Another judge blocks DOJ ballot demands in California

Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg prohibited the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security from demanding that California officials set aside ballots from suspected noncitizens. He also barred them from requiring officials to depart from existing state election procedures based on federal lists.

The order matters because it targets the federal pressure itself. Earlier courts had refused to order California to comply with DOJ demands. Boasberg’s ruling goes further by preventing federal agencies from making those demands while ballots are being counted.

California may continue following its established election procedures. Federal prosecutors may still investigate suspected illegal voting, but they cannot use their lists to order the state to change how it verifies voters or counts ballots. DOJ is asking the Supreme Court to compel California, so the dispute remains unresolved.

A federal temporary restraining order is a short-term court order designed to prevent possible harm while a lawsuit moves forward. It can require government officials to pause a policy or avoid specific actions before the court reaches a final decision. This is a general legal definition; the article describes such an order affecting election-related demands.

In this dispute, a broader nationwide temporary restraining order prohibited similar federal demands and threats of prosecution against election workers. Boasberg’s separate order specifically barred DOJ and DHS from demanding that California set aside ballots or change its procedures based on suspected-noncitizen lists.

These orders do not necessarily decide the entire case permanently. They preserve existing conditions while judges review the legal issues. The Supreme Court could still intervene over California’s disputed ballots, and the litigation may continue even while temporary limits remain active.

The Justice Department claimed it had identified more than 20,000 suspected noncitizens on California’s voter rolls. That was the scale DOJ used while pressing California to separate ballots connected to those names.

After Boasberg ordered DOJ to release its list, an expert reviewed it against members of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. At least 22 people who were known U.S. citizens appeared on the list incorrectly. The expert found that another 66 Coalition members were almost certainly included as well.

Boasberg found the expert credible. He concluded that the list’s mistakes created a real threat to eligible voters. The figures therefore mattered beyond the size of the suspected-noncitizen group: they showed that federal data could wrongly identify citizens and potentially affect their ballots. DOJ could still investigate illegal voting, but its list could not dictate California’s counting procedures.

Boasberg concluded that the administration likely violated the Constitution by pressuring California to change how it counted ballots. His central point was about authority: the Constitution gives states and Congress, not the executive branch, power over election rules.

The federal government can enforce the ban on noncitizen voting. But Boasberg said that ban does not authorize DOJ or DHS to order California to set ballots aside or abandon its existing procedures. The disputed federal lists also contained errors, including at least 22 known U.S. citizens.

The ruling separates enforcement from election administration. Federal prosecutors may investigate and prosecute people who knowingly vote illegally in federal elections. They may not use that enforcement authority to direct the state’s verification or counting process. DOJ is pursuing the issue at the Supreme Court, so the constitutional dispute may continue.

If a state relied on an inaccurate federal list, eligible voters could face extra scrutiny or have their ballots set aside. Their votes might not be counted through the normal state process. That risk is especially serious when the list wrongly labels citizens as suspected noncitizens.

The article gives a specific example. After DOJ released its list, an expert found at least 22 Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights members who were known U.S. citizens. Another 66 members were almost certainly included. Boasberg found the expert credible and called the errors a real threat to eligible voters.

That risk helped support the court’s decision to block federal demands. California can keep using its existing election procedures while federal prosecutors investigate possible illegal voting. The Supreme Court could still order the state to set aside disputed ballots, so the effect on eligible voters remains part of the broader legal dispute.

Investigating illegal voting means federal prosecutors examine whether people knowingly violated federal law. If prosecutors find sufficient evidence, DOJ can pursue criminal cases. That process focuses on suspected conduct by particular voters and does not automatically change how a state runs its election.

Ordering California to set aside ballots is different. It would require state officials to alter their verification or counting procedures based on federal lists. Boasberg said DOJ could not use the federal ban on noncitizen voting to impose that change, especially when the list included known U.S. citizens.

The distinction lets both systems operate at once. California may continue its election procedures, while federal prosecutors investigate suspected illegal voting. The federal government can seek enforcement, but the executive branch cannot simply rewrite state election rules. DOJ’s request to the Supreme Court means the conflict is still active.

Federalism is the division of governmental power between the national government and the states. In elections, that division means states administer many procedures, such as verifying eligibility and counting ballots. The article reports that Boasberg viewed states and Congress, not the executive branch, as having constitutional authority over election rules.

States’ authority is not unlimited. Congress can establish federal election requirements, and federal courts can decide whether officials follow the Constitution and applicable laws. In this case, federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, while the court said that law does not let DOJ command California’s counting process.

The practical result is shared responsibility. California can follow its procedures, and federal prosecutors can investigate suspected illegal voting. But DOJ and DHS cannot demand that the state set aside ballots based on their lists. The Supreme Court could still order California to act, leaving the balance under review.