The Supreme Court declined to require California election officials to separate ballots belonging to approximately 20,000 voters the Trump administration identified as potential noncitizens, prompting a sharp response from Gov. Gavin Newsom just hours before the midterm elections.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an emergency request from President Donald Trump’s Justice Department on Monday, Nov. 2, refusing to order California election officials to segregate approximately 20,000 mail-in ballots from registered voters whose citizenship status federal authorities questioned. The decision marked another legal setback for the administration’s election enforcement efforts as Americans headed to the polls Tuesday.
The justices issued a brief, unsigned order without explaining their reasoning, and no dissents were publicly noted. The court acted within hours of receiving the administration’s application, without requesting a response from California officials, leaving intact lower court decisions that rejected the proposed restrictions on ballot processing.
According to CBS News’ coverage of the Supreme Court ruling, the Justice Department sought to prevent ballots associated with individuals on a federal list of suspected noncitizens from being counted until their eligibility could be verified. California officials challenged the accuracy of the list, warning that the proposed restrictions could prevent eligible American citizens from having their votes counted.
Newsom celebrated the ruling, accusing the Trump administration of attempting to interfere with California’s election procedures after repeated defeats in federal court.
“After repeatedly losing in the lower courts, the highest court in the land firmly slapped down the Trump DOJ’s baseless attack on California’s electoral process — not even entertaining it,” Newsom said in an official statement released by his office.
“The third branch of government did its job, and that should be a welcome sight for all Americans given the disgusting and dangerous attacks on our democracy by the federal government. Tomorrow, Californians can feel secure in knowing the state will carry out a free and fair election — just as we’ve always done. If you have not yet: vote, drop your ballot in a drop box, and feel good about exercising your constitutional right to vote.”
In a separate social media reaction following the ruling, Newsom wrote, “Justice is served.”
The legal confrontation began when federal officials identified approximately 20,000 California voter records they believed belonged to individuals who were not U.S. citizens. The Justice Department notified California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County election officials of the findings, requesting that ballots associated with those individuals be separated from other mail-in votes pending citizenship verification.
The administration argued that its proposed procedure would preserve the ability to identify and review potentially unlawful ballots before they became indistinguishable from legally cast votes. Once mail ballots are removed from their identifying envelopes and processed for counting, election officials generally cannot reconnect an individual ballot to the voter who submitted it.
Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections for president and Congress, including lawful permanent residents who possess green cards but have not obtained American citizenship. The Justice Department maintained that its request was intended to enforce those restrictions without permanently rejecting ballots belonging to people whose citizenship could be established.
California officials disputed the reliability of the federal government’s data, arguing that the list included individuals who were citizens, were not actively registered or had otherwise been incorrectly identified. State officials also maintained that implementing a new ballot-separation procedure after voting had begun would disrupt established election operations.
The administration’s list did not establish that 20,000 noncitizens had actually cast ballots. According to NPR’s reporting on the legal dispute, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, who examined the records found that approximately 42% of the listed individuals did not appear on California’s current voter rolls. The review also identified naturalized American citizens among those flagged.
Those findings raised questions about how federal officials compiled the list and whether the information could reliably distinguish ineligible voters from citizens legally entitled to participate.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter rejected the Justice Department’s initial request on Oct. 28, concluding that the government had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to require California to change its election procedures. Carter warned that the federal identification process contained substantial uncertainty and errors, creating a risk that qualified voters could lose their constitutional rights.
“Constitutional rights and our democracy are at stake. The public interest favors their protection,” Carter wrote. “Individuals who have met the requirements of California’s voter registration laws must not be deprived of a core right merely because of unfounded allegations stemming from a procedure rife with uncertainty and errors.”
The Justice Department appealed, but a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also declined to grant the requested emergency relief. The majority warned that separating ballots under an unfamiliar procedure so close to Election Day could interfere with the integrity and administration of the election itself.
