The three judges in that San Francisco courtroom last Sunday felt more like fire marshals than jurists. They were asked to stamp out a blaze with a procedural garden hose. At issue was a Justice Department lawsuit demanding California set aside roughly 20,000 mail ballots. Federal attorneys argued these ballots belonged to people flagged as potential noncitizens. The state’s refusal to segregate the votes, they claimed, caused “irreparable harm.” The 9th Circuit panel’s weekend hearing revealed a case built on shaky legal ground and flimsy evidence.
Judge Mark Bennett, appointed by President Trump, cut straight to procedure. He questioned whether the appellate court had any business hearing the appeal before the district court ruled. The government’s own rush created this procedural mess. They filed suit in mid-October. The district judge scheduled a hearing for October 27. Unwilling to wait, the Justice Department sprinted to the Ninth Circuit, demanding an emergency order. Bennett seemed unconvinced this constituted an emergency the court needed to solve.
The constitutional questions ran deeper. Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, raised the Tenth Amendment. He suggested the federal government might be unlawfully “commandeering” state officials to do federal enforcement work. The Justice Department’s Matthew Donnelly argued they were merely asking California to enforce its own laws, which also bar noncitizen voting. But Bennett pointed to the Elections Clause. It grants states the power to set the “manner” of federal elections. California’s manner of verifying voter eligibility, he implied, is its own affair.
Then came the practical realities, where the case unraveled. Seth Waxman, representing Los Angeles County, laid out the math. Checking the government’s list against the expected 2.75 million mail ballots would take roughly 140,000 staff hours. That is sixteen years of work. The list itself was a mess. A county review of a 200-name sample found canceled registrations, voters with no history, and individuals who appeared to be U.S.-born. “Strong evidence of citizenship,” the county noted. The state’s attorney, Sam Siegel, was blunt. The federal government provided “no credible evidence” for its claim.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, voiced the administration’s core concern. “Everyone has an interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens vote,” he said. He suggested an injunction might provide clarity. “Without an injunction, you will never know.” This argument flips the burden of proof. It asks a court to act on suspicion alone. It presumes guilt and demands the state prove a negative for thousands of voters. This turns election administration into a weapon.
The hearing exposed a now-familiar pattern. The Trump administration has prioritized hunting noncitizen voters, a phenomenon studies show is exceedingly rare. This creates a spectacle of fraud where little exists. It burdens local officials with impossible tasks. It injects chaos into the final days of an election. The legal merits seem almost secondary. The real goal is to cast doubt, to slow the count, to question legitimacy.
The panel promised a quick ruling. Whatever they decide, the damage is already underway. Trust erodes not from proven fraud but from the relentless spectacle of its alleged possibility. You watch these arguments and see a strategy. It is not about finding noncitizen votes. It is about making you believe they are everywhere. The courtroom becomes a stage and your confidence in the result is the target.
Key Points of the Case:
- Justice Department lawsuit against California
- Approximately 20,000 mail ballots at stake
- Claims of potential noncitizen voters
- Procedural issues raised by the judges
- Concerns about the burden of proof
- Implications for election integrity
| Judge | Appointed By | Key Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Mark Bennett | Trump | Procedural validity of appeal |
| Gabriel Sanchez | Biden | Tenth Amendment and state rights |
| Patrick Bumatay | Trump | Ensuring only eligible citizens vote |
