DOJ asks Supreme Court to block California counting disputed mail-in ballots

The Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to temporarily prevent California from counting mail-in ballots linked to about 20,000 voters whom the department believes may not be U.S. citizens. Federal law bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections, so the DOJ wants the ballots held back while officials check each voter’s citizenship status.

The DOJ first asked a federal district court to stop California election officials from tabulating the ballots. It also gave Los Angeles County a thumb drive containing names of voters it suggested could be noncitizens. Judge David Carter rejected that request, and a 9th Circuit panel later declined to reverse him.

The Supreme Court could act at any time, although the article gives no deadline. The petition arrived one day before Election Day, making the timing central. The election will determine which parties control both chambers of Congress.

A ballot is disputed here when the DOJ believes the voter may not be a U.S. citizen and therefore may be barred from voting in a federal election. The dispute concerns eligibility, not a finding that every listed voter actually voted unlawfully. The article says the department identified more than 20,000 people who appeared registered to vote in California.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the information came from publicly available records available when the names were identified. The DOJ had also prepared a list through the Department of Homeland Security and gave Los Angeles County officials a thumb drive containing the names. The department described the voters as likely noncitizens.

The article does not say that citizenship had been conclusively established for any particular voter. California’s position, reflected in the lower-court rulings, was that immediately setting aside the ballots could wrongly exclude eligible citizens. That unresolved status is why the DOJ sought court-ordered separation and review.

The DOJ says the disputed group contains more than 20,000 people who appear registered to vote in California but may not be U.S. citizens. That is the scale of the immediate legal fight. The article does not establish how many of those people cast ballots, how many ballots are valid, or whether any particular race depends on them.

Even without a named contest, 20,000 ballots could be important in a close congressional election. The article places the dispute during midterm elections, which determine which parties hold majorities in the House and Senate. A bloc of that size could therefore draw attention wherever margins are narrow, though its actual effect would depend on the races and the ballots’ validity.

The courts have not ruled that all 20,000 ballots are unlawful. The 9th Circuit majority warned that granting the DOJ’s request could disenfranchise eligible voters. The Supreme Court’s response will determine whether California can count the ballots while the broader dispute continues.

If California counts the ballots before citizenship is confirmed, ballots cast by people who are not eligible could be included in federal election totals. That is the harm the DOJ is trying to prevent. The department argues that federal law bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections and that counting disputed ballots would violate those rules.

The DOJ’s key practical argument concerns ballot handling. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said California could commingle the challenged ballots with lawful ones. Once mixed together, officials would not be able to identify and remove only the disputed ballots without also risking lawful votes. The request therefore seeks separation before counting, not simply a later review.

The lower courts viewed the other side of that risk as serious. The 9th Circuit majority said the requested relief could disenfranchise eligible voters. The Supreme Court must weigh the DOJ’s concern about unlawful ballots against the possibility that eligible citizens’ votes would be wrongly withheld.

The lower courts refused to order California to set the ballots aside because the DOJ’s list did not conclusively establish that every listed voter was ineligible. The courts saw a material danger that eligible citizens could lose their votes if officials acted on uncertain information immediately before an election.

Judge David Carter wrote that the case concerned every American citizen’s right to vote in a free and fair election. He also said the federal government had never before, on the eve of an election, sought to compel a state and local government to abandon its own constitutional election procedures. The 9th Circuit majority adopted a similar concern.

That panel rejected the DOJ’s appeal in a 2-1 decision. Circuit Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez formed the majority, which said the requested relief could cause disenfranchisement. The dissent is not identified in the article. The Supreme Court now faces the same dispute under severe time pressure.

Election authority is divided: state and local officials administer elections, while the federal government can seek enforcement of federal election laws. In this case, California controls its election procedures, but the DOJ says federal law prevents noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The conflict is about which authority governs the ballots before counting.

California and its local officials were following their own procedures when the DOJ sought an order requiring them to isolate ballots named on the federal list. Judge David Carter said California and its people are sovereign too, rejecting the idea that the executive branch could act as the sole sovereign. The DOJ responded that the United States suffers an injury when its laws are violated.

That division matters because the federal request arrived immediately before Election Day. The lower courts refused to force California to change its process, citing possible disenfranchisement. The Supreme Court will consider whether federal enforcement claims justify interrupting state procedures before the ballots are counted.

Article III standing is a constitutional limit on federal courts’ power. In general, a plaintiff must show a concrete, legally recognizable injury connected to the challenged conduct and addressable by a court. Without standing, a federal court cannot reach the merits of the dispute. This explanation uses established constitutional law beyond the article’s detailed account.

The district court concluded that the United States lacked Article III standing to bring this lawsuit. The DOJ disagrees. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the federal government suffers a judicially cognizable injury to its sovereignty when its laws are violated. In the DOJ’s view, that injury gives it a sufficient basis to seek an order before the ballots are counted.

The standing question is separate from whether the voters are actually ineligible. It asks whether the federal government is legally entitled to bring this case in federal court. Sauer also said the DOJ was likely to succeed on the merits. The Supreme Court must decide whether to intervene while the standing and election-law dispute remains unresolved.