‘Wreak havoc’: US judge blocks Trump bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots

The ruling stopped the administration from forcing California to segregate up to 20,000 mail-in ballots linked to alleged non-citizens. It also rejected the demand to delay counting those ballots until federal officials could verify each voter’s citizenship. The judge said the request threatened an election already in progress.

The case centered on a federal list of supposed “high confidence” matches. California officials had 48 hours to review the names, but found that some were not on voter rolls or were suspended. Some people identified as likely non-citizens also appeared to have been born in the United States. More than 500,000 ballots had already been processed statewide.

Judge David O Carter said segregation would force counties to create new procedures and could disenfranchise voters. He also said the move might violate the National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day restriction. The Justice Department immediately said it would appeal, so the dispute was not necessarily over.

A mail-in ballot is a ballot sent to a voter so the voter can complete it and return it by mail or through an approved drop-off method. It matters because people can vote without appearing at a polling place. In California, ballots are mailed to all 23 million registered voters, making mail voting central to the state’s election process.

Before counting, officials generally inspect the returned envelope and compare the voter’s identifying information and signature with registration records. They may also check whether the ballot arrived on time and whether the voter has already voted. The article specifically reports that envelopes were verified before ballots were removed, but it does not describe every verification rule.

That process helps officials connect a ballot to an eligible voter while keeping the ballot itself private. In this case, more than 500,000 ballots had already been processed, making individual ballots virtually impossible to trace. That reality made the requested segregation especially disruptive.

The disputed group was 20,000 people, a small fraction of California’s enormous electorate. Compared with 23 million registered voters, it represented about 0.09 percent. That puts the controversy in perspective: the allegation involved far fewer than one voter in a thousand registered statewide.

The comparison with voting already completed is different. More than 3.7 million people had voted when the court ruled. The 20,000 ballots equaled about 0.54 percent of that total, or roughly one in every 185 votes already cast. The figure was not the same as the number of ballots confirmed to belong to non-citizens; it was a government list of suspected matches.

Even a small share can create serious consequences when ballots are already moving through the system. More than 500,000 ballots had been processed, with envelopes verified and ballots removed. Los Angeles County officials said tracing individual ballots had become virtually impossible.

The administration’s concern began with a Department of Homeland Security claim that 190,000 registered California voters might be ineligible because they were foreign nationals. Federal authorities later narrowed the focus to 20,000 purported “high confidence” matches. They gave the state the list on a password-protected thumb drive and demanded action within 48 hours.

California election officials checked the names against voter records. They found that many people were absent from the rolls or had suspended registrations. Those people would not receive mail-in ballots. Officials also found indications that some people labeled likely non-citizens were born in the United States, which directly challenged the reliability of the list.

DHS officials disputed parts of California’s assessment in court declarations. The disagreement therefore involved both the accuracy of the federal matches and the timing of enforcement. The judge did not allow the ballots to be segregated based on allegations that had not been fully proven.

Segregating ballots means separating disputed ballots from the normal counting process while officials investigate them. In this case, that could have delayed or prevented counting for voters whose citizenship had not been proven ineligible. The risk mattered because millions had already voted and the election was underway.

California counties would have needed new procedures to identify, store, review, and eventually handle the ballots. Los Angeles County officials testified that more than 500,000 ballots had already been processed, with envelopes verified and ballots removed. Once that happens, tracing a particular voter’s ballot can be virtually impossible. Counties could therefore face both logistical confusion and inconsistent treatment.

Judge Carter said segregation could disenfranchise voters and cause lasting harm to trust in democracy. He also warned that the move might violate federal registration law. The Justice Department argued segregation would preserve the status quo, but it immediately appealed after losing, keeping the dispute active.

Federal agencies can investigate or identify possible eligibility concerns, but they do not directly process every local ballot. Here, DHS supplied information about suspected non-citizens, and the Justice Department brought the lawsuit seeking action against California election officials. Their role was to present evidence and ask the court to require a particular response.

State election officials manage California’s voter rolls and statewide election rules. County officials carry out practical tasks, such as reviewing records, verifying returned envelopes, processing ballots, and counting them. In this case, local officials checked the federal list and reported missing names, suspended registrations, and possible United States-born voters.

The federal court reviewed whether the requested action was legally justified and whether it could harm voters or violate the National Voter Registration Act. Judge Carter rejected the request. The Justice Department said it would appeal, showing that courts can review the dispute again while election officials continue their work.

Limits on late registration changes protect election stability. Officials and voters need a clear cutoff before voting begins, rather than facing sudden removals or new checks during an active election. Without such limits, eligible voters could be wrongly excluded, and counties could apply different procedures under severe time pressure.

The case illustrates the tension. Federal officials wanted California to review 20,000 suspected matches and set aside related ballots. County officials found that some names were missing from voter rolls, some registrations were suspended, and some flagged people appeared to have been born in the United States. A rapid change could therefore mistake inaccurate information for proof of ineligibility.

The National Voter Registration Act restricts certain registration changes within 90 days of an election. Judge Carter said the requested action could violate that protection. The rule does not eliminate election security checks; it limits disruptive changes near voting so officials can address concerns without undermining eligible voters’ rights.