the United States are political assertions unsupported by evidence about Mamdani's own conduct.
The most accurate version of the story is therefore straightforward: Mamdani is going to the 25th-anniversary ceremony despite a genuine and emotionally charged campaign asking him to stay away, but the 9/11 family community itself is divided, and the strongest factual debate concerns his record and associations rather than his religion.
