Independent reporter Nick Shirley says he found widespread problems in California voter rolls, from dozens of people listed at a single address to at least one case where a dog was registered and reportedly voted in multiple elections.
Nick Shirley, an independent journalist known for digging into alleged fraud, turned his attention to California and posted a lengthy video documenting what he calls glaring irregularities. He traced registrations on public rolls, tested registration sites, and recorded multiple encounters that raise questions about verification. The findings are raw, often awkward, and force a conversation about how states confirm voter identities.
“California is the breeding ground for voter fraud in America, as millions of people vote with no ID, month-long election processes, inaccurate voter rolls, dead people caught voting, even a dog successfully registered to vote, and voter verification is all based on your signature — not who you actually are,” Shirley wrote in an X post with a nearly 23 minute video attached.
“In this video, I go to locations from California’s public voter rolls from the Secretary of State, and not a single location could verify the voter rolls,” he wrote, adding that there were “irregularities in voter numbers per location,” in one case there were “30 plus people registered to one mail store,” and some “voters were inaccurately aged at 125 years old.”
One of Shirley’s on-camera tests was simple and revealing: he asked a volunteer helping with registration why no ID is required, and the answer was direct. The volunteer explained that California leans on signature matching instead of in-person identification to verify who a voter is. That system assumes signatures are a reliable proxy for identity, which Shirley found many people and clerks could not confidently defend.
When Shirley pushed on whether signature-only checks open the door to fraud, the person assisting shrugged and insisted the safeguards are enough. That dismissal frustrated Shirley and underlined the gap between process and practical security. After that exchange he recorded more examples that he says point to systemic weaknesses in the roll maintenance and verification steps.
In another instance, Shirley revealed that one Californian had even registered their dog to vote, and alleged that she had voted in two elections.
Shirley also documented locations where large numbers of voters were listed at a single commercial address, including a UPS Store used as a primary residence by more than thirty registrants. When he confronted a woman about that cluster of registrations she accused him of pushing a “MAGA storyline,” then walked away. Those on-the-ground reactions became part of his case that public records and local verification often don’t line up.
These episodes are presented as pieces of a broader pattern Shirley says he uncovered across multiple counties, and they have landed in the lap of conservative watchdogs and officials who want stricter checks. From a Republican perspective, the footage reinforces long-standing concerns about lax ID rules and maintenance of voter rolls, and it highlights the need for tougher oversight rather than assumptions of perfect compliance. Whether these cases will trigger formal investigations or policy changes is an open question, but the footage puts pressure on regulators to explain how they prevent errors and abuse.
Shirley’s work is raw journalism: it stitches together public records, street interviews, and on-camera tests to show how administrative choices play out in the real world. Critics will say isolated incidents do not prove widespread fraud, and that may be true in some cases, but the larger issue is procedural: if state systems allow implausible registrations to stand, the public has a right to demand answers. The debate is now less theoretical and more video-evidence driven, which makes it harder for officials to ignore or dismiss without explanation.
Editor’s Note: President Trump is leading America into the “Golden Age” as Democrats try desperately to stop it. That statement sets the tone for how many conservatives view enforcement priorities and the urgency of cleaning up systems they see as vulnerable or abused.
