Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In 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 reported.
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.
FBI ELECTION INVESTIGATION EXPANDS AS NEW QUESTIONS SURROUND YEARS OF POLITICAL AND INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS
— The Federal Bureau of Investigation is facing renewed scrutiny over allegations surrounding political investigations, intelligence handling and election-related operations spanning multiple presidential cycles.
Under FBI Director Kash Patel, the bureau has reportedly expanded its examination of several controversial episodes dating back to the 2016 election, including the origins of the Russia investigation, the handling of Hillary Clinton's private email server and allegations surrounding federal investigations during the Trump administration.
Supporters of the inquiry describe it as an effort to determine whether previously separate controversies were connected by a broader pattern of political decision-making.
Critics, however, warn against treating unproven allegations as established facts and argue that any investigation must be based on evidence rather than political conclusions.
A DECADE OF CONTROVERSY UNDER REVIEW
The investigation reportedly encompasses events from several election cycles.
Among the issues receiving renewed attention are the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation and the subsequent investigations conducted during Donald Trump's presidency.
The Durham investigation previously examined aspects of the origins of the Russia probe, while Inspector General investigations examined the FBI's handling of various politically sensitive matters.
Those earlier reviews produced significant criticism of government procedures and decision-making.
The latest effort appears aimed at determining whether additional records could provide information that was not previously available to investigators or the public.
That possibility has generated intense political interest in Washington.
THE CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION RETURNS TO THE SPOTLIGHT
One area of renewed scrutiny involves Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state.
Investigators have previously examined whether classified information was improperly handled through the system and whether government officials followed appropriate procedures.
The new inquiry is reportedly seeking additional records related to how senior FBI officials handled those allegations during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Supporters of the investigation argue that the public deserves a complete accounting of how politically sensitive decisions were made.
The key question is whether officials applied investigative standards consistently or whether political considerations influenced the process.
Any new evidence would have to be evaluated independently before conclusions could be reached.
THE DURHAM MATERIALS AND THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION
Another major component concerns records associated with Special Counsel John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.
Durham's final report raised serious questions about the FBI's investigative practices and concluded that the bureau did not sufficiently verify certain allegations before relying on them.
The report also examined the origins of information that contributed to the investigation of potential connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The continuing debate is whether the failures identified by Durham represented isolated investigative mistakes or evidence of a broader institutional problem.
The latest review could potentially provide additional context if previously restricted records become available.
But investigators would still need to distinguish between poor judgment, procedural violations and criminal conduct.
Those are legally and factually different categories.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 2020 ELECTION
The investigation is also reportedly examining allegations involving foreign interference during the 2020 election.
Some claims circulating among political commentators allege that Chinese actors were involved in schemes to manipulate mail ballots.
Those allegations are extremely serious.
However, claims of a coordinated foreign operation to inject fraudulent ballots into American election systems require substantial evidence.
The existence of intelligence reports, investigative leads or unverified source material would not by itself establish that fraudulent ballots were actually introduced into election systems or that government officials deliberately concealed such activity.
Any federal investigation would therefore need to establish a clear evidentiary chain.
Investigators would need to determine what information existed, who received it, how it was evaluated, what actions were taken and whether anyone intentionally destroyed or suppressed evidence.
ALLEGATIONS OF DESTROYED EVIDENCE
One of the most contentious claims surrounding the investigation involves allegations that federal officials deliberately destroyed intelligence concerning election interference.
Such accusations, if proven, could raise significant legal and constitutional questions.
But destruction of evidence is itself a claim that must be established through records, witness testimony or other corroborating evidence.
Investigators would need to determine whether documents were actually destroyed, whether destruction was authorized under federal records procedures, and whether anyone acted with an intent to obstruct an investigation.
Those distinctions could determine whether an administrative violation occurred or whether criminal liability is possible.
WHY VENUE COULD BECOME IMPORTANT
Another reported element of the investigation involves the possibility of conducting proceedings outside Washington, D.C.
