The Trump administration filed an emergency Supreme Court appeal one day before the midterm elections, asking justices to require California to set aside approximately 20,000 mail ballots from voters suspected of being noncitizens after lower federal courts rejected the request.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Nov. 2, to intervene in California’s midterm elections and prevent approximately 20,000 mail-in ballots from being counted until election officials verify the voters’ citizenship, escalating a legal dispute over voter eligibility just one day before Americans head to the polls.
The emergency application followed multiple defeats in federal courts, where judges rejected the Trump administration’s argument that California should be compelled to separate ballots associated with individuals federal investigators identified as potentially ineligible to vote.
According to an Associated Press report published Monday, the Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to order California officials to preserve the disputed ballots separately from other votes until citizenship verification can be completed.
Federal prosecutors argue that allowing the ballots to be processed and counted alongside those of other voters could make it impossible to identify and remove any unlawful votes later.
California officials dispute the accuracy of the federal government’s list, warning that the proposed intervention could prevent eligible U.S. citizens from having their ballots counted and disrupt an election already underway.
The dispute began Oct. 15, when the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California, alleging that federal investigators had identified more than 20,000 registered voters who were likely noncitizens.
The department said Homeland Security investigators compared publicly available California voter registration records with federal immigration information to identify individuals whose eligibility warranted further investigation.
Under California law, ballots are mailed to all active registered voters, meaning people identified in the federal review could already have received ballots for the Nov. 3 election.
Attorney General Todd Blanche accused state officials of failing to address possible unlawful voting.
“State-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable in the United States of America,” Blanche said when announcing the lawsuit.
He argued that knowingly allowing ineligible individuals to vote could undermine confidence in election results.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin also defended the federal investigation, emphasizing that noncitizens are prohibited from voting in federal elections.
The Justice Department initially demanded that California officials examine the identified registrations and ensure any ballots returned by those individuals were not counted until their citizenship could be established.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Attorney General Rob Bonta challenged the federal government’s allegations and questioned the reliability of its screening methods.
State officials said the department had not provided sufficient underlying information to establish that the identified individuals were ineligible.
California also argued that the demand would require substantial changes to established election procedures shortly before voting concluded.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter rejected the administration’s request for emergency relief Oct. 28.
In his ruling, Carter warned that forcing the state to separate the ballots based on unverified citizenship allegations could interfere with lawful voting and create confusion among election workers.
“Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” Carter wrote, according to ABC News’ coverage of the ruling.
The judge also cautioned that the proposed order could interfere with the voting rights of eligible citizens.
California officials welcomed the ruling, arguing that the administration had failed to establish a legal basis for the requested restrictions.
Bonta said the Justice Department’s list potentially included eligible voters and that federal authorities had not supplied the information necessary to confirm their status.
In an Oct. 28 statement, the California attorney general said the proposed measures threatened to undermine voting rights and disrupt an election already in progress.
The case also reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where judges rejected attempts by the administration to obtain emergency relief.
An earlier appeal was dismissed because the appellate court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to intervene before the district court ruled.
Following Carter’s decision, the Justice Department again sought appellate intervention.
A divided three-judge panel rejected that request Oct. 30, leaving the lower court’s ruling in place.
The administration subsequently turned to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene before Election Day.
Federal prosecutors maintain that their requested remedy is limited because it would preserve the disputed ballots while determining whether the individuals who submitted them are legally eligible to vote.
California officials argue that separating ballots based on an unverified federal list could effectively deny thousands of citizens the right to participate.
The dispute also involves the distinction between suspected noncitizen registrations and confirmed unlawful voting.
A voter registration record flagged by a federal database does not necessarily establish that the person is a noncitizen.
Immigration records can become outdated when individuals become naturalized citizens, and administrative discrepancies can produce incorrect matches.
Los Angeles County officials reported that a preliminary review of 200 names from the federal list identified a substantial number of individuals who reported being born in the United States.
Officials also found that many people in the sample had no voting history.
Those findings have contributed to questions about the reliability of the government’s broader allegations.
Federal law generally prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections for president or Congress, and violations can result in criminal penalties.
However, states are responsible for administering elections under constitutional and statutory requirements, including procedures for registering voters, checking eligibility and counting ballots.
The Justice Department argues that federal prohibitions against noncitizen voting justify intervention when state procedures allegedly allow unlawful ballots to be counted.
California maintains that the federal government cannot compel election officials to alter voting procedures based on unproven allegations without satisfying the applicable legal requirements.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the emergency application comes as voting has already been underway in California for several weeks.
The state has approximately 23 million registered voters, and hundreds of thousands of mail ballots have already been processed.
California’s extensive mail-voting system allows ballots to be returned before Election Day, while eligible ballots postmarked by Election Day can be accepted under applicable state deadlines.
Changing the treatment of ballots during that process could impose new responsibilities on county election administrators, including identifying specific voters, locating their returned ballots and conducting additional eligibility checks.
The timing is central to the dispute because federal courts have long expressed concern about changing election rules immediately before voting.
The Supreme Court has previously cautioned against late judicial interventions that could confuse voters or disrupt election administration, a principle commonly associated with its 2006 decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez.
The Justice Department argues that protecting federal elections from unlawful voting requires immediate action despite those concerns.
California officials contend that the administration has not demonstrated that the alleged problem justifies overriding established election procedures.
The case arrives amid broader disagreements between the Trump administration and Democratic-led states over voter registration records, federal oversight and election security requirements.
The Justice Department has also pursued citizenship-related voter registration inquiries in other states, including Washington, where officials were asked to examine several hundred individuals identified as possible noncitizens.
State officials have questioned the accuracy of some federal data and warned against removing voters without adequate verification.
The California dispute is particularly significant because of its timing and the size of the state’s congressional delegation.
All 52 California House seats are on the ballot Tuesday, along with statewide and local contests.
Although the disputed ballots represent a small fraction of the state’s registered electorate, individual congressional races can be decided by narrow margins.
The Justice Department has not established that the approximately 20,000 registrations under review represent 20,000 unlawful votes, and the Supreme Court has not determined that the identified voters are ineligible.
The administration’s emergency application seeks to preserve the ability to exclude ballots if citizenship checks subsequently establish that they were unlawfully cast.
California’s position is that eligible voters should not have their ballots set aside based on unverified allegations.
As of Monday, the Supreme Court had not issued a ruling on the emergency request.
The justices’ decision will determine whether California can continue processing the disputed ballots under its existing procedures or must implement additional restrictions immediately before the midterm elections.
The outcome could also influence how courts evaluate federal demands for last-minute election interventions when questions about voter eligibility remain unresolved.
Original article
Comments