Judge Carter Denies Trump Administration Bid to Sequester California Noncitizen Ballots
Summary
- The Trump administration requested a federal judge to sequester up to 20,000 California ballots believed to be cast by noncitizens.
- U.S. District Judge David Carter did not issue a temporary restraining order but appointed a special master to gather more evidence for a potential preliminary injunction hearing.
- The Ninth Circuit previously denied the government's emergency request to set aside ballots, with one judge citing federal law's unlikelihood to preempt state election procedures.
- California disputes the reliability of a Homeland Security list identifying alleged noncitizen voters, whose numbers were significantly reduced from 190,000 to 20,000.
- Judge Carter emphasized the 'monumental' implications of federal involvement in state election administration and previously rejected a request for unredacted voter rolls.
Federal Request to Sequester Ballots
Judge Carter noted the 'monumental' implications of federal government involvement in how California conducts its elections, underscoring the delicate balance of state and federal authority.
The Trump administration recently sought a federal court order in California to sequester approximately 20,000 ballots, requesting that these votes be set aside until the state could verify the citizenship status of the individuals who cast them. This urgent plea was made to U.S. District Judge David Carter on a Tuesday, following concerns raised by the Justice Department regarding alleged noncitizen voting in the state. The administration's request aimed to address what it described as a critical election integrity issue.
Judge Carter, however, did not immediately grant the administration's request for a temporary restraining order, which is typically a short-term judicial remedy. Instead, he indicated that a decision on this specific matter would be issued the following day. During the proceedings, the judge also advised the federal government to cease any actions that could be perceived as harassment of local election officials. This hearing in downtown Los Angeles occurred just one day after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected the government's emergency application for a preliminary injunction, which similarly sought to compel California election officials to segregate ballots cast by individuals identified as 'likely' noncitizens. Judge Carter characterized the arguments presented before him as 'conclusionary,' suggesting a lack of fully developed evidence.
Contested Evidence and Jurisdictional Disputes
In an effort to gather more comprehensive information, Judge Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee, appointed a special master to assist in obtaining relevant data from both parties. He indicated that a subsequent hearing might be scheduled in two weeks to consider whether a preliminary injunction, a more enduring remedy, is warranted once a more robust evidentiary record is established concerning the purported noncitizens on California's voter rolls. The judge acknowledged the federal prohibition on noncitizens voting in elections, noting the Justice Department's capacity to enforce such laws, citing recent charges against 28 foreign nationals for this offense.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bilal Essayli asserted that the government possessed credible evidence and a good-faith belief that noncitizens were indeed present on California's voter rolls. Conversely, attorneys representing the state of California countered these claims, arguing that a list compiled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identifying these individuals was demonstrably unreliable. Deputy California Attorney General Michael Cohen specifically referenced the Ninth Circuit's recent dismissal, highlighting a concurring opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, a Donald Trump appointee. Judge Bennett's concurrence suggested that the federal government was unlikely to prevail on the merits of its claims, primarily because the federal statute criminalizing noncitizen voting does not preempt California's constitutional authority to establish its own election procedures. While noncitizen voting is also illegal under California law, the state, in compliance with federal regulations, relies on registrants' self-certification of citizenship during the voter registration process.
Precedent and Election Integrity Concerns
Judge Carter noted the 'monumental' implications of federal government involvement in how California conducts its elections, underscoring the delicate balance of state and federal authority. This sentiment echoes his earlier decision in January, when he dismissed a prior lawsuit brought by the Trump administration. That lawsuit had sought to compel California to release its unredacted voter rolls, including sensitive personal data such as registered voters' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and voting histories. At that time, Judge Carter expressed concerns that the executive branch's actions appeared to aim at abridging the right of many Americans to cast their ballots.
Much of the discussion during the recent hearing, attended by numerous lawyers and observers, revolved around the origins and reliability of the list of potentially ineligible voters. This list, initially compiled by Homeland Security, was forwarded to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber for citizenship verification. In July, DHS had initially claimed that as many as 190,000 noncitizens were registered to vote in California. However, earlier this month, after mail-in voting had already commenced in the state, the department significantly revised this figure downward to approximately 20,000, further fueling the debate over the accuracy and evidentiary standards in this California election integrity lawsuit.
Practical Implications
Lawyers and compliance officers should monitor the outcome of the preliminary injunction hearing and the special master's findings, as this case could establish significant precedents regarding federal intervention in state election administration, the evidentiary standards for voter roll challenges based on non-citizenship, and the balance of federal versus state authority over election procedures.
Source
How does this affect you?
Get an AI analysis of this article grounded in your jurisdictions, practice areas, and any policy documents you've uploaded to Wansom.
Finish Reading the Full Story and the Expert Analysis.
Wansom is AI and can make mistakes.