Florida has become particularly significant because several Trump-related investigations and legal proceedings have taken place there.
Mar-a-Lago, Trump's Florida residence, was the site of the 2022 FBI search connected to the classified-documents investigation led by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
That history has made Florida a politically important location in the broader debate over federal law enforcement.
However, venue in a federal criminal case is ultimately governed by law and the specific facts alleged.
The location of an investigation or search does not automatically establish jurisdiction for every potential offense.
Prosecutors would therefore need to demonstrate that the relevant conduct occurred within the appropriate federal district or otherwise satisfies applicable venue requirements.
THE PARTISAN DIVIDE
The investigation has quickly become another flashpoint in the country's continuing political conflict.
Trump's supporters argue that federal agencies must be held accountable if officials abused their authority or allowed political considerations to influence investigations.
They point to previous findings involving investigative errors as evidence that stronger oversight is necessary.
Democrats and other critics have warned that federal law enforcement must not become an instrument of political retaliation.
Their concern is that investigations involving former political opponents could be used to punish officials for legitimate decisions made during previous administrations.
That conflict makes impartiality especially important.
WHAT AN INVESTIGATION CAN AND CANNOT ESTABLISH
The distinction between investigating allegations and proving them is critical.
A grand jury investigation does not mean that anyone has been found guilty.
Investigators may examine records, subpoena witnesses and review classified information without ultimately bringing charges.
Similarly, the existence of an investigation does not establish that a conspiracy occurred.
For criminal charges to move forward, prosecutors would generally need evidence establishing specific violations of federal law and satisfying the applicable legal standards.
That is why claims of a sweeping “grand conspiracy” should be treated cautiously until supporting evidence is made public or presented in court.
THE ROLE OF THE FBI
The controversy also raises a broader question about the FBI itself.
Federal law enforcement agencies wield extraordinary investigative powers.
They can conduct surveillance, execute search warrants, subpoena records and investigate political figures from either party.
With that power comes an equally significant responsibility to remain independent and follow established procedures.
If investigators discover evidence that FBI personnel acted improperly, those actions should be investigated.
If they find no criminal wrongdoing, that conclusion should also be respected.
The legitimacy of federal law enforcement ultimately depends on applying the same standards regardless of political affiliation.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The most consequential development will be whether investigators uncover new evidence capable of supporting criminal allegations.
That could include previously unavailable documents, communications, financial records, intelligence assessments or testimony from individuals directly involved in the disputed operations.
Any such evidence would need to be authenticated and placed in context.
The public will also be watching to see whether prosecutors ultimately present evidence to a grand jury, seek indictments or conclude that certain allegations cannot be substantiated.
Until then, many of the most dramatic claims surrounding the investigation remain allegations rather than established findings.
A TEST FOR THE RULE OF LAW
The political stakes could hardly be higher.
The investigation reaches back through some of the most divisive episodes of modern American political history.
The 2016 election.
The Russia investigation.
The Clinton email controversy.
The 2020 election.
The Trump investigations.
Each episode has generated years of partisan disagreement.
Now, as federal authorities revisit aspects of those controversies, the credibility of the process will matter as much as the outcome.
If investigators uncover genuine misconduct, Americans deserve to know what happened and who was responsible.
If allegations cannot be substantiated, the public deserves to know that as well.
The standard cannot change depending on which political party benefits.
Evidence must come before accusation.
Investigation must come before prosecution.
And criminal responsibility must ultimately be determined through the legal process rather than political rhetoric.
The FBI's expanded review therefore represents more than another Washington political confrontation.
It is a test of whether the country's institutions can investigate their own failures without becoming consumed by the partisan divisions they are supposed to transcend.
For now, the evidence remains the central unanswered question.
And as investigators review records from nearly a decade of political and intelligence controversies, the country will be watching to see whether the inquiry produces documented wrongdoing—or simply another chapter in America's increasingly bitter political war.
