A three-judge panel questioned the Trump administration’s authority to require California election officials to set aside approximately 20,000 ballots linked to suspected noncitizens, raising constitutional and procedural concerns ahead of the Nov. 3 midterms.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal appeals court questioned the Trump administration’s emergency effort Sunday, Oct. 25, to prevent California from counting approximately 20,000 mail ballots associated with voters whose citizenship the Justice Department disputes, as judges examined whether federal authorities can intervene in state election procedures before the November midterms.
During an expedited hearing, two judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals expressed skepticism about the department’s legal arguments, including whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to require California to separate ballots and whether the appeals court can intervene before a lower court issues a ruling.
According to The Associated Press, the case stems from an Oct. 15 lawsuit alleging that approximately 20,000 suspected noncitizens are registered to vote in California.
The Justice Department wants state officials to withhold ballots associated with those individuals until their citizenship can be verified. California officials maintain that the government’s information is unreliable and that the proposed intervention could prevent eligible citizens from voting.
The administration filed its lawsuit after California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan declined to comply with a federal demand to review the flagged registrations within 48 hours.
In its official announcement of the lawsuit, the Justice Department said investigators working with the Department of Homeland Security had identified thousands of people believed to be noncitizens on California’s voter rolls.
Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the state of failing to adequately protect federal elections against unlawful voting.
“State-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable in the United States of America,” Blanche said.
“If found responsible in a court of law, the State of California will have seriously undermined confidence in our electoral system and violated laws that protect our nation’s representative system of government.”
The department’s federal complaint states that immigration authorities analyzed voter registration records and other information before identifying approximately 20,000 individuals they believed were likely noncitizens.
However, the allegations have not been established through a final judicial determination.
During Sunday’s hearing, Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly argued that allowing potentially ineligible ballots to be counted could cause irreparable harm because ballots cannot easily be traced to individual voters once separated from their envelopes.
Donnelly accused California of failing to enforce existing prohibitions against noncitizen voting.
“The problem is that California isn’t interested in enforcing that provision,” he said, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and California law also restricts voting to eligible citizens.
The dispute concerns whether the Justice Department has presented sufficient evidence to justify intervening in the state’s election administration and whether the requested remedy is legally permissible.
Judge Mark Bennett, appointed by Trump, questioned the administration’s reliance on federal authority to override procedures established by California lawmakers.
Bennett pointed to the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which gives state legislatures authority to establish rules governing congressional elections, subject to congressional oversight.
“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett said. “How can we do that?”
He also questioned whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider the administration’s emergency request because a federal district judge had not yet ruled on the underlying motion.
The district court had scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, Oct. 27, but the Justice Department sought immediate appellate intervention, arguing that election officials were already processing ballots.
“How do we have jurisdiction when the district court has said it’s going to rule expeditiously?” Bennett asked. “I don’t see how we have jurisdiction.”
Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, raised additional concerns about the Tenth Amendment and whether the federal government was improperly attempting to compel state officials to enforce federal law.
Sanchez also questioned the reliability of the government’s list and asked how the individuals had been identified.
Donnelly could not provide details about some third-party sources involved in assembling the records, according to the hearing accounts.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, focused more heavily on the government’s argument that officials must prevent ineligible individuals from participating in federal elections.
Bumatay suggested that an emergency order could help establish whether noncitizens were casting ballots.
“Without an injunction, you will never know,” he told California’s attorney.
Attorneys representing California and Los Angeles County rejected the administration’s allegations and warned that the proposed remedy could disrupt the election.
California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Siegel argued that federal authorities had not demonstrated widespread unlawful voting or established grounds for the requested intervention.
“It has no basis in law or in fact,” Siegel told the panel. “We just dispute the premise that noncitizens are voting.”
Los Angeles County attorney Seth Waxman said the federal government’s list included questionable records and that checking ballots against it would require substantial resources.
County election officials examined a sample of 200 names and identified inactive or canceled registrations, individuals with no voting history and people who appeared to have been born in the United States.
The preliminary review raised concerns that eligible citizens could be incorrectly classified as noncitizens.
Waxman estimated that checking approximately 2.75 million expected mail ballots against the federal list, even at three minutes per ballot, would require roughly 140,000 staff-hours.
California officials argued that imposing such requirements shortly before Election Day could overwhelm election operations and delay lawful ballots from being counted.
The dispute comes as millions of California residents have already returned ballots ahead of the Nov. 3 election.
According to Reuters, the administration’s broader election enforcement efforts have included lawsuits seeking voter registration information and challenges involving alleged noncitizen voting.
Federal officials maintain that the actions are intended to enforce existing laws and protect election integrity, while state officials and voting rights organizations have challenged the reliability of the evidence and the scope of federal authority.
The Justice Department has also recently announced prosecutions involving lawful permanent residents accused of unlawfully registering to vote in California. Those cases are separate from the dispute over the approximately 20,000 flagged registrations.
The appellate panel did not issue a ruling Sunday.
Bennett said the judges would attempt to reach a decision as quickly as possible, given the approaching election and the administration’s request for emergency relief.
For now, the case remains unresolved, with the court weighing the federal government’s responsibility to enforce voting laws against California’s authority to administer elections and protect eligible voters from improper ballot exclusions.
Original article
Comments