Tom Fitton's Judicial Watch Weekly Update

Tom Fitton's Judicial Watch Weekly Update | May 22, 2026

Cleaning Up California’s Voter Rolls

Judicial Watch Sues California to Clean Up 873,000 Inactive Voter Registrations
Judicial Watch Obtains 911 Call from Father of Alleged Trump Shooter Crooks
Judicial Watch Sues for Records on ‘Havana Syndrome’ Investigations
Judicial Watch Sues Secret Service over Obama-Era Prostitution Scandal

Judicial Watch Sues California to Clean Up 873,000 Inactive Voter Registrations

California has a dirty voting rolls crisis – with thousands of old names on the rolls going back at least 10 years. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections.

We filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a California political candidate and a state political party against the State of California due to its failure to maintain accurate voter rolls as required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (Don Wagner et al. v. Shirley N. Weber, in her official capacity as California Secretary of State (No. 8:26-cv-01263)).

Federal law requires most inactive voter registrations to be removed after two general federal elections. This- new federal lawsuit alleges, based on admissions in prior Judicial Watch litigation, that 873,092 voter registrations have remained continuously inactive for at least three federal elections, and some for much longer. Of these registrations, 326,808 have remained continuously inactive through at least three consecutive federal general elections, while 151,202 have remained inactive through at least four consecutive federal general elections.

In addition, 33,922 voter registrations have remained continuously inactive through at least five consecutive federal general elections — dating back at least ten years, to before the November 5, 2016, presidential election.

Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), states are required to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters from the voter rolls, including those who have died or moved. The lawsuit also alleges, again citing admissions by California officials, that the state takes no effective action to require counties to comply with the NVRA. As a result, they do not comply.

We sued on behalf of Don Wagner, an elected member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and candidate for California Secretary of State, and the American Independent Party of California.

In June 2025, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), as required by law, issued a report to Congress on states’ NVRA compliance. Citing this report, we point out that 20 California counties removed 50 or fewer inactive voters from their rolls between November 2022 and November 2024. Ten of these counties reported zero removals of inactives under the relevant statute during that time period. These include Alpine, Imperial, Inyo, Kings, Mariposa, Mendocino, Plumas, San Bernardino, Tehama, and Trinity. Counties reporting 50 or fewer removals include Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Sonoma, and Tuolumne.

We argue:

The 20 counties reporting zero to 50 registrations pursuant to NVRA Section 8(d)(1)(B) during the period from November 2022 to November 2024 reported a combined total of 3,440,358 voter registrations to the EAC. Yet these 20 counties reported removing a grand total of just 218 registrations under that provision during that period.

For context, we note that San Diego County, with 2.2 million registered voters, removed over 300,000 voter registrations under that statute during the same time period.

Currently, over 23 million Californians are registered to vote.

Additionally, we state that Census Bureau data shows:

660,000 California residents moved out of state in 2024;
690,000 in 2023; and
818,000 in 2022.

We point out that if California “was actually conducting a general program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel the registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence, it would not be possible” for these counties to cancel so few registrations under the NVRA in a two-year period.”

The lawsuit also notes that “comparing the total number of voter registrations reported to the EAC in each California county to the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent five-year estimates of voting-age citizenry indicates that 18 California counties have more voter registrations than citizens over the age of eighteen.”

In March 2019, the State of California and Los Angeles County settled a December 2017 lawsuit with us that resulted in the removal of more than 1.2 million names from voter rolls.

We filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Central District of California Western Division. The complaint asks the court to declare California in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the NVRA and to permanently enjoin the state from further violations. It also seeks an order requiring California to implement a lawful voter-roll maintenance program to remove ineligible registrants.

Judicial Watch is assisted by the Benbrook Law Group of Sacramento, California.

We are a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide.

Our lawsuits and legal actions have caused the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads our election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

In April 2026, we announced a settlement in our federal lawsuit against Oregon election officials, which confirms 800,000 ineligible voter names are slated for review and removal from voter registration lists.

Colorado recently removed 372,000 ineligible voter names thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit and settlement addressing the state’s compliance with federal voter list maintenance requirements.

In Kentucky, state election board officials reported that “roughly 735,000 ineligible voter registrations” have been removed from voter rolls, as part of a 2018 consent decree settling a Judicial Watch lawsuit.

As part of its 2022 settlement, New York City alone has removed 918,139 ineligible names from its rolls: data show 477,056 removals between March 2023 and February 2025, which is in addition to the 441,083 previously reported removals.

Our legal pressure also resulted in election roll clean-ups in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio.

A federal court in Illinois has ruled that our lawsuit to force the cleaning of voter rolls may proceed in that state. We sent a notice-of-violation letter to election officials in California, and legal action over the state’s voter rolls is imminent.

