Federal investigators raided a Soros-funded voter mobilization group on Thursday as part of an ongoing fraud investigation.
Federal investigators raided a Soros-funded voter mobilization group on Thursday as part of an ongoing fraud investigation.
MS Now reported that on June 11, FBI agents raided the Ohio Organizing Collaborative (OOC) headquarters and went across the state questioning members of the group, sometimes with subpoenas or electronic devices.
Multiple sources familiar with the events told CBS News a day later that the operations were part of a fraud-related investigation.
The raid is the latest flashpoint in the Trump administration’s expanded use of federal law enforcement to probe alleged voter fraud and election-related misconduct.
The push has been cheered by conservatives who have long argued such cases were underenforced and condemned by Democrats and voting rights groups who say the effort risks turning the FBI into a political weapon against liberal voter registration operations.
OOC is a nonprofit organization that partners with the Democratic Party in Ohio on voter mobilization and registration efforts. It is especially active in ballot referendums, using its huge network of donors, including the philanthropies of the Soros family.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the specifics of the alleged investigation.
“Search warrants are authorized by a judge, and anything said by any organization or others in the media is unfounded speculation, as the target of any investigation is not privy to the search warrant affidavit until after indictment,” a DOJ official told Fox News.
Last year, the group spent $250,000 to oppose a GOP-led effort to block codifying the right to an abortion in Ohio’s constitution and another $300,000 on a subsequent Republican redistricting effort.
OOC funds these things by tapping a deep well of liberal donors at the very top level.
Recent tax documents show the organization had more than $10 million in revenue in 2024.
OOC’s considerable financial resources are derived from a host of high-profile Democratic-aligned donor organizations like the Soros family’s philanthropies, New Venture Fund, and the Tides Foundation, as well as unions including the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union.
Between 2019 and 2020, the Soros family’s Foundation to Promote Open Society gave OOC around $1.9 million.
In 2021, the Open Society Action Fund gave another $1 million to OOC’s sister organization, the Ohio Organizing Campaign, and followed up with another $1 million in 2023.
OOC has described the federal scrutiny as an example of the Trump administration politicizing the justice system.
OOC faced criticism in 2017 when a paid canvasser working with the group pleaded guilty to his involvement in a fraudulent voter registration operation.
Republicans, however, have yet to produce conclusive evidence of widespread voter fraud in recent election cycles.
“How can they distract and intimidate civil rights leaders and voters and community leaders who are helping people get registered to vote, and create a national spectacle about it?” Prentiss Haney, an OOC board member authorized to discuss the matter on behalf of the group, told MS Now.
“That is the only reason why they would choose to do that, do it now, in the middle of a contested political election in the state. There’s no other reason. They have no evidence of that,” Haney added.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump called for federal racketeering charges against Soros and his son, Alexander.
“George Soros, and his wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE. Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country! That includes his Crazy, West Coast friends. Be careful, we’re watching you! Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump added.
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.
