A federal appeals court ruled Friday against President Trump’s Justice Department, rejecting an emergency request to separate approximately 20,000 disputed California ballots from the November 3 midterm election count until officials could verify whether the voters involved are American citizens.
The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit represents another legal setback for federal prosecutors attempting to prevent potentially ineligible ballots from being included in California’s election results.
The Justice Department maintains that thousands of individuals appearing on the state’s voter rolls may not be American citizens and should undergo additional verification before their ballots are counted.
California election officials have challenged the accuracy of the federal government’s findings, arguing that the list includes eligible voters and that attempting to isolate their ballots could disrupt an election already underway.
The dispute began earlier this month when federal authorities provided California officials with a list of approximately 20,000 individuals identified as potentially ineligible to vote because of their immigration status.
The Justice Department demanded that election officials review the records and separate ballots associated with those individuals until their citizenship could be established.
When California declined to comply with the request, federal prosecutors filed a lawsuit on October 15 seeking emergency intervention.
The administration argued that allowing ballots from suspected noncitizens to be mixed with legitimate votes could permanently compromise the integrity of the election.
Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections for president and Congress. The Justice Department contends that enforcing that prohibition requires meaningful procedures to identify potentially unlawful votes before they become indistinguishable from valid ballots.
California officials responded that the federal government’s list was unreliable and that established state procedures already govern challenges to voter eligibility.
The dispute eventually reached U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who rejected the administration’s request for emergency relief earlier this week.
Carter questioned the reliability of the government’s identification process and warned that the proposed intervention could prevent eligible American citizens from having their votes counted.
Federal prosecutors appealed that ruling, bringing the controversy back before the Ninth Circuit just days before Election Day.
Friday’s decision was issued by Judges Mark J. Bennett and Gabriel P. Sanchez, who formed the majority.
Bennett was appointed by President Trump, while Sanchez was appointed by President Joe Biden.
The majority concluded that the federal government had not demonstrated sufficient legal authority to require California to change its established election procedures.
The judges emphasized that the Constitution generally assigns responsibility for administering congressional elections to state legislatures, subject to regulations enacted by Congress.
They determined that the Justice Department could not use existing federal statutes to impose a new ballot-separation procedure that California law does not authorize.
The majority also raised concerns about the timing of the administration’s request.
With millions of Californians already participating in early voting, election officials have processed substantial numbers of ballots under existing procedures.
Once ballots are separated from identifying information to protect voter secrecy, officials may be unable to determine which individual cast a particular vote.
The court concluded that attempting to isolate the disputed ballots could create significant administrative problems and potentially jeopardize the counting of legitimate votes.
The judges also cited federal restrictions on systematic voter-roll changes within 90 days of a federal election.
Those restrictions are intended to prevent last-minute removals that could leave eligible voters without sufficient time to correct mistakes.
The Justice Department’s request, the majority reasoned, could conflict with those protections because the government had not established that every person on its list was ineligible.
Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, another Trump appointee, strongly disagreed.
In his dissent, Bumatay argued that the federal government was seeking a limited safeguard rather than attempting to cancel legitimate votes.
He maintained that temporarily separating ballots associated with suspected noncitizens would preserve the opportunity to determine voter eligibility before the ballots were counted.
Bumatay warned that allowing potentially unlawful votes to enter the official count could dilute the voting power of American citizens.
He also challenged the majority’s conclusion that the administration lacked the authority to seek such protection.
The dissent highlighted the central disagreement in the case: whether temporarily setting aside disputed ballots is a reasonable enforcement measure or an unauthorized disruption of state election procedures.
The Justice Department has maintained that the government has a legitimate interest in preventing illegal voting before it occurs rather than relying exclusively on prosecutions after an election.
Federal prosecutors argue that once an ineligible ballot is mixed with valid votes and counted, the resulting harm may be impossible to reverse.
California officials counter that election administrators cannot lawfully interfere with thousands of ballots based on a list whose accuracy has not been established.
According to court filings, Los Angeles County election officials reviewed a sample of names supplied by federal authorities and found indications that many of the individuals were born in the United States.
That finding raised additional questions about whether the government’s database-matching methods had incorrectly identified American citizens as foreign nationals.
The Justice Department has not publicly demonstrated that all 20,000 individuals on the disputed list are noncitizens.
The legal battle is unfolding as the Trump administration expands investigations into suspected election violations across several states.
Federal authorities have pursued similar concerns in Washington and have issued subpoenas connected to election administration in Alaska.
In California, federal prosecutors have also sought records from Los Angeles County election officials concerning their handling of the disputed voter information.
The subpoenas request communications and documents related to federal warnings about possible noncitizen registrations and the county’s response.
Several election officials have reportedly been directed to appear before a federal grand jury shortly after Election Day.
Bill Essayli, the senior federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, has warned that election officials who knowingly process ballots cast by noncitizens could face legal consequences.
Those warnings have prompted objections from voting-rights organizations and labor unions representing public employees.
The organizations argue that federal demands and threats of prosecution could interfere with the responsibilities of local election workers.
A separate federal judge has ordered the government to provide the disputed list of names to attorneys representing the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the UCLA Voting Rights Project.
Those organizations want to examine the records to determine whether eligible citizens have been incorrectly identified.
The government has challenged that disclosure order.
The controversy has also drawn attention from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has accused the Trump administration of attempting to interfere with the state’s election process.
Newsom and other California officials maintain that the state’s existing voter registration requirements provide legal safeguards against unlawful participation.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, has emphasized that citizenship is a fundamental requirement for voting in federal elections and that violations must be investigated.
Neither side disputes that noncitizens are legally prohibited from voting in federal contests.
The disagreement concerns the accuracy of the government’s allegations and whether federal courts can require California to adopt emergency procedures before the election.
Friday’s ruling does not establish that every individual on the disputed list is eligible to vote. It also does not determine that any particular ballot was cast unlawfully.
Instead, the decision leaves California’s existing election procedures in place while rejecting the Justice Department’s request for immediate intervention.
The administration could seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, although no such intervention had been granted as of Friday’s ruling.
With Election Day approaching on Tuesday, the case has become an important legal dispute over the division of federal and state authority in election administration.
For the Justice Department, the immediate concern remains whether potentially unlawful ballots can be identified before they enter the final count.
For California election officials, the priority is conducting the election under established procedures without improperly excluding eligible voters.
Unless a higher court intervenes, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling allows California to continue processing ballots under its existing election laws while the broader legal dispute proceeds.
The post Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump DOJ Effort to Set Aside 20,000 Disputed California Ballots appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
