Court Rejects DOJ’s Bid to Set Aside California Ballots Amid Election Dispute

A federal appeals court has dealt another blow to the Justice Department’s attempts to intervene in California’s election. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday rejected the DOJ’s request to set aside thousands of ballots it claims may belong to noncitizens. The administration wanted those votes quarantined until citizenship could be proven. California officials call the underlying list of names deeply flawed.

The 2-1 ruling marks a significant setback. It reinforces a lower court’s stark warning that the DOJ’s demand risked catastrophic disruption to the voting process. Judge Mark J. Bennett, a Trump appointee, joined Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, a Biden appointee, in the majority opinion. They found no clear error in the district court’s assessment. That assessment warned of potentially disenfranchising citizens.

This legal fight is part of a broader pattern. The Trump administration is actively challenging election procedures in multiple states just days before the midterms. In Washington state, officials received a similar list of alleged noncitizen voters. In Alaska, federal subpoenas are flying over a spoiler-candidate controversy. Here in California, the dispute centers on approximately 20,000 names.

• Prosecutors argue that counting votes from noncitizens illegally dilutes the power of citizens’ ballots.
• They see a grave harm in potential fraud.
• State officials and voting rights groups see a different grave harm.
• They point to the inevitable errors in such data matching.
• They argue the real threat is disenfranchising eligible voters.
• This can particularly affect naturalized citizens who are often wrongly flagged.

The court’s opinion sided with the state’s practical concerns. It cited the impossibility of identifying and segregating specific ballots without causing systemic chaos. Hundreds of thousands of votes are already processed. Once processed, ballots are anonymized. There is no reliable way to pull specific ones back out. The ruling essentially acknowledges that the cure proposed by the DOJ would be far worse than the alleged disease.

In a related development, a federal judge ordered the administration to share its disputed list. The recipients are lawyers for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the UCLA Voting Rights Project. This will be the first independent, non-governmental examination of the list’s merits. These groups sued in October to stop the use of federal immigration data to challenge state voter rolls. Their lawsuit cites proven errors in other states where similar efforts mistakenly swept up thousands of citizens.

The legal pressure on election officials is intensifying. A coalition of major unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O., filed a new suit on Friday. They seek to block the Justice Department from demanding local officials stop counting ballots. The suit also aims to stop threats of criminal prosecution against officials who refuse. Top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles Bill Essayli has warned that election officials processing a noncitizen’s ballot could face legal jeopardy.

That warning is not abstract. The Associated Press obtained subpoenas issued to Los Angeles County election officials. They demand documents about communications with federal officials on this issue. At least three county officials are summoned to appear before a grand jury on November 4, the day after the election. This move is unusual. The Justice Department typically does not subpoena potential targets of a criminal investigation to a grand jury. It creates a cloud of uncertainty over the officials tasked with finalizing the vote.

The cumulative effect is a climate of fear. Election workers are now operating under the specter of federal subpoenas and grand jury appearances. The lawsuits from civil rights groups and unions are direct responses to this pressure. They argue these tactics themselves interfere with the fair administration of the election. The goal is to shield the process from what they see as intimidation.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision provides a temporary buffer. It allows California to continue counting all ballots without creating a separate, contested pile. But the broader battle is far from over. The subpoenas are still active. The grand jury dates loom. Independent groups are just now getting their first look at the data driving these claims. Their analysis will likely show whether the government’s concerns are based on solid evidence or flawed data. For now, the court has prioritized a functioning election system over an unproven allegation. The integrity of the process depends on which priority you believe is more important.