In March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral argument in a landmark election integrity case over whether the federal Election Day laws prohibit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. We brought the underlying lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

In January 2026, in a historic case we filed, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

Judicial Watch Obtains 911 Call from Father of Alleged Trump Shooter Crooks

We’re successfully uncovering details of the attempted assassination of President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, Police Department has, in response to a court order, released an audio recording of a 911 call placed by the father of Thomas Crooks, who is alleged to have attempted to then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump at approximately 6:11 p.m. during a campaign rally in Butler, PA, on July 13, 2024.

Thomas Crooks’ father, Matthew Crooks, called 911 on the evening of the shooting, just before 11:00 p.m., because he was concerned his son was missing and had not returned home:

Hi, hi, yes, my name’s Matthew Crooks. I was calling in regards to my son Thomas. He, he belongs to the Claritin Sportsmen Club in Claritin…. The reason I’m calling is he left the house here at about a quarter till 2:00 this afternoon. And we’ve gotten no contact from him, no text messages, nothing’s been returned, and he’s not home yet…. Like I said, he belongs to the Claritin Sportsmen Club or Gun Club, and he took a rifle of his out there, and it’s, it’s routine. He always does it, but he’s usually back within 2 hours…. And we’ve been texting him, leaving him messages on his phone. He’s not been returning any of our texts or messages, which is totally not like him. And, you know, we’re, we’re going on 11:00, and he still hasn’t come back or contacted us, so we’re kind of worried. We don’t know if he’s been in an accident or if something else happened to him.

The release follows a Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law request filed by Ken Silva of Headline USA in July 2024 seeking access to the recording and related records. The Bethel Park Police Department denied the request. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR) affirmed the denial, asserting that the audio was exempt from disclosure, citing its alleged connection to an active criminal investigation involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Pennsylvania State Police.

In October 2024, Judicial Watch, through local counsel, filed a petition for review of the denial in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on behalf of our client, Ken Silva, and Headline USA, (Silva et al. v. Bethel Park Police (No. SA-24-000675)).

In June 2025 we, again through local counsel, filed a motion for in camera (private) review of the disputed audio recording. The court granted that request, reviewed the material privately, and ultimately ordered its release on April 24, 2026, subject to redactions of personal identifying information.

This audio 911 call is another piece of the puzzle in the Butler assassination attempt on President Trump.

Chadwick Schnee, Esquire, of Schnee Legal Services, LLC, is assisting us as local counsel.

In February 2026, a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit forced the release of the first FBI records about the Butler assassination attempt, revealing that law enforcement personnel broadcast radio warnings about an “unknown male acting suspiciously” prior to the shooting.

In April 2026, we sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records related to an August 31, 2025, incident in which a club member allegedly carried a loaded semi-automatic handgun past Secret Service screening checkpoints at Trump National Golf Club in Virginia while President Donald Trump was on site.

In April 2026, our FOIA lawsuit forced the release of records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that show that Crooks was reportedly involved in an altercation with a group of people and making “hateful comments” directed at President Trump at Butler, PA.

In December 2025, we sued the U.S. Secret Service for communications records related to Code Pink protesters who disrupted a dinner held by President Trump at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2025 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-04408)).

In September 2025, we filed a FOIA lawsuit for messages among top leaders of the FBI referencing social media posts of Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri, head of the Miami Field Office, which is investigating the September 15 assassination attempt against Donald Trump (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:24-cv-02740)).

In March 2025, we sued Homeland Security for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)).

In August 2024, we uncovered documents from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot. The preparation included sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force.

In August 2024, in response to a separate open records request, we obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.

In August 2024, following up on reports that the Biden Secret Service denied Trump’s requests for additional Secret Service protection, we filed a FOIA lawsuit for Secret Service and other records regarding potential increased protective services to Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his life at his July 13 campaign rally (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:24-cv-02495)).

Judicial Watch Sues for Records on ‘Havana Syndrome’ Investigations

Havana Syndrome is a mysterious set of cognitive and neurological ailments named after cases first reported among diplomats at the U.S. embassy in Cuba. Former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman has said that he believes the number of people who have reported anomalous health incidents is near 1,000, if you include family members with symptoms.

Kupperman also stated that such incidents were not confined to overseas locations, noting that two government staffers reportedly were affected just steps from the White House.

We filed a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice and four other federal agencies, seeking records concerning anomalous health incidents (AHIs), commonly referred to as “Havana Syndrome” (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al. (No. 1:26-cv-01702)).

