LOS ANGELES — The rumors surfaced online even before voting ended, and by the time Los Angeles County’s June primary had concluded, they were impossible to ignore. False claims of a rigged election were spreading rapidly across social media, amplified by accounts with thousands of followers. Some people questioned the integrity of the voting process itself. One viral post alleged that the late basketball star Kobe Bryant was still on LA County’s voter rolls — a claim that was demonstrably false but nonetheless gained traction. For Michael Sanchez, communications manager for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, this was a moment unlike any other in his career. He and his team were responsible for monitoring social media for election disinformation and misinformation, and they watched in real time as the falsehoods went viral under their watch. The pressure increased sharply on June 3, when President Donald Trump used his Truth Social account to accuse Democrats of stealing the Los Angeles mayoral race. Local and national media immediately began calling the registrar’s office for comment, and federal authorities later opened election-related investigations. Sanchez, who had spent more than a decade at the office, said he had never seen election misinformation spread online so quickly. “Trust is such a fragile thing right now in the election administration space,” he said. Rather than rely on press releases, the office huddled internally to assess each claim and then took its case directly to the comments section of the offending posts. “We can’t verify all the claims in this post, but we can fact-check some,” the registrar’s X account responded when addressing the Kobe Bryant rumor. “Kobe was not an LA County voter, and his OC registration is canceled.” The response was factual, direct, and posted in the same thread where the lie had taken hold — a deliberate effort to meet voters where they were. For Sanchez and his team, it was the beginning of a weekslong battle to protect public confidence in an election that was being tested not at the ballot box but in the information ecosystem surrounding it.
Long before the June primary, the county had been preparing for worst-case scenarios. In April, the registrar’s office gave the Board of Supervisors an update on how it was getting ready for potential disruptions to upcoming local elections. Officials had equipped community and county election workers with deescalation and conflict-resolution techniques, recognizing that the climate around voting had become more volatile. They also prepared for the possibility that federal law enforcement, the military or the National Guard might become involved in the election process — something that would have been extraordinary in any previous cycle. An additional cohort of trained volunteers, organized under the Election Resource Liaison program piloted in 2025, was deployed to support vote centers, with about 50 liaisons planned for the June primary. These volunteers were meant to be calm and informed presences, able to provide accurate information and defuse tensions if outside forces attempted to intervene. But the most persistent and unpredictable threat turned out to be digital. Sanchez and no more than five other people were tasked with scouring the internet for election misinformation and spoof accounts, monitoring Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube and X through the official @LACountyRRCC account. X was the platform with the highest volume of misinformation, Sanchez said. “While my team is relatively small, given the scale,” he said, “we do utilize and maximize a few different solutions to be able to help manage, track and monitor as much as possible in real time.” The team tracked likes, comments and shares, looking for accounts with large audiences and following the spread of false claims as they moved across platforms. Each viral post required a rapid assessment: Was it verifiable? Was it gaining traction? Would a response correct the record or simply amplify the lie? The team developed a rhythm, working through the noise to identify the falsehoods that could do the most damage to public trust.
At the heart of the office’s strategy was a simple but unconventional choice: to be present in the comments sections where misinformation was spreading. The registrar’s office viewed social media platforms as cost-effective tools for communicating with the public — not just one-way broadcast channels, but spaces where voters could ask questions and get answers in real time. “We want to try and stay vibrant,” Sanchez said. “We want to make sure people who are reading and following our account are engaged.” That engagement sometimes took on a playful tone, but it was always grounded in fact. When a claim surfaced that Republican nominee Spencer Pratt had received zero votes, the registrar’s account responded: “Fact check this — false report and was not from late last night.” Then, in a follow-up comment, it added: “Nope. Pratt gained 10,336 votes in today’s update.” When another post alleged that homeless residents on Skid Row were being paid to vote for Mayor Karen Bass, the office replied with a stark one-word answer: “No…” These responses may have seemed simple, but they were the result of a careful process. Sanchez and his team would huddle, assess the claim, determine what could be confirmed or refuted, and decide whether a response would help or hurt. The goal was not to argue with every user; it was to provide accurate information in the same space where the lie had appeared, so that anyone reading the thread would see the truth. The registrar’s office acknowledged that it could not verify every claim in a viral post, but it could fact-check some — and in an environment where misinformation was spreading faster than ever, those targeted corrections were vital. Sanchez, however, was mindful of the line between correction and amplification. A fact-check could inadvertently repeat a false claim to a new audience, so the team tried to keep its responses tight, clear and focused on the facts. The aim was to give readers enough context to recognize the lie without making it the centerpiece of the conversation.
