voting

Eric Neff’s tenure at the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office ended after he was placed on administrative leave in 2022 over accusations of misconduct in the prosecution of the CEO of Konnech, a software company that election conspiracy theorists said was in the thrall of the Chinese government.

Now, three years later, Neff is serving as one of the Trump administration’s top election watchdogs.

Late last year , his name began appearing on lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, listed as “acting chief” of the voting section.

Neff’s appointment, first reported by Mother Jones, has prompted renewed scrutiny of his work at the L.A. County district attorney’s office.

The Times interviewed several of Neff’s former colleagues, who revealed new details about claims of misconduct that emerged from the Konnech case, and said they were alarmed that someone with almost no background in federal election law was named to a senior position.

Neff led the 2022 investigation of Konnech, a tiny Michigan company whose software is used by election officials in several major cities. In a criminal complaint, Neff accused the company’s CEO, Eugene Yu, of fraud and embezzlement, alleging the company stored poll worker information on a server based in China, a violation of its contract with the L.A. County registrar’s office.

Six weeks after a complaint was filed, prosecutors dropped the case and launched an investigation into “irregularities” and bias in the way evidence was presented against Konnech, the D.A.’s office said in a 2022 statement.

The county paid Konnech $5 million and joined a motion to find Yu factually innocent as part of a legal settlement.

The internal probe was focused on accusations that Neff misled supervisors at the district attorney’s office about the role of election deniers in his investigation, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the case who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Neff also allegedly withheld information about potential biases in the case from a grand jury, according to the two officials.

In a civil lawsuit filed last year, Neff said the internal review by the D.A.’s office cleared him of wrongdoing. The two officials familiar with the probe who spoke on the condition of anonymity disputed Neff’s characterization of the findings.

A spokesman for Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman declined to comment or provide the results of the investigation into Neff, which the officials said was conducted by an outside law firm that generated a report on the case. Neff’s attorney also did not provide a copy of the report.

A Department of Justice spokesman declined to comment.

Neff’s attorney, Tom Yu — no relation to the Konnech CEO — said his client had no obligation to provide background information about the origins of the case to the grand jury.

Neff’s appointment comes as President Trump continues to remake the DOJ in his own image by appointing political loyalists with no criminal law background as U.S. attorneys in New Jersey and Virginia and seeking prosecutions of his political enemies, such as former FBI Director James Comey.

Trump has never recanted his false claim that he won the 2020 election.

When then-L.A. County Dist. Atty. George Gascón announced the charges against Konnech in 2020, Trump said the progressive prosecutor would become a “National hero on the Right if he got to the bottom of this aspect of the Voting Fraud.”

The Konnech case was centered on contract fraud, not voter fraud or ballot rigging. Six weeks after the charges were filed, the case disintegrated.

The D.A.’s office cited Neff’s over-reliance on evidence provided by True the Vote, the group that pushed the unfounded Chinese government conspiracies about Konnech and also appeared in a film that spread claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Gascón initially denied that True the Vote was involved in the case, but weeks later, a D.A.’s office spokesman said a report from the group’s co-founder, Gregg Phillips, sparked the prosecution. Phillips testified in court in July 2022 that it was Neff who first contacted him about Konnech.

The two officials who spoke to The Times said that Neff withheld True the Vote’s role from high-level D.A.’s office staff, including Gascón, when presenting the case.

Gascón declined an interview request, noting he is named in Neff’s pending lawsuit, which is slated for trial in early 2026.

Neff’s attorney insisted the case against Konnech was solid.

“He was let go because Trump tweeted a statement of ‘Go George Go’,” the attorney said. “That’s why Eugene Yu was let go. Because Gascón was so scared he was going to lose votes.”

Calls and emails to an attorney who previously represented Eugene Yu were not returned.

In his lawsuit, Neff claimed he had evidence that “Konnech used third-party contractors based in China and failed to abide by security procedures” to protect L.A. County poll worker data. The evidence was not attached as an exhibit in the lawsuit.

