Federal Judges Question Justice Department Over California Voter Rolls Lawsuit
A federal appeals court expressed skepticism on Sunday toward a Trump administration lawsuit that seeks to force California election officials to set aside thousands of mail-in ballots ahead of midterm elections. During a rare weekend oral argument, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned whether the federal government’s emergency injunction oversteps constitutional boundaries.
Constitutional Authority Under the Elections Clause
Circuit Judge Mark Bennett told Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly during Sunday’s hearing that the administration’s demands conflict directly with the U.S. Constitution. Bennett, a Trump-appointed judge, noted that the Elections Clause grants individual states the authority to set and manage their own election processes.
Federal appeals court hears arguments in Trump administration's voting lawsuit against CaliforniaA rare Sunday federal appeals court hearing for the Justice Department's voting lawsuit against California closed without a ruling.The department requested that the court issue… pic.twitter.com/TT8udzLpGZ
It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law that the California Legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,
Bennett asked Donnelly during the proceeding. How can we do that?
Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez, an appointee of former president Joe Biden, also questioned the legal basis of the federal intervention during the two-hour oral argument.
October Lawsuit and Voter Roll Demands
The legal battle began on October 15, when the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles. The filing asked a federal judge to order California officials to segregate ballots received from roughly 20,000 individuals listed by the administration as suspected noncitizens. The department demanded that election workers withhold those specific ballots from the count until citizenship could be verified.
In response, California officials defended the state’s election safeguards as robust and asserted in court filings that the federal agency’s data relied on suspect lists. All available evidence indicates that ineligible voting is exceedingly rare. A Reuters investigation this year found 129 cases in which noncitizens were federally charged with voting illegally, with many instances traced to administrative errors or voter confusion rather than intentional fraud.
Midterm Stakes and Immigration Focus
The lawsuit represents an aggressive push by the administration to expand federal oversight of state election administration prior to the midterms, which will determine control of the U.S. Congress where Republicans hold narrow majorities in both chambers. California serves as the nation’s most populous state and a Democratic stronghold, holding 52 seats in the House of Representatives.
Donald Trump has concentrated federal enforcement efforts on California, criticizing sanctuary state policies that limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities and repeatedly asserting that state policies undermine election integrity.
Appeals Court Panel Prepares a Ruling
At the conclusion of the weekend arguments, Judge Bennett stated that the three-judge panel would try to rule as quickly as possible.
Related reading