Federal Ruling: Judge Halts DOJ Demand for California Ballot Separation

Federal courts have issued conflicting signals on the handling of California mail ballots in the final hours before the midterm elections. On Monday, a Washington-based judge ordered the Trump administration to cease demanding that state officials set aside ballots from 20,000 individuals the Department of Justice identifies as potential noncitizens. The ruling creates a direct conflict with the administration's concurrent effort to secure an emergency injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief Judge James Boasberg issued the order based in Washington, D.C., stating that the administration's actions likely violate the U.S. Constitution. He cited the Elections Clause, which assigns authority over election rules exclusively to the states and Congress. Boasberg determined that the executive branch overstepped its constitutional bounds by attempting to mandate specific procedures in California's voting process.

The dispute centers on a list of 20,000 voters that the federal government claims may not be citizens. The Justice Department argues these ballots should be held until voter status is verified. California officials counter that the list is unreliable and contains numerous errors, suggesting it includes many lawful U.S. citizens. State election leaders note that millions of ballots have already been cast, with voting underway since early October.

The timing of the legal battle has intensified the logistical pressure on California. The state mails ballots to all approximately 23 million registered voters. Hundreds of thousands of these ballots have already been processed. California officials state that separating the 20,000 disputed ballots from the rest of the mail-in votes is now logistically impossible without disrupting the count. The state is a heavily Democratic stronghold in the upcoming congressional race.

Simultaneously, the administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. Solicitor General D. John Sauer requested a "limited injunction" to direct California to set the ballots aside while the case proceeds. Sauer warned that once California mixes the challenged ballots with lawful ones, retrieving them becomes impossible. This appeal followed a decision by a divided appellate court panel that rejected the initial request for a separation order.

Lower courts have largely supported California's position. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, previously denied the Justice Department's request. Carter warned that segregating ballots could disenfranchise citizens and erode trust in the democratic process. A three-judge panel from the appeals court upheld Carter's order in a 2-1 vote. Two judges, one appointed by Trump and one by Joe Biden, supported the state, while the third judge, also a Trump appointee, dissented.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, criticized the Supreme Court appeal. He described the move as an attempt to undermine elections and trample the rule of law. Bonta stated that the appeal "reeks of desperation." The state's legal team has argued that the executive branch is threatening election workers with prosecution if they fail to set the disputed ballots aside, a move a separate federal judge in California has also ruled against.

The administration has prioritized identifying noncitizen voters this year, despite historical data showing such voting is rare. This is the latest in a series of emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration during his second term. The Supreme Court previously rejected a push to restrict mail ballots ahead of these midterms. The court has not yet issued a decision on the current emergency appeal.

The midterm elections are scheduled for Tuesday. The outcome of the congressional race will determine control of the House and Senate. The legal battles over the 20,000 ballots will continue in the federal courts while the state counts the remaining mail-in votes. The administration maintains that the ballots must be set aside to ensure compliance with federal law, while California insists the count must proceed without delay to validate the will of the voters.