The entire Editorial Board Of the new York Times published one of the most unlikely op-eds imaginable, headlined, “How California Is Damaging Faith in Government.”

Incredibly, the Editors argued that California’s vote-counting system is broken— and blamed it for why Americans now spend weeks not knowing which party controls the House of Representatives after elections. California allows mail-in ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, then counts them, in the Times’ own words, “with agonizing slowness.”

“California adopted its rules with the admirable intention of maximizing voting access,” the Editorial Board generously opined. “But the system has failed.”

The Board noted that, for more than a century, same-day election resolution was the American norm. In the Nineteenth Century, for instance, telegraph lines delivered results by the next day’s newspaper. Now, they wrote, “In each of the past three congressional election cycles, Americans waited at least a week to find out whether Democrats or Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. The main reason has been California.”

Of course, it’s ultimately President Trump’s fault. The NYT’s Editorial Board acknowledged the confusion “plays into the hands of bad-faith political leaders, including President Trump, who lie about vote counting and fraud.” But even while blaming Trump for shooting lies, they blamed California for feeding him the ammunition.

The Board called the civic benefits “close to nil” since turnout has actually fallen since California changed its rules. “Turnout in California has fallen farther behind the national average since the state changed its rules,” they admitted. Worse, “when uncertainty lingers for days, Americans wonder why government today can often seem less competent than it once was.”

No kidding. Welcome to the club.

When the far-left New York Times Editorial Board —the same people who published “lockdowns worked, trust the experts, MAGA is a threat to democracy”— publicly blames California for “damaging faith in government” and enabling “misinformation peddlers,” you immediately save the screenshot. But questions linger.

We must ask the obvious question: Why now, Times? I can’t help but notice the other electoral elephant in the room: the SAVE Act lurking in the Senate’s wings. It now has 51 Senators’ support (thanks, John Fetterman), is arguably bipartisan, and awaits only a decision by Majority Leader John Thune to force a talking filibuster.

The timing cannot possibly be coincidental. The Times Editorial Board didn’t run this California-critical editorial by accident. Assuming they aren’t just trolling us, it’s possible they’re pre-positioning an explanation. Just in case.

If —or when —California’s vote totals drop noticeably in November, whether from broader administrative reforms, ICE raids and deportations, or from the SAVE Act passing and requiring proof of citizenship, progressives who’ve denied illegal voting will be faced with an uncomfortable question: where did all those votes go?

Maybe the Times is prepping a tailor-made answer. If they publish this editorial now, in February, they establish for liberal readers that California’s system was “broken” and needed “reform.” Then, when the numbers do come in lower, they can point back here and say: see, California just cleaned up its process, like we recommended. Nothing to see here. Certainly not evidence of anything improper happening before.

Maybe this isn’t an editorial. Maybe it’s a pre-built alibi for missing votes. I’m taking it as terrific evidence the SAVE Act is likely to pass after all. At least the Times seems to think so.

JEFF CHILDERS