Trump Administration: Drops California Election Lawsuit After Court Losses

• The Trump administration's Justice Department dropped its lawsuit challenging California's election procedures after failing to secure an injunction from three courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
• The lawsuit sought to force California to verify ballots for U.S. citizenship and sequester up to 20,000 ballots based on a Homeland Security list of alleged noncitizens.
• U.S. District Judge David Carter had previously rejected a temporary restraining order, strongly affirming state sovereignty over election administration and questioning the credibility of the noncitizen list.
• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Carter's ruling, emphasizing that federal interference in state election procedures should be addressed through Congress, not the courts.
• The Justice Department stated it is evaluating how to best protect American votes and prevent vote dilution by noncitizens following the Supreme Court's denial.

Judge Carter emphatically stated that no prior instance in American history saw the federal government attempt to compel a state and its local authorities to abandon their constitutionally established election procedures and submit to the executive branch's will, especially on the eve of an election.

The Trump administration has formally withdrawn its legal challenge against California's election procedures, filing a notice of voluntary dismissal in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. This action by the Justice Department follows its repeated failures to secure an injunction that would have compelled California election officials to verify ballots for U.S. citizenship and to sequester up to 20,000 ballots from individuals identified on a Homeland Security list as purported noncitizens.

The Justice Department's efforts to obtain this unprecedented injunction to interfere with state election processes were rejected by three different courts, culminating in a denial from the U.S. Supreme Court. Following this series of judicial setbacks, the department stated its intention to protect American voters and prevent the

The dismissal effectively preempted a scheduled hearing before U.S. District Judge David Carter, who had been set to consider the administration's request for a preliminary injunction. Judge Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee, had previously demonstrated significant skepticism regarding the federal government's claims and tactics. He had appointed a special master to investigate the methodology used by Homeland Security to compile its list of alleged noncitizens on California's voter rolls, highlighting concerns about its accuracy.

Days before the Supreme Court's denial, Judge Carter had vehemently rejected the Justice Department's plea for a temporary restraining order, which sought to disrupt the counting of mail-in ballots just prior to Election Day. Judge Carter emphatically stated that no prior instance in American history saw the federal government attempt to compel a state and its local authorities to abandon their constitutionally established election procedures and submit to the executive branch's will, especially on the eve of an election. He underscored that while the executive branch might perceive itself as the sole sovereign, California and its populace also hold sovereign authority. The judge further warned that granting such a last-minute request could enable political actors to intentionally create chaos and undermine the electoral process. He also questioned the reliability of the Homeland Security list, citing a similar instance in Nevada where a list of approximately 16,000 purportedly ineligible voters was ultimately reduced to just 185 registered individuals, all of whom were confirmed to be citizens.

Judge Carter's robust defense of state electoral autonomy was subsequently affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a split decision. The appellate panel, in a per curiam opinion, explicitly declined the United States' invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution's clear text. The court advised that if the federal government believed different procedures were necessary for mail-in ballots, such suggestions should be directed to Congress, not to the judiciary.

U.S. Circuit Judges Mark Bennett, a Donald Trump appointee, and Gabriel Sanchez, a Joe Biden appointee, both denied the government's appeal. However, U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, also a Trump appointee, issued a dissenting opinion, consistent with his previous stance. He contended that the federal government should not remain passive when a state potentially allows violations of federal law, particularly when the integrity of federal elections is at stake.

Lawyers advising on election law should note this case as a strong judicial affirmation of state sovereignty over election procedures, particularly against federal attempts to intervene with last-minute injunctions. It underscores the high bar for federal interference and the judiciary's skepticism towards potentially flawed data used to challenge state election administration.

Source: Reporting based on Courthouse News Service