Judge rejects DOJ's push to force California to set aside ballots

U.S. District Judge David Carter rejected the Trump administration’s request for emergency relief. The Justice Department wanted California to segregate more than 20,000 mail ballots connected to people it claimed were not U.S. citizens. The judge said the request violated longstanding constitutional principles protecting state control over elections.

Under the proposed system, election officials would have separated the identified ballots from other returned ballots. They would have held them aside while checking whether the voters were citizens. Those ballots would not have moved through the ordinary counting process during that review.

Carter called the request a monumental change during active voting. He also warned that uncertain allegations could disenfranchise eligible voters. The Justice Department plans to appeal and seek an emergency order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

In election practice, setting aside or sequestering a ballot means separating it from other ballots instead of processing it normally. The ballot remains physically or administratively held apart while officials investigate a question about the voter or ballot. This explanation uses the general meaning of the term; the article describes the proposed procedure rather than defining it formally.

Here, the Justice Department wanted California election workers to isolate mail ballots from roughly 20,000 people it claimed were noncitizens. Officials would have reviewed the voters’ citizenship before deciding whether the ballots could proceed. The ballots therefore would not have been treated like ordinary returned mail ballots during the review.

Carter viewed that step as especially risky because voting was already taking place. He said the procedure could cause lawful voters to lose a core right. He also called it a monumental change to election procedures and rejected the request.

The Justice Department sought action involving more than 20,000 mail ballots. It said those ballots came from roughly 20,000 people it suspected were not U.S. citizens. California had more than 23 million registered voters, making the suspected group very small compared with the state’s full registration list.

Using the article’s figures, 20,000 people represent about 0.09% of 23 million registered voters. That is roughly nine people per 10,000 registered voters, or about one in 1,150. The comparison shows the group’s scale, but it does not establish that the listed people were noncitizens or that every person had cast a ballot.

The judge focused on the danger of acting on that list. He said more than 20,000 registered Californians could potentially lose voting rights. He rejected the request because the government’s verification process appeared uncertain and potentially error-prone.

Carter questioned the list because California and Los Angeles County lawyers challenged its accuracy. The judge agreed that the Justice Department’s protocol for verifying citizenship raised significant concerns. He said the method used to create the list was vague and that he could not conclude the government’s process was credible.

The concern was practical as well as legal. A person could appear on the government’s list even if the underlying information was incomplete, mistaken, or misinterpreted. Separating that person’s ballot would then delay or threaten the vote of someone who might be eligible. The article does not provide the protocol’s technical details.

Because the list was uncertain, Carter refused to impose a statewide election change during voting. He said eligible voters must not lose a core right because of unfounded allegations from a procedure filled with uncertainty and errors. The Justice Department plans to appeal the ruling.

If officials set aside ballots based only on an uncertain list, lawful voters could lose the practical benefit of voting. Their ballots might be delayed while officials investigated, or they might not be counted if the review failed to confirm citizenship in time. That is what the judge meant by potential disenfranchisement.

The article gives a concrete risk: the government’s list covered roughly 20,000 people, but Carter questioned its accuracy and verification method. A voter who met California’s registration requirements could still have a ballot isolated because of an administrative error or an unsupported allegation. The ballot’s separation would occur before the election result was settled.

Carter said constitutional rights and democracy were at stake. He concluded that the public interest favored protecting voters from uncertain procedures. He also suggested that suspected illegal voters could be investigated after the election, avoiding a broad pre-counting penalty for eligible voters.

The Constitution gives states an important role in administering elections, so election rules are not controlled solely by the federal executive branch. That division protects state authority and prevents one federal administration from unilaterally rewriting election procedures during voting. Carter relied on this principle when rejecting the Justice Department’s request.

In this case, the administration wanted California officials to separate more than 20,000 ballots. Carter said that demand would force state and local officials to abandon their constitutional election procedures and follow the Executive Branch. He wrote that California and its people are sovereign too, not merely subjects of federal direction.

This structure limits executive power by requiring the federal government to respect state procedures and seek judicial approval for extraordinary intervention. Carter warned that either political party could otherwise create election chaos for political purposes. The Justice Department plans to appeal his decision to the Ninth Circuit.

Election officials can protect eligible voters by counting ballots under the normal process and investigating suspected illegal voting afterward. If evidence shows that someone voted unlawfully, prosecutors can pursue an indictment rather than treating an uncertain allegation as grounds to withhold a ballot before counting.

Carter noted that returned-ballot envelopes contain identifying information. Prosecutors could use those records to determine whether a noncitizen voted and then bring a case under federal and state law. This approach targets an individual suspected of violating voting laws instead of placing thousands of ballots into a separate review process.

The judge specifically asked why the Justice Department could not pursue indictments after the election. He called prosecution the remedy of a good prosecutor and warned that pre-election separation could disenfranchise lawful voters. The Justice Department disagreed and plans to appeal, arguing that ongoing processing was harming American citizens through dilution.