Republican gubernatorial hopeful Steve Hilton announced on June 9, 2026, that his campaign monitors found no evidence of voting irregularities in the California governor race, even as he calls for federal oversight . the statement came outside the Los Angeles County Registrar’s building in Norwalk, where Hilton emphasized the absence of fraud despite a broader GOP critique of the state’s election system .

California’s Vote‑by‑Mail System Under Spotlight in 2026 Election

According to the report, California’s universal vote‑by‑mail system and lack of voter ID requirements have become focal points for Republican concerns. Hilton cited these structural vulnerabilities as potential avenues for undetected fraud, echoing national GOP arguments that the system could undermine public trust. the Associated Press has already projected Democrat Karen Bass into the November runoff, underscoring the high stakes of the ongoing count.

Federal Oversight: U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli’s Role in the Audit

Hilton noted that U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli is closely reviewing the process, and that his observers, along with the U .S. Attorney’s Office, have not identified any irregularities requiring federal intervention. The Department of Justice is conducting a comprehensive audit of California’s voter rolls, a fact highlighted in the source report to underline the federal commitment to transparency.

Press Conference Highlights Hilton’s Cautious Confidence

During the press conference, Hilton said, “We’ve had teams on it. we’ve had lawyers standing by,” and expressed confidence that he would secure a place in the runoff. However, he stated he would wait for the Associated Press to formally project his advancement before declaring victory, indicating a measured approach to the race’s outcome.

Unanswered Questions About the Scope of Federal Review

While Hilton’s observers have found no fraud, the report leaves unanswered whether the federal audit will uncover any systemic issues. Moreover, the U.S. attorney’s Office has not commented on whether recent activities are part of a broader fraud investigation, leaving the extent of federal scrutiny uncertain.