A DOJ spokesperson declined to describe Neff’s job duties. His name appears on a number of lawsuits filed in recent months against states that have refused to turn over voter registration lists to the Trump administration.

Neff is also involved in a suit filed against the Fulton County clerk’s office in Georgia seeking records related to the 2020 election, records show.

“We will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws,” Asst. Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, the California conservative who now leads the civil rights division, said in a recent statement. “If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will.”

Dhillon declined to comment through a DOJ spokesman.

The voting section “enforces the civil provisions of the federal laws that protect the right to vote, including the Voting Rights Act,” according to the DOJ’s website.

It does not appear that Neff has any background working on cases related to federal election law. He first became an L.A. County prosecutor in 2013 and spent years handling local crime cases out of the Pomona courthouse. He was promoted and reassigned to the Public Integrity Division, which investigates corruption issues, in 2020, according to his lawsuit.

While there, he handled only two prosecutions related to elections. One was the Konnech case. The other involved allegations of election rigging against a Compton city council member.

In August 2021, Isaac Galvan, a Democrat, was charged with conspiring to commit election fraud after he allegedly worked to direct voters from outside his council district to cast ballots for him. Galvan won the race by just one vote, but was booted from office when a judge determined at least four improper ballots had been cast.

Galvan’s criminal case is still pending; he recently pleaded guilty to charges in a separate corruption and bribery case in federal court. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles said there was no overlap between the D.A.’s election rigging case and the bribery case against Galvan. Federal prosecutors are not reviewing the Konnech case, the spokesman said.

Court filings show Neff was involved in Galvan’s L.A. County case, but the prosecution was led by a more senior attorney.

Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School who served in the civil rights division during the Obama administration, said section chiefs normally have decades of experience in the area of law they’re meant to supervise.

“The biggest problem with somebody with Neff’s history is the giant screaming red flag that involves filing a prosecution based on unreliable evidence,” Levitt said. “That’s not something any prosecutor should do.”

Neff’s attorney, Yu, scoffed at the idea that his client was not experienced enough for his new role in the Trump administration, or that he was selected due to his involvement in the Konnech case.

“Eric got the job because he’s qualified to get the job. He didn’t get the job for any other reason. He got the job because he’s an excellent advocate,” Yu said. “I think the Justice Department is very fortunate to have Eric.”

Times Staff Writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

If history is a guide, Republicans stand a good chance of losing control of the House of Representatives in 2026. They have just a slim majority in the chamber, and the incumbent party usually gives up seats in midterm elections.

President Trump, whose loss of the House halfway through his first term led to two impeachments, is trying to keep history from repeating — and doing so in ways his opponents say are intended to manipulate next year’s election landscape.

He has rallied his party to remake congressional maps across the country to create more conservative-leaning House seats, an effort that could end up backfiring on him. He’s directed his administration to target Democratic politicians, activists and donors. And, Democrats worry, he’s flexing his muscles to intervene in the midterms like no administration ever has.

Democrats and other critics point to how Trump has sent the military into Democratic cities over the objections of Democratic mayors and governors. They note that he’s pushed the Department of Homeland Security to be so aggressive that at one point its agents handcuffed a Democratic U.S. senator. And some warn that a Republican-controlled Congress could fail to seat winning candidates if Democrats reclaim the House majority, recalling Trump’s efforts to stay in power even after voters rejected him in 2020, leading to the violent attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol.

Regarding potential military deployments, Ken Martin, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told The Associated Press: “What he is going to do is send those troops there, and keep them there all the way through the next election, because guess what? If people are afraid of leaving their house, they’re probably not going to leave their house to go vote on Election Day. That’s how he stays in power.”

Military to the polls, or fearmongering?

