California judge denies Trump DOJ request to segregate alleged noncitizen ballots

U.S. District Judge David Carter rejected the Justice Department’s request to make California set aside about 20,000 mail-in ballots linked to people the government believed were likely noncitizens. He said the request conflicted with constitutional principles giving states control over their elections. The decision protected ballots from being withheld based on an unproven federal list.

The judge questioned the list’s reliability. He cited Nevada, where federal officials initially identified up to 15,903 possible noncitizens. After reviews, that number fell to 185, and Nevada later confirmed all 185 were citizens. Carter warned that accepting similar allegations in California could wrongly remove eligible voters’ ballots.

The Justice Department said California must act once it learns of possible noncitizen voters. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said the government would appeal. The department filed a notice of appeal and planned to seek an emergency order from the Ninth Circuit.

To segregate a mail-in ballot means to separate it from other ballots instead of allowing it to proceed through the ordinary counting process. The ballot is held aside while officials examine a specific issue. Here, the Justice Department sought a court order requiring California to separate ballots from people on a federal list of alleged likely noncitizens.

The department wanted the state not to count those ballots until the voters’ citizenship was confirmed. It said the list contained more than 20,000 names. California argued that the government had not explained clearly how it created the list or provided reliable standards for checking the voters.

Judge Carter refused the request. He said holding ballots aside could disrupt an election already underway, chill election workers and voters, and discount citizens’ votes. The Justice Department argued California could not simply do nothing after receiving possible noncitizen matches, and it is appealing.

The federal government initially put the number of suspect voters at 190,000 in a July letter. Later, the Justice Department said it had compiled a list of more than 20,000 people it believed were likely noncitizens. The figures describe different stages or versions of the government’s allegations, but the article does not explain precisely why the count changed.

The size of the later list did not persuade California or Judge Carter that the allegations were dependable. State attorneys said the government had refused to release information about how it generated its lists. They called the claims vague and unreliable, especially because the government had not supplied clear standards for investigating the voters.

Carter cited the government’s similar experience in Nevada as a warning. There, an initial high-confidence list shrank dramatically after manual review, and every remaining person was confirmed to be a citizen. The California case was therefore about both the numbers and the risk of acting on faulty matches.

Judge Carter said the government’s process was not credible because its descriptions were vague and similar claims in another state had proved unreliable. He specifically questioned how the federal government generated its names and whether its matching procedures could accurately identify noncitizens. California attorneys also said the government had refused to release the underlying information.

Nevada provided the key example. The Department of Homeland Security initially identified up to 15,903 registered voters as noncitizens through what it called high-confidence matches. After manual review, the number dropped first to 6,218 and then to 185. Nevada officials later confirmed that all 185 people were citizens.

Carter used that experience to explain his ruling. If Nevada had accepted the initial allegations, citizens would have lost their votes. He said he would not impose the same risk on Californians who had met voter-registration requirements, especially during an election already underway.

The central danger was disenfranchisement: eligible citizens could lose the practical effect of their votes because officials acted on an allegation rather than confirmed evidence. A ballot placed aside might not be counted while citizenship was investigated, and the process could create delays, confusion, or fear among voters and election workers.

Nevada illustrated the risk. Federal officials first identified up to 15,903 registered voters as possible noncitizens through high-confidence matches. Later reviews reduced the number to 185, but Nevada officials confirmed that every one of those 185 people was a citizen. The initial process therefore could have wrongly excluded citizens from voting.

Judge Carter said that possibility mattered more than the government’s demand for immediate action. He warned that the requested order could discount United States citizens’ votes and disrupt the election. He directed the government toward criminal indictments when it had evidence of illegal voting, while the Justice Department pursued an appeal.

Judge Carter’s reasoning rested on the constitutional principle that states control their own election procedures. States administer voter registration, ballot handling, and counting under their election rules. The judge said the federal request would interfere with that authority by forcing California to create a new process while voting was already underway.

He also warned that accepting the request could let either political party create election chaos for political purposes. The Justice Department wanted California to set aside ballots connected to a federal list, but the state said the list lacked clear standards and reliable supporting information. Carter viewed that combination as a serious threat to orderly election administration.

This did not mean federal officials could never investigate alleged illegal voting. Carter pointed to the government’s power to bring indictments, noting that prosecutors had already announced 28 indictments involving people found to have voted illegally in California in recent years. The Justice Department disagreed and appealed the ruling.

The article states that noncitizen voting is a crime, so the government may investigate and prosecute people it believes voted illegally. It does not spell out the specific statute or explain every legal requirement. The important distinction is between investigating a particular suspected offense and automatically withholding thousands of ballots based on a data match.

Judge Carter told the Justice Department to use its criminal remedy if it had evidence. He pointed to 28 indictments already announced by prosecutors involving people found to have voted illegally in California in recent years. An indictment is a formal criminal accusation, not merely an administrative label. In general, criminal proceedings require supporting evidence, probable cause, and judicial safeguards.

The Justice Department argued that California had to respond to possible noncitizens on its rolls. Carter rejected the requested ballot segregation because the government’s procedures were vague and its comparable Nevada claims proved unreliable. The department said it would appeal and seek emergency relief from the Ninth Circuit.