Appeals court again rejects DOJ’s bid to segregate over 20,000 alleged noncitizen ballots in California

The appeals court refused to force California to isolate more than 20,000 ballots that the Justice Department said might come from noncitizens. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the government had not shown such extraordinary relief was clearly required by law during an ongoing election.

The majority also agreed with the lower court that officials had no feasible way to identify and separate the specific ballots safely. The district judge had ruled that the request violated constitutional principles giving states control over their elections. The court was also concerned that separating ballots could damage the wider election system.

The decision marked the second time in one week that the appeals panel rejected the administration’s request to intervene. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented and called the proposed remedy modest. The Justice Department had not said whether it would seek an emergency Supreme Court appeal.

Segregating a ballot means separating it from the ordinary stream of ballots and placing it aside for special handling. The purpose would be to prevent a ballot believed to be questionable from being counted with other ballots before officials resolved its status.

In this case, the Justice Department wanted California officials to set aside more than 20,000 ballots allegedly linked to possible noncitizens. The court rejected the request because it found no feasible way to identify and segregate the ballots of specific people without potentially harming the entire election system. That concern matters because a mistaken separation could affect eligible voters.

The ruling did not authorize the requested separation during the ongoing election. Judge Patrick Bumatay disagreed, describing the proposal as modest and saying federal and state officials could work together. The majority instead concluded that the government had not shown the extraordinary remedy was clearly required by law.

The Justice Department asked California officials to set aside more than 20,000 ballots that it said might have been sent by noncitizens. That was the immediate number at issue in the lawsuit, but the article gives several sharply different estimates of noncitizen registrations.

The Department of Homeland Security had claimed in July that California had closer to 200,000 noncitizens registered to vote. In Nevada, the administration initially identified 15,903 alleged noncitizen voters. After review, that number fell first to 6,218 and then to 185.

Nevada officials later confirmed that all 185 people were citizens. The large swings made the California list harder for the court to trust. The district judge said the government’s procedures were vague and that its similar claims in other states were unreliable. That evidence helped support the decision not to set aside the California ballots.

The judges’ concern was not only whether the government’s list was accurate. They also questioned whether officials could connect each listed person to a specific ballot and remove only that ballot without damaging normal election operations.

The district court found no feasible way to identify and segregate ballots belonging to specific individuals. The appeals court said that process could have potentially catastrophic effects on the entire system. The risk was especially serious because the election was already underway, leaving little time for careful review and correction.

The court therefore refused to order the requested remedy. It treated the government’s request as extraordinary and said the United States had not shown that the law clearly required it. The decision leaves California’s established election process in place, while the broader dispute over the government’s list and methodology remains unresolved in the article.

The Constitution generally leaves election administration to the states. That principle lets states establish and operate their own voting procedures instead of allowing the federal government to direct every election decision. The lower court described state control as a longstanding constitutional rule.

That does not mean federal officials have no role. The government can seek to protect federal voting requirements and, as Judge Patrick Bumatay wrote, safeguard California’s own decision that noncitizens cannot vote. The disagreement was over whether the Justice Department could impose an emergency ballot-segregation remedy during an ongoing election.

U.S. District Judge David Carter ruled that the request violated constitutional principles mandating state control over elections. The appeals court rejected the request as well, finding that the government had not shown the extraordinary intervention was clearly required by law. The ruling preserves California officials’ control over the ballot process described in the case.

The court questioned the government’s evidence because its identification process had produced sharply changing numbers. A claim that begins with thousands of alleged noncitizen voters becomes less convincing when later reviews remove most names and find that the remaining people were citizens.

Nevada provided the clearest example. The administration first alleged that 15,903 registered voters were noncitizens. It later reduced that number to 6,218, then to 185 after manual review. Nevada officials subsequently confirmed that all 185 individuals were citizens.

Judge David Carter also noted that the administration’s descriptions of its California procedures were vague. He said the court could not conclude that the process was credible, especially given the unreliable claims in other states. That uncertainty mattered because the Justice Department sought immediate action against more than 20,000 California ballots. The appeals court ultimately denied the request.

Timing mattered because the Justice Department sued close to an ongoing election and then sought emergency intervention. The appeals court said the emergency was at least partly “self-constructed” because the government had waited too long to act.

A late request to isolate more than 20,000 ballots leaves officials little time to verify names, match records, and correct mistakes. Judge David Carter warned that granting the request could let either party create chaos for political purposes and disrupt the election process. The appeals court likewise feared potentially catastrophic effects on the wider system.

The judges therefore declined to impose the requested remedy while voting was underway. The ruling protects the existing process from a sudden change, but the article does not say whether the Justice Department will appeal. The department had not responded to a request for comment or indicated whether it would seek emergency Supreme Court review.