What the Appeals Court Ruling Means for 20,000 Disputed California Ballots

A federal appeals court on Friday refused to let the Justice Department set aside mail ballots tied to more than 20,000 California voters the Trump administration suspects are noncitizens, CBS News, NBC News and Axios reported. The ruling leaves California’s election procedures in place days before Tuesday’s midterms.

What did the court decide?

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the Justice Department’s request for an injunction while its appeal proceeds. Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez, in an unsigned decision, said the department had not met its burden. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented.

NBC reported that this was the second time in a week the panel had turned down an administration request to intervene in the case.

Why did the judges say no?

The majority said there is no workable way to identify and separate the ballots of specific people without potentially catastrophic effects on the whole system. It wrote that the relief the administration wants is “simple only in the abstract.” The judges also warned of a risk of disenfranchising eligible voters and jeopardizing the entire tabulation process.

The panel relied on findings by U.S. District Judge David Carter, who ruled Wednesday that the request violates longstanding principles giving states control of their elections. NBC reported that Carter doubted the administration’s methods and said the Justice Department’s process was not credible. He noted that the administration made similar claims in Nevada, where it first alleged 15,903 registered voters were noncitizens, later cut that to 6,218 and then to 185. Nevada officials later confirmed all 185 were citizens, the judge wrote.

What does the administration claim?

The administration alleges California sent ballots to about 20,000 people who may not be U.S. citizens and wants them set aside until citizenship can be verified. California officials say the list is highly unreliable and probably includes many citizens. According to CBS, federal prosecutors argue that counting votes from noncitizens would dilute citizens’ voices.

In his dissent, Bumatay called the government’s proposed remedy “modest” and said the federal government and states can work together. He wrote that California decided long ago that noncitizens cannot vote and that the government only seeks to safeguard that decision.

What other legal fights are under way?

CBS reported that a federal judge in Washington on Friday ordered the administration to share the disputed list of names with lawyers for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the UCLA Voting Rights Project. It would be the first time a nongovernment group can evaluate the list.

A coalition of unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, also asked a federal judge to temporarily block the Justice Department from demanding that local officials stop counting ballots and from threatening criminal prosecution of officials who do not comply.

Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, has warned that election officials who knowingly process a noncitizen’s ballot face legal jeopardy. The Associated Press obtained subpoenas to Los Angeles County election officials, and at least three have been asked to appear before a grand jury on Nov. 4, the day after the election. CBS noted it is unclear whether the department plans criminal charges, and that it does not typically subpoena people it regards as targets of a criminal investigation.

Why does it matter?

For California voters, the ruling means ballots already cast are not being pulled aside. Millions of people in the state have already voted, and CBS reported that hundreds of thousands of ballots have been processed. Election officials say processed votes are anonymized and cannot be matched back to the voters who sent them, which the courts cited as a reason segregating specific ballots is not feasible.

NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke, whose organization helped defend the case, said the decision shows elections must be governed by facts and law. Axios described the ruling as a major setback for a Justice Department it said has pressed unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud in California.

What happens next?

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment, including on whether it will seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court, NBC reported. The midterm election is Tuesday, and the union request, the data-sharing order and the grand jury appearances on Nov. 4 are still ahead.

Around Prague, based on reporting by CBS News, NBC News, Axios