Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, the Trump administration’s top civil rights enforcer, is calling out yet another glaring weak spot in America’s election system—this time taking aim at Minnesota’s same-day voter registration “vouching” scheme.
Dhillon highlighted a post from conservative activist Scott Presler that exposed just how ripe the system is for abuse. Presler claimed on X that one registered voter in the North Star State can sign an oath to vouch for the residency of up to eight others on Election Day—without requiring any photo ID or additional proof:
“Here’s how it works: Let’s say that Shukran is a registered voter in Minnesota. It’s Election Day & Shukran brings 8 friends (with) him to vote,” Presler explained. “Shukran: ‘My 8 friends that live in our neighborhood don’t have IDs.’ Election Day Worker: ‘Sign this form to vouch for them.'”
“+8 votes.”
I Repeat:
Minnesota has same day voter registration.
1 registered voter can vouch for up to 8 others (who don’t have an ID).
— ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) December 27, 2025
Dhillon, who serves as the U.S. assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, reposted Presler’s message and added her own concise reaction.
“This is corrupt AF,” she wrote.
This is corrupt AF https://t.co/pYMtCzM7Od
— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@HarmeetKDhillon) December 27, 2025
Pressler then thanked Dhillon for bringing attention to the matter.
Yes, the blunt language may raise eyebrows coming from a senior Department of Justice official—but given what Presler is exposing, the reaction is entirely understandable. When election safeguards are this lax, polite euphemisms don’t really cut it.
And it’s not as though Minnesota is even pretending to conceal what it’s doing. The state’s same-day registration “vouching” provision is spelled out clearly and proudly on the Minnesota Secretary of State’s official website. It’s openly advertised as an acceptable form of “proof of residence.”
Registered voter who can confirm your address: A registered voter from your precinct can go with you to the polling place to sign an oath confirming your address. This is known as ‘vouching.’ A registered voter can vouch for up to eight voters. You cannot vouch for others if someone vouched for you.
To be clear, there is no definitive evidence—yet—that Minnesota’s “vouching” system has produced widespread voter fraud. But pretending that the potential for abuse isn’t obvious is willful blindness. When identity verification is replaced with personal assurances, the door isn’t just unlocked—it’s wide open.
And the risks aren’t theoretical. The Heritage Foundation’s Voter Fraud Map and Election Fraud Database documents a 2017 case out of Minneapolis involving Zameahia J. Ismail, a non-citizen who successfully voted after an acquaintance vouched for her address during same-day registration. No ID. No proof of citizenship. Just a nod and a signature.
What could go wrong?
Election Integrity Watch, a conservative election watchdog site, has previously stated the “combination of no ID requirements, no provisional balloting, Election Day registration and ‘vouching’ makes Minnesota’s election system ripe for abuse.”
State Republicans have recently stepped forward to address voter fraud concerns head-on, raising pointed questions about Minnesota’s automatic voter registration system, its loosely enforced vouching rules, and the glaring lack of meaningful citizenship verification. These aren’t fringe complaints—they’re fundamental issues that go to the heart of election integrity.
Dhillon’s sharp rebuke comes amid broader legal action by the Department of Justice, which has filed lawsuits against Minnesota and several other states over failures to properly maintain voter rolls.
“States are required to safeguard American elections by complying with our federal elections laws,” said Dhillon. “Clean voter rolls protect American citizens from voting fraud and abuse, and restore their confidence that their states’ elections are conducted properly, with integrity, and in compliance with the law.”
The question now is whether Dhillon’s blunt “corrupt AF” assessment will translate into action. Will the DOJ finally move to close these obvious, exploitable gaps before the next round of battleground-state elections, or will officials once again wait until after the damage is done to admit the system was broken all along?
