Federal Bid to Freeze California Ballots Rejected

The Justice Department’s emergency bid to set aside mail ballots linked to more than 20,000 registered California voters was rejected Monday by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The administration alleged the voters were likely noncitizens. The panel left existing ballot-handling procedures in place before the Nov. 3 midterm election, but didn’t decide whether the ballots should be segregated or whether the government’s allegations had merit.

California lawyers warned of the human cost. In an Oct. 20 filing, lawyers for California Secretary of State Shirley Weber called the case “a reckless political stunt” and said it threatened “to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election.” Voting rights activists also warned that the administration’s voter-roll checks could wrongly flag naturalized U.S. citizens.

A rushed demand for control

The Justice Department sued in federal court in Los Angeles on Oct. 15, asking a judge to separate ballots associated with people on the administration’s list and keep them from being counted until citizenship was verified. It then asked the Ninth Circuit to speed up the case. The appeals court said the department hadn’t given the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enough time to rule on its request for a temporary restraining order.

USA Today reported that the department gave the lower court roughly 15 hours, including about three business hours, before seeking action from the appeals court. The panel rejected the claim that the situation was an immediate emergency, writing that “the United States's claimed emergency, at least in part, is a self-constructed one.” A district court hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, and the case remained pending there.

The ruling concerned the timing and process of the emergency request, not the underlying ballot dispute. The administration could seek further emergency review from the full Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. For voters and election officials, the dispute remains alive as ballots are processed.

The cost of a sweeping remedy

Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett, a Trump appointee, joined the majority and wrote separately that the record didn’t establish likely irreparable harm to the federal government if officials didn’t immediately separate the ballots. He pointed to unresolved disputes over whether the October list accurately identified noncitizens and the lack of factual findings by the district court. Bennett said segregating ballots could disenfranchise eligible voters, and the government hadn’t presented a workable plan to avoid significantly burdening California election officials.

In a separate concurrence, Bennett said the administration “has offered no workable plan of any kind as to how the remedy it seeks could be accomplished in practice without potential catastrophic consequences to California's ongoing election.” Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by President Joe Biden, wrote that the federal government was asking a court to dictate a matter within the state’s “traditional domain,” potentially creating “disorder and confusion for voters and election officials alike.” Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, dissented. He argued that federal law barring noncitizen voting would likely override California’s election procedures and that each day without court action increased the chance that noncitizen votes would be counted.

The Justice Department didn’t say how many of the more than 20,000 people on its list had submitted mail ballots. Officials said Oct. 19 that 28 people on the list had been criminally charged with illegal voting. A Reuters investigation published in July found 129 cases in which noncitizens had been federally charged with illegal voting; many appeared to involve voter confusion or administrative errors rather than intentional fraud.

Ballot access inside a wider campaign

According to the reporting, the lawsuit marked the first time the administration sought to prevent a state from counting votes. The Justice Department had told election officials in all 50 states they could face criminal prosecution if they knowingly allowed noncitizens to remain on voter rolls or cast ballots. It had also sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., seeking complete voter rolls with sensitive personal data, and had lost 26 of those cases without winning one.

California said its safeguards against noncitizen voting were robust and that the federal government relied on “suspect data.” California is the country’s most populous state and has 52 seats in the House of Representatives, more than any other state; Democrats were seeking to regain control of the House. California Attorney General Rob Bonta welcomed the ruling, saying the Constitution gives states and Congress—not the president or executive branch—the power to determine the time, place, and manner of elections. Gov. Gavin Newsom called the case part of an effort to seize constitutional powers and said the administration was trying to “baselessly sow doubt” about state authority over elections. The court’s decision leaves the claims unresolved, as well as how officials should handle the ballots.