Trump-Appointed Judge Questions Bid to Block 20,000 California Ballots
A Trump-appointed judge questions the DOJ’s attempt to block 20,000 California mail ballots amid legal and constitutional challenges.
The White House from Washington, DC/Wikimedia Commons
Federal appeals judges raised sharp questions on Sunday about the Justice Department’s request to isolate 20,000 California mail-in ballots from voters suspected of being noncitizens. The case, brought by President Donald Trump’s administration, challenges California election officials amid ongoing concerns over election integrity ahead of the midterms.
Legal Challenge Over Ballot Review Timing and Authority
The lawsuit, filed in mid-October, alleges that California officials failed to meet a 48-hour deadline to review a list of 20,000 potential noncitizen voters identified by federal authorities. The Justice Department asked a district judge to halt counting these ballots until the immigration status of individual voters could be verified. When the district judge scheduled a hearing for October 27, federal attorneys immediately appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a faster ruling.
Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly argued that California is causing “irreparable harm by allowing noncitizens to vote in violation of their own state laws,” describing the damage as “irreversible and irrevocable.” Donnelly also criticized the pace of the lower court’s schedule, saying it effectively denied the government’s request despite local election workers processing thousands of mail ballots daily.
Judges Question Jurisdiction and Constitutional Issues
Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, appointed by President Trump, expressed doubt that the appellate court had jurisdiction to intervene before the lower court’s decision. Bennett emphasized the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants state legislatures the authority to set the time, place, and manner of congressional elections. He stated that the executive branch may be unhappy with the process but that states retain the right to govern election procedures, including handling potential noncitizen voters.
Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, pressed the government on whether its demand violates the Tenth Amendment by effectively forcing state officials to enforce federal law. Donnelly responded that federal authorities were asking California to enforce its own laws against noncitizen voting, arguing the state’s refusal to segregate ballots frustrates federal legislation.
Arguments Over Federal Database Reliability and Voter Disenfranchisement
Attorney Seth Waxman, representing Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan, challenged the reliability of the federal database used to identify potential noncitizens. Waxman noted that segregating the ballots could disenfranchise legitimate voters, pointing out that cross-checking the anticipated 2.75 million mail ballots against the federal list would require approximately 140,000 labor hours—about 16 years of work.
Waxman cited a review of 200 records from the government’s list by Los Angeles County staff. Assistant Registrar-Recorder Monica Flores stated that the sample included canceled or inactive registrations, individuals with no voting history, and voters born in the United States, which she said “is strong evidence of citizenship.”
State Officials Urge Congress to Address Election Procedures
Attorney Sam Siegel, representing California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, argued that if the federal government objects to California’s election procedures, it should seek changes through Congress. Siegel said the administration had provided no credible evidence supporting its claims and disputed the premise that noncitizens are voting in California.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, acknowledged that all parties share an interest in ensuring only eligible citizens vote and suggested that granting the emergency request could clarify whether illegal voting is occurring. “Without an injunction, you will never know if illegal voting is occurring,” Bumatay told Siegel.
Next Steps and Implications
Judge Bennett concluded by saying the appellate panel would attempt to issue a ruling as quickly as possible. The case highlights ongoing tensions between federal authorities and states over election oversight and enforcement of voter eligibility laws, especially in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections.
The outcome could affect how states handle mail-in ballots and federal efforts to identify noncitizen voters moving forward.
