A federal judge on Wednesday night denied an emergency bid by the Justice Department to force California election officials to separate and refrain from tabulating mail ballots from roughly 20,000 individuals the Trump administration claims are noncitizens.
U.S. District Judge David Carter ruled that granting the federal government’s request would disrupt an ongoing election, infringe on state sovereignty, and risk disenfranchising eligible voters just days ahead of the Nov. 3 midterms. Voting has been underway across California since early October, with more than 3.5 million mail ballots returned statewide among the state’s more than 23 million registered voters.
Constitutional Limits on Federal Interference
In a strongly worded 26-page decision, Carter stated that the federal government does not hold absolute authority over state-administered elections. The judge wrote that never in American history had the executive branch sought on the eve of balloting to coerce state officials into discarding their own constitutional procedures, adding that California and its populace remain sovereign under the law.
Carter warned that allowing such an intervention based on vague protocols would invite either political party to introduce turmoil into election procedures. A segregated ballot, the judge noted, would effectively become a discounted ballot, causing irreparable harm to democratic participation.
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit on Oct. 15, targeting California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder and County Clerk Dean Logan. That action came roughly two weeks after federal officials provided county administrators with a list containing 20,000 individuals alleged to be ineligible and demanded the state sequester their ballots within 48 hours.
Flaws in Government Data
California and Los Angeles County officials resisted the demands, arguing the Justice Department provided no credible proof and relied on outdated or flawed matching methodologies. During court hearings, state lawyers described the lawsuit as a disruptive stunt that would create a recipe for disenfranchisement.
Attorneys representing Los Angeles County reported that in a sample review of 200 names from the federal list, more than half belonged to registrations that were already canceled or inactive, meaning no ballot had even been mailed. Furthermore, over 38 percent of that sample who reported their place of birth were born in the United States, county attorneys said.
Nicolas Bartell, a senior official with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, disputed the county’s finding in court filings, stating his agency’s records indicated none in that sample were born in the country, though four might possess legitimate citizenship claims. Bartell acknowledged that analysts had discovered about 189 records with data discrepancies within the 20,000-name list sent to California.
Carter cited previous instances of questionable federal claims, noting that in Nevada, initial federal estimates of nearly 16,000 suspected noncitizen registrations dwindled down to 185 before state reviews proved every one was actually a citizen. Academic and investigative audits have consistently shown that voting by noncitizens is exceptionally rare nationwide.
Next Legal Steps
The judge questioned why prosecutors could not simply review returned ballot envelopes and pursue post-election criminal indictments against anyone confirmed to have voted illegally, rather than altering voting rules while ballots are actively being scanned. In recent weeks, federal prosecutors have announced charges against dozens of people across the country for registering or voting as alleged noncitizens.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli argued in court that commingling improper ballots with valid votes dilutes the ballots of lawful citizens and hurts public confidence. Following Wednesday’s ruling, federal prosecutors announced they will promptly petition the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for emergency relief.
The administration previously sought to bypass Carter by asking the appellate court to intervene early, but a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 against the government on Monday. The majority concluded the Justice Department had failed to give the district court sufficient opportunity to consider the case and noted the administration bore responsibility for waiting until October to pursue legal action.
