Westminster, CA – Laura Lee Yourex, a 62‑year‑old Costa Mesa resident, made her first court appearance Tuesday after federal prosecutors charged her with registering her dog to vote and casting mail‑in ballots in the animal’s name. Authorities say ballots in the 2021 California gubernatorial recall and the 2022 primary were involved; one was counted and the other was rejected.
The case, which has prompted local leaders to call for election safeguards, carries serious potential penalties: if convicted on all counts, Yourex faces up to six years in state prison. Her arraignment was postponed and she was released on her own recognizance.
The Incident and Criminal Charges
Prosecutors say Yourex registered her boxer, Maya Jean, as a voter and then cast mail‑in ballots that were addressed to the dog. The Orange County Registrar’s Office alerted county prosecutors in October 2024 after a resident reported the conduct.
- Defendant: Laura Lee Yourex, 62
- Dog: Maya Jean Yourex (boxer)
- Elections involved: 2021 gubernatorial recall (ballot counted) and 2022 primary (ballot rejected)
- Charges: one count of perjury, one count of offering a false or forged document, two counts of casting a ballot when not entitled to vote, and one count of registering a non‑existent person to vote
- Potential penalty: up to six years in state prison if convicted on all counts
“Sufficient evidence was discovered to file criminal charges against Yourex for illegally registering her dog to vote and then casting mail‑in ballots issued to her dog based on the fraudulent voter registration,” the Department of Justice said in announcing the charges.
How the Registration Slipped Through
California’s election code requires an affidavit of registration with name, residence, mailing address, date of birth, party preference and a citizenship certification, all signed under penalty of perjury. But state rules do not require proof of residence or ID for most state elections, which helps explain how the 2021 recall ballot was counted while the 2022 ballot was flagged and rejected.
“When someone is registered to vote, they start by being asked what their driver’s license number, California ID number or last four digits of their social (security number) is,” said Bob Page of the Orange County Registrar’s Office. “If that info does not match, that voter is contacted to have to provide proof of ID under federal law. State law doesn’t have that requirement in terms of flagging them, which is why a ballot for the 2021 recall election was counted.”
Public Reaction and Proposed Fixes
According to NBC, county leaders swiftly condemned the alleged stunt and suggested potential policy changes, including cross‑referencing voter records with animal licensing databases to flag unlikely names or registrations.
“The fact that a dog can register and voted twice tells you the system is not working, and it’s broken,” said OC Supervisor Janet Nguyen. “If we can cross reference the addresses and names, if there’s a name that could be suspicious, we can say, ‘Wait a minute. Let’s flag this.'”
- Suggested fixes: cross‑reference voter rolls with other local databases (including animal licenses); strengthen ID verification for state elections; update flagging protocols for unusual names.
- Public concern: the case has heightened scrutiny over vote‑by‑mail processes and verification steps in Orange County and statewide.
Court Proceedings and Next Steps
Yourex’s arraignment was continued to Dec. 10. She did not speak at Tuesday’s hearing, but her attorney, Jaime Coulter, said outside court that Yourex intended to expose weaknesses in the voting system and that she reported her actions to authorities.
“Laura Yourex sincerely regrets her unwise attempt to expose flaws in our state voting system, intending to improve it by demonstrating that even a dog can be registered to vote,” Coulter said.
Prosecutors point to social media posts as part of the evidence: a January 2022 photo of Maya wearing an “I voted” sticker and an October 2024 post showing a dog tag and a vote‑by‑mail ballot with the caption, “Maya is still getting her ballot,” even though officials say the dog had previously died.
What This Means Going Forward
The matter raises questions about verification procedures for mail‑in ballots and the balance between voter access and fraud prevention. Local officials have signaled they will consider technical fixes and policy proposals ahead of upcoming elections.
What do you think about this attempt to expose flaws in the election system? Have you ever encountered a voting irregularity or received a ballot addressed to someone else? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
