Ninth Circuit Denies Trump California Ballot Sequestration Request

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Trump administration bid to force California to sequester up to 20,000 ballots from alleged noncitizens.
• This ruling marks the second time in a week the appellate panel has sided against federal intervention in California's election procedures.
• The court affirmed that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants states primary control over their election processes, which a federal statute on noncitizen voting does not preempt.
• U.S. District Judge David Carter previously denied the federal request, asserting that California, like the federal government, holds sovereign authority over its elections.
• California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the decision, emphasizing that state law already prohibits noncitizen voting and that federal claims of widespread fraud are baseless.

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.

A federal appellate court recently rebuffed a significant effort by the Trump administration to compel California election officials to sequester up to 20,000 ballots suspected of being cast by noncitizens. In a split decision issued on Friday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied an emergency request from the Justice Department. This request sought to overturn a lower federal judge's refusal to order the setting aside of votes from individuals appearing on a Homeland Security list of likely noncitizens, a move central to the Trump administration's claims regarding noncitizen voting in California.

This ruling marks the second time within a single week that the appellate panel has intervened in the Trump administration's unprecedented challenges to California's election administration. Earlier in the week, the majority had already rejected the government's attempt to intervene in the counting of mail-in ballots before the trial judge had even conducted a hearing on the Justice Department's request for a temporary restraining order. These actions underscore a broader California election integrity lawsuit initiated by federal authorities.

The Ninth Circuit panel, in a per curiam opinion, reiterated its stance that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants states primary control over their election procedures. The court explicitly stated that a federal statute criminalizing noncitizen voting does not supersede this fundamental constitutional right of states to manage their electoral processes. The judges declined the United States' invitation to undermine the Constitution's clear text by contravening the Elections Clause, suggesting that any proposed changes to vote-by-mail procedures should be directed to Congress, not the judiciary.

U.S. Circuit Judges Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, both sided with the majority in denying the government's appeal. However, U.S. Circuit Judge Bumatay, also a Trump appointee, issued a dissenting opinion, consistent with his position in the panel's previous ruling. Judge Bumatay argued that federal courts have historically acted to safeguard citizens' voting and civil rights by enjoining state actions that violate the law. He further contended that the federal government should not remain passive when a state appears to permit violations of federal law, particularly when the integrity of federal elections is at stake.

The Ninth Circuit's decision followed a strong rejection of the Justice Department's request by U.S. District Judge David Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee, earlier in the week. Judge Carter had denied the DOJ emergency request California ballots, which sought a temporary restraining order to prevent state election officials from processing mail-in ballots from individuals on the government's list until their citizenship could be verified. Judge Carter emphasized the extraordinary nature of the federal government's actions, stating, "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."

Judge Carter further asserted that while the executive branch might believe it reigns as a sole sovereign, California and its people also possess sovereignty, concluding that the government's request violated long-standing principles. While representatives for the Justice Department did not immediately comment, California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the ruling. Bonta declared that three legal victories in one week unequivocally demonstrate that the Trump administration lacks any authority to interfere with California’s elections. He affirmed that California law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections and that multiple state laws are in place to prevent such occurrences, making it an exceptionally rare event. Bonta characterized the administration’s claims of widespread fraud as baseless attempts to sow doubt in the democratic process and risk disenfranchising eligible voters, vowing to continue fighting to uphold the rule of law.

This ruling reinforces the principle of state sovereignty in election administration under the Elections Clause, making it challenging for federal entities to intervene in state election procedures based on claims of noncitizen voting without clear legislative authority or compelling evidence. Lawyers advising on election law or constitutional challenges should note this precedent regarding federal overreach into state-managed elections.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service