Court dismisses DOJ's request to force California to set aside ballots

The court dismissed the Justice Department's appeal, not a final ruling that resolved every underlying question about voter eligibility. In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit said it lacked jurisdiction because the federal district court had not received an adequate opportunity to consider the requested emergency relief.

The practical result was important. California officials were not compelled by the appeals court to set aside thousands of ballots identified on the federal government's list. The Justice Department had asked for ballots to be separated and citizenship checked before counting, while California was already processing ballots under its state procedures.

The case could still involve further proceedings in the district court, but the appeals court rejected the immediate route the department chose. Judge Mark Bennett also said he would have rejected the request on its legal merits, even if the appeals court had reached them.

A temporary restraining order, or TRO, is an emergency court measure that temporarily requires someone to act or stop acting while a case moves forward. It is designed for urgent situations, before the court fully decides the dispute. The article describes the Justice Department seeking this kind of immediate relief from a federal district judge.

The department wanted California to set aside mail ballots from voters it identified as suspected noncitizens. It also wanted officials to independently verify those voters' citizenship before counting their ballots. The request came while California was already processing ballots for the approaching Nov. 3 midterm elections.

The 9th Circuit criticized the timing. The department filed suit less than three weeks before the election and sought the TRO only the previous week. The appeals court said the district court had not had enough opportunity to consider the request.

The federal government's list contained more than 20,000 registered voters whom the Trump administration considered likely noncitizens. The scale mattered because election officials were already processing ballots, leaving little time for a careful review before the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

Compared with roughly 550,000 mail ballots already processed by Los Angeles County, 20,000 represents about 3.6%. That comparison shows the list was much smaller than the county's processed ballot total. However, Los Angeles County said the list contained addresses of registered voters throughout California, not only within Los Angeles County.

The article does not explain how the list was compiled or establish that the listed voters were ineligible. County officials said the federal letter provided no method for confirming citizenship. The Justice Department nevertheless sought an order requiring the ballots to be separated and checked.

The court's central timing criticism was that the Justice Department delayed bringing its case. It sued less than three weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, even though the requested relief could disrupt California's ballot-processing schedule. The judges called the claimed emergency partly self-created.

The department also waited until the previous week to seek a temporary restraining order. California was already processing ballots when the request arrived. The court said the delay included failing to recognize that California law governed ballot issuance and processing, and failing to communicate the desired relief clearly to the district court.

Because the district judge had not yet ruled, the 9th Circuit said the lower court needed an adequate opportunity to consider the request first. The appeals court therefore dismissed the appeal instead of immediately ordering California to set aside the ballots.

The phrase “likely noncitizens” described the federal government's suspicion about people on its list. It did not, by itself, establish that any particular voter was a noncitizen or legally barred from voting. A claim identifies a possible problem; proof requires reliable, case-specific verification.

That distinction mattered because the Justice Department wanted California to act on the list before counting ballots. Los Angeles County said the letter did not explain how the list had been compiled. It also said the letter gave officials no information about how to confirm the citizenship status of the listed voters.

The article does not report that the listed voters were actually proven ineligible. Instead, it describes a proposed verification process and a dispute over whether the federal government could force it. The appeals court dismissed the appeal on jurisdiction and timing grounds, without deciding the full merits.

An unverified list can identify possible concerns, but it cannot reliably show that every listed person is ineligible. If officials automatically set aside those ballots, eligible voters could lose the chance for their votes to be counted. That is why verification matters before a ballot is excluded from election results.

In this case, the Justice Department sought to separate ballots from more than 20,000 voters and check citizenship before counting them. Los Angeles County said the government had not explained how the list was created or how officials should confirm citizenship. Acting on incomplete information could therefore create errors in individual ballot decisions.

At the election level, excluding valid ballots could change vote totals or margins. The article does not state that this happened, because the 9th Circuit did not order the ballots set aside. It instead dismissed the appeal, leaving the immediate counting process unaltered by that ruling.

The U.S. election system divides responsibilities. States establish and administer many practical election procedures, including issuing and processing ballots. The federal government also has an interest in federal elections and may bring legal claims about election administration. The dispute arose where those responsibilities appeared to collide.

California officials were processing ballots under state law. The Justice Department argued that federal officials should be able to require California to separate ballots from suspected noncitizens and verify citizenship before counting them. The 9th Circuit emphasized that existing California law governed ballot issuance and processing.

That division shaped the court's decision. The appeals court said the district court needed an adequate chance to consider the request and dismissed the immediate appeal. Judge Patrick Bumatay disagreed, arguing that federal law and the Constitution gave the federal government power to protect federal elections. The ruling therefore highlighted an unresolved authority dispute.