A federal judge rejected a Trump administration request to halt the processing of up to 20,000 California ballots over allegations that the voters might be noncitizens, warning that such a move would "wreak havoc" on the ongoing midterm elections. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled that segregating ballots at this stage of the election would risk disenfranchising voters and violated the National Voting Rights Act, which prohibits changes to voting procedures within 90 days of an election. More than 3.7 million people had already voted in the state at the time of the ruling.
The decision marks the latest legal setback for President Donald Trump’s efforts to expand federal oversight of state-run elections ahead of votes that will determine control of Congress. The Justice Department sued California election officials in mid-October, accusing them of failing to meet a 48-hour deadline to review a list of 20,000 individuals the federal government identified as likely noncitizens. The administration sought a court order requiring the state to wait to count those specific ballots until immigration status could be verified. Prosecutors stated they would immediately appeal the decision.
What the Left Is Saying
Judge Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee, argued that the federal government's demand would create a "chilling effect on election workers and voters" and discount the votes of United States citizens. "Eroded trust in our democracy is irreparable. Once a vote is segregated, lasting harm has occurred," Carter wrote. He noted that prosecutors had already demonstrated their ability to enforce election laws by arresting 28 noncitizens suspected of voting or registering illegally, suggesting the new request was unnecessary for enforcement purposes.
Election law experts and civil rights organizations supported the ruling. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, stated that the decision "confirmed what we already know: states, not the federal government, run elections." Becker characterized the Justice Department's demands, made so close to Election Day, as "designed to cause chaos." Jon Miller, Chief Program Officer for the Public Rights Project, which represented Los Angeles County officials, called the ruling a "major victory for voters," though he noted his organization remains prepared for further challenges aimed at undermining election credibility.
What the Right Is Saying
The Trump administration and Justice Department officials argued that the lawsuit is necessary to prevent the "dilution" of American citizens' votes by noncitizens. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli doubled down on the government's position following the ruling, writing on social media that "this ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution." Essayli contended that the federal request did not impede the election but rather preserved the status quo.
Essayli argued that segregating ballots is a procedural safeguard rather than a disenfranchisement. "Segregating a ballot does not prevent it from being counted later," Essayli said. "It is designed to preserve the status quo and prevent the infection of our election with illegal ballots." The administration maintains that California officials failed to comply with federal deadlines to review the suspect voter list, justifying federal intervention to ensure the integrity of the results.
What the Numbers Show
The federal lawsuit targeted a list of 20,000 individuals identified by the Justice Department as likely noncitizens on California's voter rolls. California mails ballots to all 23 million registered voters. Court filings indicated that over 500,000 ballots had already been processed by the time of the ruling, meaning their envelopes had been verified and the ballots removed from the envelopes. Los Angeles County officials testified that this processing made it virtually impossible to identify which specific ballot belonged to a particular voter, complicating any attempt to segregate them retroactively.
This is the second appeal the federal government has filed in this case. The first appeal was denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals because it preempted the district court's decision. Two of the three judges on that panel expressed skepticism about the merits of the lawsuit. The ruling in California follows similar federal actions in other states, including a request in Washington state to sequester ballots from hundreds of suspected noncitizens and a lawsuit in Alaska seeking to delay vote certification. All three states have House or Senate races that will influence the balance of power in Congress.
The Bottom Line
The ruling reinforces the legal precedent that states, not the federal government, administer elections, particularly when federal interventions are proposed close to Election Day. By citing the National Voting Rights Act's prohibition on changes within 90 days of an election, Judge Carter established a high bar for federal attempts to alter ballot processing procedures mid-election. The Justice Department's plan to appeal suggests this legal conflict will continue, potentially extending into the certification phase of the midterms. The case serves as a bellwether for the administration's broader strategy of challenging state election practices through federal litigation in key swing states.