Democrats sounded similar alarms just before November’s elections, and yet there were no significant incidents. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a frequent Trump antagonist who also warns about a federal crackdown on voting in 2026, predicted that masked immigration agents would show up at the polls in his state, where voters were considering a ballot measure to counter Trump’s redistricting push.

There were no such incidents in November, and the measure to redraw California’s congressional lines in response to Trump’s efforts elsewhere won in a landslide.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the concerns about the midterms come from Democratic politicians who are “fearmongering to score political points with the radical left flank of the Democrat party that they are courting ahead of their doomed-to-fail presidential campaigns.”

She described their concerns as “baseless conspiracy theories.”

Susie Wiles, Trump’s chief of staff, denied that Trump was planning to use the military to try to suppress votes.

“I say it is categorically false, will not happen. It’s just wrongheaded,” she told Vanity Fair for an interview that was published earlier in December.

DNC litigation director Dan Freeman said he hasn’t seen an indication that Trump will send immigration enforcement agents to polling places during the midterms, but is wary.

He said the DNC filed public records requests in an attempt to learn more about any such plans and is drafting legal pleadings it could file if Trump sends armed federal agents to the polls or otherwise intervenes in the elections.

“We’re not taking their word for it,” Freeman said in an interview.

States, not presidents, run elections

November’s off-year elections may not be the best indicator of what could lie ahead. They were scattered in a handful of states, and Trump showed only modest interest until late in the fall when his Department of Justice announced it was sending federal monitors to California and New Jersey to observe voting in a handful of counties. It was a bureaucratic step that had no impact on voting, even as it triggered alarm from Democrats.

Alexandra Chandler, the legal director of Defend Democracy, a group that has clashed with Trump over his role in elections, said she was heartened by the lack of drama during the 2025 voting.

“We have so many positive signs we can look to,” Chandler said, citing not only a quiet election but GOP senators’ resistance to Trump’s demands to eliminate the filibuster and the widespread resistance to Trump’s demand that television host Jimmy Kimmel lose his job because of his criticism of the president. “There are limits” on Trump’s power, she noted.

“We will have elections in 2026,” Chandler said. “People don’t have to worry about that.”

Under the Constitution, a president has limited tools to intervene in elections, which are run by the states. Congress can help set rules for federal elections, but states administer their own election operations and oversee the counting of ballots.

When Trump tried to singlehandedly revise election rules with a sweeping executive order shortly after returning to office, the courts stepped in and stopped him, citing the lack of a constitutional role for the president. Trump later promised another order, possibly targeting mail ballots and voting machines, but it has yet to materialize.

DOJ voter data request ‘should frighten everybody’

Still, there’s plenty of ways a president can cause problems, said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor.

Trump unsuccessfully pushed Georgia’s top election official to “find” him enough votes to be declared the winner there in 2020 and could try similar tactics in Republican-dominated states in November. Likewise, Hasen said, Trump could spread misinformation to undermine confidence in vote tallies, as he has done routinely ahead of elections.

It’s harder to do that in more lopsided contests, as many in 2025 turned into, Hasen noted.

“Concerns about Trump interfering in 2026 are real; they’re not frivolous,” Hasen said. “They’re also not likely, but these are things people need to be on guard for.”

One administration move that has alarmed election officials is a federal demand from his Department of Justice for detailed voter data from the states. The administration has sued the District of Columbia and at least 21 states, most of them controlled by Democrats, after they refused to turn over all the information the DOJ sought.

“What the DOJ is trying to do is something that should frighten everybody across the political spectrum,” said David Becker, a former Justice Department voting rights attorney and executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “They’re trying to use the power of the executive to bully states into turning over highly sensitive data — date of birth, Social Security numbers, driver’s license, the Holy Trinity of identity theft — hand it over to the DOJ for who knows what use.”

‘Voter protection’ vs ‘election integrity’

Voting rights lawyers and election officials have been preparing for months for the midterms, trying to ensure there are ways to counter misinformation and ensure state election systems are easy to explain. Both major parties are expected to stand up significant campaigns around the mechanics of voting: Democrats mounting what they call a “voter protection” effort to monitor for problems while Republicans focus on what they call “election integrity.”

