In February 2016, the California governor and legislature did something rather outlandish.  They made a law (2015 Motor Voter Law) that allows all California illegals to apply for a driver’s license.  This law combined with 2013 Assembly Bill 60 (automatic voter registration when getting a driver's license) effectively results in allowing illegals to vote, because having a license now automatically registers "eligible" voters to vote in California.

Well, perhaps.  Therein lies the rub.

California created a set of laws that effectively allow illegals to vote (Oregon and others, too, but let's stick with California).  We can quibble over how DMV workers will handle whether to voter-register a license of an illegal or how mail-in registration would be handled, since cross-referencing illegals databases is discouraged.  Bottom line, though, is that the loophole is now there and may cost Clinton the election.  Even one illegal vote (let alone 30 million) is enough to disqualify a state's vote...perhaps.

There are those who throw up the 15th Amendment to prove that California's laws are unconstitutional.  Put another way, a more straightforward approach is common sense.  Not a citizen = no vote (unless you'd like 7 billion taxpayer dollar-hungry voters involved in the U.S. election).

Why is this important?  California is a reliably blue state, but what would happen if each and every Californian vote (including its 55 Electoral College votes) were declared null and void by the courts (Trump would be the obvious plaintiff)?  After all, post facto, there's no way to untangle citizen from illegal non-citizen voting.

What are the ramifications?  If – and it's still a big if – all California votes were declared null and void by a court, that leaves 489 Electoral College votes (i.e., half or revised 245 votes to win the U.S. presidency).  Using the current flawed polls within the incomplete RCP 2-way average poll weighting, Hillary Clinton is currently holding an "insurmountable" yet diminishing lead in projected electoral votes: 229 (with no toss-up states).  That is not enough to clinch the deal in a non-California world.  Her current "229" Electoral College votes based on dubious sources would then be 174.  Whoops.  That scenario might even place her in second place behind Trump (who himself may or may not have votes to reach 245). 

For the sake of argument, then, to the Republican House of Representatives we go.  How are Representatives in the House – even those who dislike Trump – going to vote for president?  Clinton, the second-place finisher, or Trump, the first-place finisher?  It would be the ultimate ratings boost for CSPAN.  My betting would go for Trump.

The only question remaining is, will Trump, trailing by a little bit in electoral votes, himself sue to remove reliably blue Californian Electoral College votes post-election?  Question asked and answered.  California has done a potentially material disservice to Hillary.