9th Circuit panel signals likely rejection of DOJ’s emergency bid to halt California ballot counting

Key points

• The 9th Circuit heard emergency arguments on Sunday regarding the DOJ’s demand to separate ballots from a list of 20,000 suspected noncitizens in California.
• Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, expressed doubt about the court’s authority to override state election procedures, stating that Congress and the California Legislature have already banned noncitizen voting.
• California officials, including Napa County registrar John Tuteur, continued counting mail-in ballots, ignoring the federal 48-hour deadline to provide Social Security numbers.
• Los Angeles County officials reported that a preliminary review of 200 names on the federal list found 40% were born in the US and 71% had no voting history.
• The DOJ charged 28 individuals with illegal voting and registration, while threatening prosecution for election officials who process ballots from the flagged list.

Background

This dispute follows the DOJ’s lawsuit filed on October 15, which sought to block the counting of mail-in ballots from the 20,000-person list. The federal government had previously issued a 48-hour ultimatum to California counties to verify citizenship status, a move California rejected as an attempt to delay vote certification ahead of the November 3 midterms. The current hearing is part of a broader legal conflict between the Trump administration and Democratic-led states regarding election integrity and voter roll accuracy.

How outlets are covering it

Politico and ABC News highlighted the skepticism of the 9th Circuit panel, particularly Judge Bennett’s concerns about federal preemption of state election laws. AP News emphasized the frustration of local election officials, who faced threats of prosecution while dealing with data errors, such as names from wrong counties. The Guardian focused on the political dimension, quoting California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who accused the DOJ of 'weaponizing the law' to attack political enemies. While the DOJ, represented by Bill Essayli, argued that noncitizen voting dilutes citizen votes and must be stopped, California officials and the court panel viewed the federal data as unreliable and the timing as an improper interference with the democratic process.

Why it matters

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for federal power to intervene in state election processes. If the court rejects the DOJ’s bid, it affirms state authority over election administration, even when federal agencies allege irregularities. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the DOJ could allow federal courts to override state procedures in future elections, potentially impacting the certification of results in other states.

What to watch

The 9th Circuit panel is expected to issue a ruling soon, potentially before the Tuesday district court hearing. If the appeals court denies the injunction, California will continue counting ballots as scheduled. The DOJ may appeal any adverse ruling or pursue other legal avenues, but the immediate focus remains on the integrity of the November 3 midterm vote in California.