The appellate judges also cited longstanding legal principles limiting last-minute changes to election procedures. Their concerns included the Constitution’s assignment of election administration responsibilities to states and Congress, as well as federal statutory restrictions on systematic voter removals shortly before an election.
The decision was not unanimous. Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented from the appellate ruling, reflecting disagreement over the federal government’s authority and the appropriate response to its allegations.
After the appellate defeat, Justice Department attorneys turned to the Supreme Court, requesting immediate intervention before California completed processing the disputed ballots. The administration maintained that delaying action could make it impossible to determine which votes, if any, had been cast unlawfully.
The Supreme Court’s rejection effectively ended the administration’s effort to obtain emergency relief before Election Day, although it did not resolve every underlying legal question or prevent federal authorities from continuing investigations into suspected unlawful voting.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta welcomed the decision and said the state would continue defending its election procedures against additional federal challenges.
“Courts have now rejected the Trump Administration’s attempts to interfere in California’s elections not once, not twice, not three times, but four times — from the district court to the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Bonta said.
“This latest decision should put an end to the Administration’s attempt to disrupt California’s elections through emergency court orders. But our work is not over. We will remain vigilant and keep fighting back against federal efforts to undermine our democracy.”
Secretary of State Weber also praised the ruling, emphasizing that California’s election officials could continue processing ballots under existing state law.
“While this fight is not over yet, on the eve of Election Day, this means millions of Californians can focus on the most important task at hand — casting their ballot,” Weber said. “The time to vote is now!”
The dispute unfolded during an election in which more than 6 million California mail ballots had already been returned before Nov. 3. California automatically mails ballots to active registered voters, and county election offices begin processing returned ballots before Election Day under procedures established by state law.
The number of potentially affected ballots remained uncertain because the federal government’s list included records that local officials said did not correspond to active registrations. Consequently, the approximately 20,000 names cited in the litigation should not be interpreted as 20,000 confirmed unlawful votes.
The Justice Department’s legal challenge was one element of a broader election enforcement initiative involving requests for voter registration data and investigations into suspected noncitizen voting across multiple states. Federal officials have pursued criminal charges in individual cases involving alleged unlawful registration or voting, while state election administrators have questioned the reliability of some of the larger lists used to identify potentially ineligible voters.
The administration argues that preventing unlawful ballots from entering election totals is essential to protecting the voting rights of American citizens. California officials maintain that the state already prohibits noncitizen voting and that unverified federal allegations should not override procedures protecting eligible voters.
A separate federal court ruling also restricted aspects of the administration’s efforts to pressure California election officials. As Axios reported on Nov. 2, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded that the federal government likely exceeded its constitutional authority when demanding changes to the state’s ballot-handling procedures.
That ruling did not prohibit federal authorities from investigating suspected election crimes, but it reinforced the distinction between conducting lawful investigations and compelling state officials to administer elections according to executive branch directives.
The Supreme Court’s decision similarly addressed the administration’s request for emergency intervention rather than determining whether every individual on the federal list was eligible to vote. It did not authorize noncitizen voting, which remains prohibited in federal elections, or establish that unlawful ballots had been counted.
The Los Angeles Times reported that federal prosecutors had acknowledged the urgency of their request, arguing that the case could become effectively moot if the disputed ballots were processed before a court intervened. With the Supreme Court declining to act, California election officials were left to continue implementing existing state procedures.
The decision arrives as voters across the country determine control of the House of Representatives and Senate, with disputes over election administration and voter eligibility remaining prominent political issues.
For the Trump administration, the ruling represents the failure of its final emergency effort to require California to isolate ballots associated with suspected noncitizens before the midterm election. For Newsom and California officials, it preserves the state’s established ballot-processing procedures while allowing existing safeguards against unlawful voting to remain in effect.
The underlying disagreement over federal oversight of state elections and the accuracy of voter citizenship records remains unresolved, but the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene means California will proceed with Tuesday’s election without the extraordinary ballot-separation requirements sought by the Justice Department.
Original article
Comments