🚨 BREAKING: California’s defense in the federal election ballot case may have just taken a serious hit. Los Angeles County argued that segregating approximately 20,000 ballots associated with suspected noncitizen registrations was operationally impractical. Enter Clinton Curtis, the elected Registrar of Voters for Shasta County, California, a licensed attorney and computer programmer. In a sworn declaration filed October 26, Curtis directly challenges that argument. He states that California’s electronic election systems can flag voters whose eligibility is challenged and that ballot-sorting machines can isolate those ballots BEFORE they are processed. He further explains that manual procedures exist to accomplish the same objective. This is significant. If California’s election systems already possess these capabilities, why did Los Angeles County argue that segregation could not reasonably be accomplished? More importantly, were election officials aware of these capabilities when making representations to the federal court? Because there’s an enormous legal difference between being unable to perform a procedure and knowingly representing that a procedure cannot be performed. Curtis’s declaration doesn’t establish intentional misconduct, but it creates a factual dispute that deserves serious examination. The DOJ now has sworn testimony from a sitting California election official challenging a central component of LA County’s operational defense. The question is no longer simply whether the ballots CAN be segregated. It’s whether Los Angeles County’s election officials accurately represented what their systems are capable of doing. And if they didn’t, WHY NOT?