Judge cites "high likelihood of error" in DHS list of people to visit

DHS says it used multiple data sources to eliminate false positives

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin said there was a “high likelihood of error” in the government’s process for building a list of people to visit. Homeland Security has said officials used multiple data sources to verify the identities of registrants to do away with false positives.

The finding came in a ruling Wednesday that bars DHS from continuing its door-knocking and “field interviews” asking people their immigration status and whether they will vote. Martinez-Olguin ordered immigration officials to stop the practice of “elections-related field operations and field interviews” in nine states when the operations are likely to involve people whom government officials “know, suspect or should reasonably know or suspect are U.S. citizens.” The nine states the department focused on were California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.

Martinez-Olguin stayed the order until 5 p.m. EDT Friday to allow the department to appeal. Unless DHS appeals, the order will stay in effect until the polls close.

Homeland Security has posted photos and videos of agents visiting homes in multiple states. Critics argue that the operation was an effort to intimidate voters. The administration of President Donald Trump says the operation is part of an effort to find voting by noncitizens. The operation is part of what the government calls the “Unlawful Voter Initiative.” The midterm elections are less than two weeks away.

California Nurses Association and National Nurses United were among the groups that filed the lawsuit. “Plaintiffs do not claim, nor does the Court find, that it is unlawful for federal officials to undertake investigations into unlawful voting in federal elections,” Martinez-Olguin wrote. “Rather, Plaintiffs seek to stop DHS from continuing to investigate U.S. citizens, who have a legal right to vote, in a way that intimidates and threatens the participation of CNA/NNU members from urging or aiding others to vote.”

She added that the interests of the plaintiffs “and the public’s interest in safe elections, free from interference or intimidation, far exceed defendants’ purported interest in combating unlawful voting by non-U.S. citizens.”