Trump Supreme Court: Seeks California Ballot Segregation

• The Trump administration sought Supreme Court intervention to segregate 20,000 California ballots on the eve of the 2022 midterm elections.
• The request was based on unproven claims of noncitizen voting and was part of a larger federal lawsuit against California.
• Lower courts had previously rejected similar demands, and California officials resisted the federal government's actions, citing illegality and data inaccuracies.
• Legal experts criticized the administration's efforts as lacking a sufficient legal basis and infringing upon state election authority, which is constitutionally reserved.
• The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to the emergency application, reinforcing the principle of state sovereignty over election procedures.

This development reinforces the principle of state sovereignty over election procedures, indicating the high legal bar for federal intervention, even in cases alleging voter fraud.

On the eve of the 2022 midterm elections, the Trump administration made an urgent appeal to the Supreme Court, requesting assistance in its ongoing legal challenge concerning California's election procedures. The administration sought an emergency ruling to compel state officials to segregate approximately 20,000 ballots from individuals suspected of not being U.S. citizens. This move was part of a broader federal lawsuit initiated by the Department of Justice against California, which alleged widespread voter fraud stemming from noncitizen voting.

The request, filed on a Monday just before Election Day, aimed to prevent these ballots from being counted until the citizenship status of the voters could be definitively confirmed. The administration's actions were predicated on unproven claims regarding the extent of noncitizen participation in the electoral process, which had been a recurring theme in its public statements. This direct intervention by the Trump administration into the state's election administration highlighted a significant federal-state dispute over election integrity and oversight.

California authorities vehemently opposed the federal government's demands, characterizing the proposed intervention as unlawful and questioning the reliability of the information provided by the administration. Prior to the Supreme Court appeal, two lower courts had already rejected the federal government's requests for immediate action to set aside the contested ballots. Undeterred, the Trump administration framed its Supreme Court petition as a "modest remedy," arguing that segregating ballots was a routine practice when their legality was in question and would not result in the cancellation of any votes.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer articulated the administration's position, stating that allowing ballots to be counted first and then addressing their legality afterward was not conducive to producing election results that command public acceptance and democratic stability. Sauer emphasized the difficulty of ascertaining the lawfulness of potentially illegal ballots once they had been commingled with valid ones. However, a federal judge had previously rebuked the government for attempting to "coerce a state and local government to abandon their own constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the executive branch," while an appeals court affirmed that federal statutes regarding noncitizen voting did not supersede states' constitutional authority over their election processes.

The Trump administration's lawsuit targeting California ballots was not an isolated incident but rather part of a broader strategy to influence state election processes leading up to the midterms. The Department of Justice had also filed a similar lawsuit in Washington state, advancing claims of noncitizen voter fraud, and had taken legal action in Alaska to block the certification of a Senate race if the Democratic candidate emerged victorious. These actions collectively underscored a concerted effort to assert federal oversight over state-run elections.

Election law experts widely condemned the administration's attempts to interfere with California's electoral system. Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specifically noted that the DOJ's lawsuit lacked a sufficient legal basis under federal law and would compel California registrars to violate their own state's statutes. Olson further dismissed the government's databases as a "national laughingstock," asserting that the Constitution reserves decisions regarding election procedures to the states unless Congress provides explicit legal guidance to the contrary. California, for its part, already possesses established mechanisms for challenging the citizenship status of voters, leading legal experts to argue against the federal government inventing new processes on the cusp of an election.

The Supreme Court did not issue an immediate response to the Trump administration's emergency application, reflecting the judiciary's general reluctance to intervene in state election procedures, particularly when an election is imminent. This development reinforces the principle of state sovereignty over election procedures, indicating the high legal bar for federal intervention, even in cases alleging voter fraud. The constitutional framework grants states significant autonomy in administering their elections, a principle that courts are often hesitant to disrupt.

Lawyers advising on election law or constitutional challenges should note the judiciary's reluctance to disrupt established state processes, particularly close to an election. The case highlights the ongoing tension between federal interests in election integrity and the foundational principle of federalism, which allocates primary responsibility for election administration to individual states. The lack of immediate action by the nation's highest court underscored the legal system's deference to state-level election management and the rigorous standards required for federal overreach.

This development reinforces the principle of state sovereignty over election procedures, indicating the high legal bar for federal intervention, even in cases alleging voter fraud. Lawyers advising on election law or constitutional challenges should note the judiciary's reluctance to disrupt established state processes, particularly close to an election.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service