The misinformation did not stop when the polls closed on June 2. In some ways, it intensified, because the slow and deliberate process of counting ballots in California left days of uncertainty that false narratives rushed to fill. One widely shared X post claimed that thousands of ballots were being rejected, including ballots cast for specific candidates. The registrar’s office responded directly, calling the claim “incorrect/deceptive” and explaining that voters whose ballots had been challenged because of missing or mismatched signatures had already been contacted and given a chance to fix the issue. “All have been contacted with information on how to respond and ensure their ballot can be counted,” the office said. The response was crucial because vote-by-mail ballots made up the overwhelming majority of ballots cast in the primary, and each one must go through a meticulous verification process before it is counted. Many voters do not realize that a challenged ballot is not automatically thrown out; under the cure process, election officials must attempt to contact the voter and provide an opportunity to verify the signature. The registrar’s response emphasized that point, making clear that the system was designed to count as many valid ballots as possible. It took 24 days for the registrar’s office to certify the June 2 primary. During that time, ballots were still moving through the pipeline: being checked for signatures, matched with voter records, and processed before the final tally could be released. To outside observers, that long gap could look like dysfunction or even fraud. In reality, it was the system working as designed. But the gap also created a window for misinformation. “June really taught us the scale and the pace,” Sanchez said. “We identified that there’s room for continued education on areas of our office.” The office realized that it needed to explain the process itself — not just the eventual results, but why results are not final on election night, why updates come in waves, and why voters might receive notices asking them to correct their ballot signatures. Every ballot update became an opportunity to reinforce the legitimacy of the count. The office’s social media accounts explained how many ballots remained to be processed, what steps were still pending, and when the next update would be available. This regular cadence of information was designed to reduce the vacuum in which misinformation thrives.
The lessons learned during the June primary are now shaping how the registrar’s office prepares for the November election. Sanchez said his team is developing a social media framework around the questions and claims that surfaced repeatedly, especially those about how election results are reported and why some voters receive notices asking them to correct their ballot signatures. The goal is to get accurate information into the public sphere before misinformation takes hold. The framework will combine two modes of communication: proactive outreach, such as explainers and videos posted ahead of expected problem areas, and rapid response, when the office sees an inaccurate claim gaining traction. This dual approach reflects a fundamental change in the role of election officials. In the past, they could issue a press release and wait for reporters to ask questions. Now, they must be inside the conversation, monitoring social media feeds and responding directly to the public. Sanchez emphasized that the audience is not only the people who like, comment and engage with viral posts. It also includes the quiet readers — the voters who scroll past a false claim, read the office’s response, and move on without ever saying a word. Those silent observers may be the most important audience of all. “We think it’s important to be online,” Sanchez said. “We will continue to be online.” The framework is not a silver bullet. Election officials know they cannot prevent every false post or persuade every user. But by being consistently present and reliable, the office can provide a trusted counterpoint to the noise. In practical terms, this means maintaining a constant presence on the platforms where election misinformation appears, using a mix of fact-checks, updates, and perhaps the occasional moment of levity to keep the account approachable and engaging.
Ultimately, the fight against election misinformation is about protecting public confidence in one of the most fundamental institutions of democracy. The June primary was a stress test for Los Angeles County’s election office, revealing both the scale of the challenge and the speed at which false narratives can move. The county had prepared for physical disruptions, federal involvement and changes to voting procedures, but the most persistent threat came from social media posts that questioned the legitimacy of the process. Michael Sanchez and his small team met that challenge head-on, going where the rumors were and correcting them with facts. Their experience offers a preview of what election officials across the country may face in November: a hostile information environment in which even bizarre claims — a dead basketball star on the voter rolls, homeless residents paid to vote, ballots quietly discarded — can be weaponized to undermine trust. The county’s response — transparent, engaged and occasionally even playful — offers a model for combating disinformation. But Sanchez is under no illusions about the difficulty of the task. “Trust is such a fragile thing right now,” he said. Rebuilding and maintaining that trust requires constant effort, relentless transparency and a willingness to engage with the public in every space where voters gather, online and off. As the November election approaches, the registrar’s office remains committed to that mission. It will continue to monitor social media, fact-check viral claims, explain the complexities of the voting process and respond to questions from voters. The work is slow and often thankless, but it is essential. For an office that has spent years preparing for worst-case scenarios, the lesson of June is unmistakable: the best defense against misinformation is a steady, visible and confident commitment to the truth — and the willingness to post it in the comments section.
