Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Set Aside 20,000 California Ballots Ahead of Midterm Elections
The U.S. Supreme Court on November 2 rejected a Justice Department request to temporarily set aside approximately 20,000 mail-in ballots in California that federal officials suspect may belong to noncitizens. The decision came just one day before the November 3 midterm elections.
The emergency request was submitted after both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to grant the administration's request.
The Supreme Court issued an unsigned order rejecting the application without providing an explanation. No justice publicly dissented.
Earlier on November 2, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to intervene immediately, warning that once the disputed ballots were mixed with other ballots during processing, separating them would become impossible.
He cited a previous dissenting opinion by a Ninth Circuit judge, noting that California had acknowledged there was no practical way to trace individual ballots after they had been processed.
California officials, however, challenged the accuracy of the list prepared by the Justice Department.
In earlier court proceedings, state officials argued that the federal government lacked legal standing to challenge California's election administration in federal court. They also maintained that the state's existing citizenship verification procedures were sufficient to address concerns about noncitizen voting.
Additionally, California argued that separating the ballots could violate federal election laws and disrupt the overall vote-counting process.
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to direct California election officials to temporarily isolate ballots submitted by individuals identified on the federal government's list. The ballots would have remained uncounted until the voters' U.S. citizenship could be verified.
The Justice Department said California had missed a deadline to complete its review of individuals suspected of being noncitizens, some of whom allegedly had already submitted mail-in ballots.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused states of failing to take adequate measures to prevent noncitizens from voting.
Although the U.S. Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections, the federal government retains certain oversight powers.
Following the filing of the emergency application, acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter said California had refused to cooperate with federal authorities in preventing noncitizen voting, which he argued could undermine the value of lawful votes.
McCotter said the Justice Department had therefore sought emergency intervention to require California to segregate the disputed ballots until the citizenship of the voters could be verified.
He added that the administration would continue pursuing all available legal options to protect election integrity and enforce federal law.
California Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the Justice Department's latest move, accusing the Trump administration of repeatedly ignoring unfavorable court decisions.
Newsom said courts had already rejected the administration's arguments three times during the previous week. He also questioned why the Justice Department had waited more than three days before seeking emergency relief on the eve of the election.
He described the administration's claims as unfounded.
The legal dispute began before the Supreme Court's November 2 decision.
On October 28, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California ruled against the Justice Department's request to isolate the disputed ballots, allowing them to be counted in the November 3 midterm congressional elections.
Rather than waiting for the district court to complete its review of the case, the Justice Department had earlier filed an emergency application with the Ninth Circuit, seeking an order preventing California from counting the ballots.
On October 26, a three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected that request by a 2–1 vote, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because Judge Carter had not yet issued a decision on the merits of the case.
After Carter's October 28 ruling, the Justice Department appealed again to the Ninth Circuit.
However, on October 30, another 2–1 decision by the appeals court rejected the administration's request to intervene.
The majority criticized the government's position, arguing that it would undermine the constitutional authority granted to states under the Elections Clause.
The judges said that if the federal government believed changes were necessary to procedures governing mail-in ballots, it should take its proposals to Congress rather than seek intervention from the courts.
They also found no clear legal error in the lower court's decision, warning that attempting to identify and separate ballots belonging to specific individuals could cause potentially serious disruption to the entire election system.
With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, California was not required to set aside the approximately 20,000 disputed mail-in ballots ahead of Election Day.