Freeman, the DNC litigation director who previously worked in the DOJ’s voting section, said his hiring this year was part of a larger effort by the DNC to beef up its in-house legal efforts ahead of the midterms. He said the committee has been filling gaps in voting rights law enforcement that the DOJ has typically covered, including informing states that they can’t illegally purge citizens from their voter rolls.

Tina Barton, co-chair of the Committee on Safe and Secure Elections, a coalition of law enforcement and election officials who advise jurisdictions on de-escalation and how to respond to emergencies at polling places, says interest in the group’s trainings has “exploded” in recent weeks.

“There’s a lot at stake, and that’s going to cause a lot of emotions,” Barton said.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Penn., Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

Thomas Skinner was said to be ‘suing’ the BBC over his early exit from Strictly and has claimed that the BBC ‘rigged’ the votes to orchestrate his elimination from the dance competition

Thomas Skinner has hit back at press attention of his rumoured feud with the BBC in furious statement made on Good Morning Britain. Ahead of the Strictly Come Dancing live final on 20 December, it was reported that Skinner was ‘suing’ the BBC as he believed they had ‘rigged’ the votes to ensure he would be eliminated first, which the BBC strongly denied. The broadcaster made clear that they had not received any legal paperwork and Skinner did not confirm that he was suing.

However, after refusing to appear in the live final, Skinner posted a statement to X where he said he “received an anonymous email claiming to be from a BBC exec with stats, saying I’d received far more votes than it appeared and it wasn’t right”. Following the statement, The Mirror exclusively revealed that Skinner’s voting figures may not be as high as he believes.

READ MORE: Thomas Skinner ‘dropped by agent’ after threatening to sue BBC over Strictly axeREAD MORE: Thomas Skinner’s true Strictly voting figures revealed leaving BBC fight in tatters

A source pointed to an independent exit poll of 125,000 viewers as “clear evidence of his unpopularity.” It showed how Skinner attracted just 1805 votes, which was the lowest of any contestant on the BBC programme. The source claimed: “The poll – which is larger than an exit poll for a general election – comprehensively shows that Skinner was the least popular contestant by a long way. There is no conspiracy. These are the cold, hard facts.”

Hitting back at the article in a statement shared on Good Morning Britain, Skinner said he was “struggling to understand” why his words on X were getting so much attention. He said: “I don’t hate the BBC – they gave me my big break on The Apprentice. I had discussions with my representatives on Wednesday evening which I believed to be private and confidential and I spoke openly with them in confidence.

“I was obviously gutted when I received the email on the evening I left the show, and at first I didn’t believe it was true. When I raised this in conversation, I was advised by the BBC to seek legal advice. I’ve had a difficult year with the press attention I didn’t seek, and I’m honestly struggling to understand why this continues to escalate. “

Similarly, when approached by The Mirror, Skinner said he did not believe the low voting figures were accurate but refused to reveal how he was able to verify the “anonymous email” his information came from.

He said: “Regarding the anonymous email and verification process, I don’t wish to comment further at this time or release anything publicly. As for the voting figures, I know for a fact that the information you have is not accurate. That said, it doesn’t materially matter to me now, and I’m not looking to contest this publicly.”

Despite “not looking to contest this publicly”, Skinner made a lengthy public statement on X where he insisted his elimination was “unfair” and that a BBC exec had told him that the broadcaster was angry over his friendship with JD Vance.

He wrote: “On the night I left the show, I received an anonymous email claiming to be from a BBC exec with stats, saying I’d received far more votes than it appeared and it wasn’t right. I’ve since had the email independently verified.”

