Judge denies federal request to segregate California ballots, says it would 'wreak havoc' on voting

The federal judge refused to make California segregate, or set aside, ballots linked to as many as 20,000 people the Justice Department suspected might be noncitizens. The department wanted the state to delay counting those ballots until each voter’s immigration status could be checked. The dispute matters because millions had already voted, making a late change difficult and risky.

California officials process mail ballots through county election systems. More than 500,000 ballots had already been processed by the week of the ruling. Their envelopes had been verified, and the ballots had been removed. Los Angeles County officials said it would be virtually impossible to identify which ballot belonged to a particular voter afterward.

Carter said segregation would require new sorting methods and could disenfranchise eligible voters. He also said it would discount citizens’ votes and disrupt the election. The Justice Department immediately announced another appeal, so the legal fight was continuing after the ruling.

During an election, segregating a ballot means separating it from the regular stream of ballots and delaying its processing or count. The ballot is not immediately treated like other valid ballots. In this case, the Justice Department sought to keep certain California ballots apart while officials checked whether the voters were U.S. citizens.

The request concerned as many as 20,000 people on a list the administration described as likely noncitizens. California counties had already verified more than 500,000 ballot envelopes and removed the ballots from them. Officials testified that this made matching an individual ballot to a specific voter virtually impossible.

The judge said segregation would force counties to create new sorting methods during an active election. He warned that this could create delays, chill election workers and voters, and risk disenfranchising eligible citizens. The department planned to appeal the decision.

The Justice Department’s request could have affected ballots from as many as 20,000 people. That number was small beside the more than 3.7 million Californians who had already voted when Judge Carter ruled. The contrast showed why officials and the judge viewed the request as a major late-stage intervention.

The state mails ballots to all 23 million registered voters. Court filings showed that more than 500,000 ballots had already been processed by that week. Processing meant officials had verified the envelopes and removed the ballots, making later identification much harder.

The request therefore involved both a limited group and a large election system already operating. Carter said separating the ballots could disrupt counting and risk disenfranchising an untold number of voters. The Justice Department said it would appeal, while similar requests emerged in Washington state and Alaska.

Separating ballots late in an election can disrupt counting because election workers have already built a secure processing flow. Pulling out one category would require counties to identify, locate, and track those ballots without confusing them with other ballots. The judge said that work could risk disenfranchising an untold number of voters.

California had already processed more than 500,000 ballots. Officials verified their envelopes and removed the ballots. Los Angeles County officials testified that it would be virtually impossible to know which ballot belonged to a particular voter after that step. A new segregation system could therefore require counties to redesign procedures mid-election.

The practical danger is that eligible voters’ ballots could be delayed, misplaced, or excluded while officials tried to separate them. Carter said the request would discount citizens’ votes and create a chilling effect on workers and voters. He denied it as the Justice Department prepared an appeal.

In the United States, state and local election officials normally administer elections. They maintain voter records, receive ballots, verify envelopes, count votes, and certify results under state procedures. This decentralized structure matters because counties must manage election logistics while protecting voters’ rights. The article describes California counties performing the ballot-processing work.

The federal Justice Department does not normally run state elections. It can enforce federal voting and election laws, investigate alleged violations, and ask courts to order remedies. In this case, prosecutors sued California officials, alleging they had missed a 48-hour deadline to review a list of 20,000 people considered likely noncitizens. They sought a court order delaying those ballots.

Judge Carter rejected that request and said prosecutors had already shown they could enforce election law by arresting 28 alleged illegal voters or registrants. The department said it would appeal. The case reflects a dispute over federal enforcement authority and state election administration.

The National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day rule limits systematic changes to voter rolls during the final 90 days before an election. The purpose is to prevent last-minute removals or changes from wrongly blocking eligible voters. The article refers to this protection as prohibiting voter-roll changes during that period.

Carter said the Justice Department’s request had the same practical effect as purging voters. Counties would need to create a new process to identify and separate ballots from people the government suspected were noncitizens. He said that change could disenfranchise voters, even though the allegations had not been proven.

The judge also warned that the election was already underway. More than 3.7 million people had voted, and over 500,000 ballots had been processed. Carter concluded that segregation would violate the voting-rights protection and disrupt the election. The Justice Department planned to appeal, leaving the legal dispute unresolved.

Mail-ballot systems protect elections through several linked steps. Officials verify the returned envelope and voter information, separate the ballot from identifying materials, count eligible ballots, and certify the final results. Verification helps detect problems, while separation helps protect ballot privacy. Together, these steps aim to secure the count without stripping eligible voters of their rights.

The article gives a California example. Officials had verified more than 500,000 envelopes and removed the ballots from them. Los Angeles County officials testified that, after removal, it would be virtually impossible to determine which ballot belonged to a particular voter. That separation is why trying to isolate ballots later could create confusion and require new sorting methods.

Judge Carter said late segregation could discount citizens’ votes and risk disenfranchisement. The Justice Department argued the state was obstructing enforcement, but Carter disagreed. The department appealed, so the dispute over election safeguards and federal oversight continued.