A federal judge issued an order late Friday barring the Justice Department from threatening or coercing election workers to stop processing ballots during the midterm election. This significant judicial intervention also blocks federal authorities from demanding that local election officials segregate or refuse to count ballots that the government claims might belong to ineligible voters. The ruling represents another major legal defeat for the Trump administration in its ongoing efforts to exert federal control over local elections.
Federal Order Protects Election Workers
The late-Friday legal order arrives as millions of voters have already participated in California for the midterm election concluding on Tuesday. With hundreds of thousands of ballots already processed, local authorities have explained that once votes are processed, they cannot be matched back to the individual voters who submitted them. Despite these logistical realities, federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, issued a warning stating that any election official knowingly processing a noncitizen's ballot faces legal jeopardy.
Ninth Circuit Rejects California Ballot Demands
The new order follows a federal appeals court ruling on Friday that rejected a Justice Department request to force California to set aside disputed midterm ballots. The administration had claimed that California sent ballots to approximately 20,000 individuals who might not be US citizens, demanding those votes be withheld until citizenship verification is complete. State officials countered that this list is highly unreliable and likely encompasses many legitimate US citizens. A district court judge forcefully denied the request on Wednesday, cautioning that these federal demands could end up disenfranchising lawful citizens.
Court Emphasizes Systemic Risks
A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a 2-1 ruling, with the majority opinion authored by Judge Mark J Bennett—appointed by Donald Trump—and Judge Gabriel P Sanchez—appointed by former president Joe Biden. The court panel emphasized the severe administrative dangers of the federal request.
"As the district court found – and we discern no clear error – there is no feasible way to identify and segregate the ballots of specific individuals without potentially catastrophic effects on the entire system," the appellate panel wrote in its ruling.
Justice Department Defense of Enforcement
While a Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately provide a comment regarding the latest ruling, the agency issued a prior statement regarding its broader initiatives to address noncitizen voting.
"Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting. Enforcing that law is not an agenda item. It is the Department’s job," the agency stated.
Key Facts of the Ruling
- A federal judge barred the Justice Department from threatening or coercing election workers.
- The late-Friday order stops officials from demanding the segregation or non-counting of specific ballots.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a separate request for California to set aside disputed ballots.
- The Trump administration alleged roughly 20,000 noncitizens were sent ballots, a claim disputed by state officials.
- Millions of people have already voted, and hundreds of thousands of ballots have been processed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the federal judge bar the Justice Department from doing?
A federal judge barred the Justice Department from threatening or coercing election workers to stop processing ballots, and from demanding that local election officials segregate or not count ballots deemed potentially cast by ineligible voters.
Why did the Trump administration want California to set aside ballots?
The administration alleged that California sent ballots to about 20,000 people who may not be US citizens and wanted those specific ballots set aside until citizenship could be verified.
What did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rule?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Justice Department's request for California to set aside disputed midterm ballots in a 2-1 ruling, noting that separating specific ballots would have catastrophic effects on the entire system.