“That same email mentioned the BBC was very angry an nervous simply because I had met JD Vance (USA VICE PRESIDENT). Let me be clear, I’m not a political bloke. Never have been. I just love my country and am patriotic. I’ve been made out by the press to be this political figure. If anyone was to get an opportunity like what I did, they would have taken it. I still think it is mad that a man like me who sells mattresses out of a van can call someone that senior in the world ’s politics a friend now.”

“I have asked to see the official voting figures to back up the ones I was sent in the email but was told they couldn’t be shown to me. And have never been shown in the history of the show. I have spoke about the email I had received to senior people and the BBC welfare team, who btw I genuinely respect. And they was the ones who advised me to get legal advice because of how unfair it all was. (This was not my idea).”

However, a BBC spokesperson said Skinner never shared the email he referenced. They told the Mirror: “”In response to Tom’s latest statement, the BBC said: “Strictly Come Dancing’s public vote is independently overseen and verified to ensure complete accuracy every week. Any claims to the contrary are entirely without foundation. Unfortunately, despite requests for it, Mr Skinner is yet to share the email he references with anyone from the BBC so we are unable to comment on it.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Thomas Skinner is reportedly suing the BBC as it’s claimed he has proof the organisation rigged Strictly Come Dancing voting to ensure he left the competition early

Former Strictly star Thomas Skinner appears to be the latest to stick the boot in to the BBC. The reality TV star is reportedly suing the organisation with claims suggesting he believes the dance show’s voting was rigged.

It’s said he believes he has proof that there was foul play in order to eliminate him as soon as possible. The star of The Apprentice and his professional dance partner Amy Dowden were given their marching orders at the start of the series.

The show saw scores from the judges from the first two weeks added together, along with results of a public poll. While the BBC never revealed exactly how many public votes each star got, Thomas is said to think he has proof they deliberately downplayed his total.

READ MORE: Kevin Spacey returning to TV for first time since ‘House Of Cards’READ MORE: I’m A Celeb’s Angry Ginge and Alex Scott reunite at SPOTY after star missed his jungle crowning

A source claims he is now following in Donald Trump’s footsteps and suing the organisation. Speaking to The Sun, an insider said: “Thomas is adamant he got a larger share of the public vote and believes he has the evidence to prove it. He is determined to see it through, but there’s no way the BBC will take this sensational claim lying down.”

They went on: “They’ll robustly defend any kinds of claims that the voting was rigged or fixed.”

Asked to comment on the allegations, a BBC spokesperson told the Mirror: “Strictly Come Dancing’s public vote is robust and independently overseen and verified to ensure complete accuracy.”

Sources at the corporation also told the Mirror it hasn’t received any legal complaint or paperwork in relation to this matter. .

The Sun’s source also added that while Thomas was supposedly asked to return for the final this weekend, there was no chance he’d accept the invitation.

They claimed he has been “locked in rows with bosses ever since he was sent home”. “He’s convinced the BBC was hell-bent on getting him out as soon as possible — no matter how many of his fans got behind him,” they said.

Despite the source’s allegations, it’s reported Thomas’s no-show this weekend is simply down to a prior commitment. Amy will be back to dance with her fellow ballroom stars, though.

Other stars who appeared on the series this year included Geordie Shore legend Vicky Pattison, Emmerdale’s Lewis Cope and Doctor Who actress Alex Kingston.

And it’s expected that they will all make a return to the dancefloor, alongside other former contestants like drag queen La Voix, showbiz guru Ross King and Gladiator Harry Aikines-Aryeetey amongst a host of others.

There has been speculation following Thomas since his initial inclusion in the series. He stirred up a storm over his behaviour off the dancefloor before the show started.

He faced backlash over his social media posts, notably a selfie with Vice US President JD Vance and later stormed out of the press launch for Strictly and snatched a journalist’s phone. Then, an affair was uncovered as Thomas admitted to cheating on his wife just weeks after their wedding.

The Mirror also revealed one of his firms hasn’t paid back a £50,000 Covid bounce back loan.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .