Judges Question Bid to Set Aside 20000 California Ballots

A federal appeals court pressed Justice Department lawyers on October 25 over a request to set aside roughly 20,000 California mail ballots before the November 3 midterm elections. At a rare Sunday hearing, judges questioned whether the federal government can compel a state to change how it handles ballots based on a list of voters the administration suspects may not be citizens.

The government says the checks are needed to prevent unlawful voting. California and Los Angeles County say the data are unreliable and that segregating ballots could interfere with eligible voters’ participation. The judges had not issued a decision at the end of the hearing.

Why the Justice Department demanded action

The dispute began after federal officials gave California a 48-hour deadline to review names identified as likely noncitizens on the state’s registration rolls. When the state did not comply on that timetable, the Justice Department sued and asked that ballots from the listed voters be withheld pending citizenship verification.

Federal lawyer Matthew Donnelly argued that counting a ballot cast unlawfully would cause harm that could not be undone. The administration also contended that election workers are processing mail ballots while the legal dispute remains unresolved, giving the case unusual urgency.

But the district court had already scheduled a hearing for October 27. The federal government went to the Ninth Circuit before that hearing, arguing that the delay effectively denied its urgent request. Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, asked whether the appeals court had jurisdiction before the lower court had ruled.

California challenges the voter list itself

Los Angeles County officials reviewed a sample of 200 records from the federal list. According to a county declaration described by the Associated Press, that sample included canceled or inactive registrations, people with no history of voting and individuals whose records appeared to show U.S. birth.

Those findings did not establish that every record was wrong. They did, however, raise a concrete question about whether a list built from immigration and other databases reliably identifies current, ineligible voters.

An attorney for county clerk Dean Logan said comparing an expected 2.75 million mail ballots against the disputed names would impose enormous administrative costs. He estimated about 140,000 working hours under the proposed checking process. California warned that lawful ballots could be delayed or excluded.

Who controls ballot handling

The legal conflict also concerns federalism. The Constitution assigns states a leading role in setting the times, places and manner of congressional elections, subject to congressional legislation. Judge Gabriel Sanchez asked whether the federal government was improperly directing state officials to carry out a federal enforcement program.

Donnelly countered that California itself bars noncitizen voting and that the Justice Department was asking the state to enforce an existing prohibition. California’s attorney responded that the government had not provided credible evidence supporting the broad suspicion reflected in its list.

A separate escalation reached more counties

The original 20,000-name lawsuit centered on Los Angeles County and state officials. A further Justice Department directive reached additional California counties, according to Associated Press reporting, asking officials to investigate records under similarly tight deadlines. The administration also announced criminal cases involving 28 individuals accused of improper registration or related violations. The county’s sample review remains central to the emergency challenge over the larger list.

The decision before Election Day

A panel decision could determine whether the state must interrupt normal ballot processing while the citizenship dispute proceeds. The disputed list identifies suspected registration problems, not a finding that 20,000 unlawful ballots have been cast.

The appeals judges promised a swift ruling, while the district hearing remains scheduled for October 27. Both deadlines fall just days before the November 3 election.

References: Skeptical 9th Circuit judges grill DOJ bid to sideline 20,000 California ballots | Justice Department asks appeals court to intervene in California ballot case