The lawsuit follows the government’s failure to respond to multiple FOIA requests submitted by Judicial Watch in February 2026 for extensive records dating back to 2016 regarding investigative, analytic, and operational response to Havana Syndrome affecting U.S. personnel both domestically and abroad. The agencies include:

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and
S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),

According to the complaint, the FBI request seeks “all records created, received, or maintained” by the Bureau’s Counterintelligence Division, Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, and field offices relating to Havana Syndrome investigations, including files indexed under classifications such as Espionage, Sabotage, Domestic Security, and Foreign Counterintelligence. The request also seeks FD-302 interview reports, electronic communications, case files, and interagency coordination records with intelligence and national security partners.

Our FOIA requests further seek CIA records addressing technical and scientific analysis of potential causal mechanisms for Havana Syndrome, including directional energy, pulsed radiofrequency energy, and ultrasonic or infrasonic hypotheses, as well as intelligence assessments regarding possible foreign attribution, including Russia, China, and Cuba.

We are also asking for Defense Intelligence Agency records relating to its internal Havana Syndrome investigation reportedly led by retired Army Lt. Col. Greg Edgreen, as well as records concerning the dismissal of former DIA Director Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse and related congressional findings.

In addition, we are seeking ODNI records related to Intelligence Community Assessment methodology, coordination processes, dissenting analytic views, and evidentiary standards used in Havana Syndrome-related assessments, including the March 2023 Intelligence Community Assessment and subsequent updates.

The complaint further includes a FOIA request submitted to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seeking records regarding the alleged acquisition and testing of a directed-energy or pulsed-energy device reportedly obtained through Homeland Security Investigations and studied for potential relevance to Havana Syndrome symptoms.

Federal agencies have stonewalled basic transparency on Havana Syndrome for years. The American people—and the dedicated public servants affected—deserve answers about what happened, what the government knew, and when it knew.

Judicial Watch Sues Secret Service over Obama-Era Prostitution Scandal

More than a decade after the Cartagena prostitution scandal embarrassed the Secret Service and raised questions inside the Obama White House, the public still has not seen the full story.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for records related to the 2012 scandal in Cartagena, Colombia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (1:26-cv-01555)).

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Secret Service failed to respond to a February 19, 2026, FOIA request for:

All emails and text messages sent between officials in the U.S. Secret Service and officials in the Office of the White House Counsel, including but not limited to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, relating to a controversy involving Secret Service officials and other U.S. government employees using the services of prostitutes during an Obama visit to Cartagena, Colombia in 2012.

A September 26, 2012, report from Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, prepared in response to queries from several senators, found:

[W]e identified 13 USSS [Secret Service] employees who had personal encounters with female Colombian nationals consistent with the misconduct reported in April 2012, around the time of advance activities for the President’s visit to Cartagena. These encounters took place at the Hotel Caribe, the Hilton Cartagena Hotel and at a private residence.

Our investigation determined that 12 of the 13 USSS employees met 13 female Colombian nationals at bars or clubs and returned with them to their rooms at the Hotel Caribe or the Hilton Cartagena Hotel.

***

Through our interviews, we learned that following their encounters, 3 females left the rooms without asking for money, 5 females asked for money and were paid, and 4 females asked for money but were not paid. In addition, one female, who asked to be paid but was not, brought a Colombian police officer to the door of the USSS employee’s room; the employee did not answer the door. As a result, she was paid by another USSS employee and left.

All told, the Secret Service investigated 12 people in connection with the Colombia incident. The final outcome was seven resignations, three employees receiving administrative punishment, one termination and one retirement.

At least 10 military personnel involved in Obama’s trip also reportedly invited prostitutes to their rooms. Multiple law enforcement and congressional sources alleged involvement by members of the White House advance team, as well.

The Secret Service’s refusal to turn over records about communications with the Obama White House raises serious transparency concerns. Our lawsuit aims to uncover exactly what Secret Service officials were telling the White House during one of the most embarrassing security scandals in modern presidential history.

In April 2026, we sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records related to an August 31, 2025, incident in which a club member allegedly carried a loaded semi-automatic handgun past Secret Service screening checkpoints at Trump National Golf Club in Virginia while President Donald Trump was on site.

Also in April, our FOIA lawsuit forced the release of records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that show that would-be Trump assassin Thomas Crooks was reportedly involved in an altercation with a group of people and making “hateful comments” directed at President Trump at the Butler, PA, rally site before the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt.

In February 2026, our lawsuit forced the release of the first FBI records about the Butler assassination attempt.

In September 2025, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for messages among top leaders of the Federal Bureau of Investigation referencing social media posts of Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri, head of the Miami Field Office, which is investigating the September 15 assassination attempt against Donald Trump (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:24-cv-02740)).

In March 2025, we sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)).

In August 2024, in response to a separate open records request, we obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.

In August 2024, following up on reports that the Biden Secret Service denied Trump’s requests for additional Secret Service protection, we filed a FOIA lawsuit for Secret Service and other records regarding potential increased protective services to Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his life at his July 13 campaign rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:24-cv-02495)).

Until next week,