9th Circuit Judges Question DOJ Authority to Halt California Ballot Counting

Key points

• The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on October 15, demanding that officials set aside 20,000 mail-in ballots from individuals flagged as likely noncitizens.
• DOJ attorneys argued that once ballots are separated from their envelopes, they cannot be linked to voters, making it impossible to verify eligibility later.
• A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held an emergency hearing on Sunday, with Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez questioning the government's claims and jurisdiction.
• California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Siegel argued the federal list is unreliable, citing errors such as U.S.-born names and lack of voting history in preliminary reviews.
• The DOJ had previously sent 48-hour ultimatum letters to 18 California counties, threatening criminal punishment if they did not comply with the ballot segregation demand.

Background

This dispute follows a series of federal actions in October 2026, including a lawsuit filed on October 15 and 48-hour deadlines set for local election officials. The case is part of a broader pattern of Trump administration attempts to intervene in state-run elections ahead of the midterms, including a separate lawsuit in Alaska. Previous archive reports noted that the DOJ's initial list of 190,000 potential ineligible voters had shrunk to 20,000, with only 28 individuals indicted so far.

How outlets are covering it

The Los Angeles Times and CNN emphasized the judges' skepticism regarding the DOJ's jurisdiction and the unreliability of the data, framing the move as an attempt to undermine state election integrity. The New York Times highlighted the administration's struggle to answer questions about how the list was compiled. In contrast, DOJ attorney Matthew Donnelly argued that federal criminal law prohibits noncitizen voting and that California was failing to enforce this provision. Judge Patrick Bumatay appeared more sympathetic to the DOJ's concerns about verifying noncitizen votes, while his colleagues focused on constitutional limits and the lack of evidence supporting the 20,000-person list.

Why it matters

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for federal intervention in state election processes. If the court rules against the DOJ, it may reinforce the principle that states control election administration. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the DOJ could allow federal authorities to halt ballot counting based on unverified data, potentially disenfranchising thousands of voters in the 2026 midterms.

What to watch

A ruling from the 9th Circuit is expected soon, given the emergency nature of the appeal. The lower district court had scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, but the DOJ sought immediate intervention. A related case in Washington, D.C., regarding the reliability of federal voter data lists, may also influence the outcome. The November 3 midterm election is nine days away.