Skip to content

News · Elections and voting · California

Appeals court questions DOJ case over California voter rolls

Two judges questioned the legal basis and timing of the DOJ’s request to separate some California mail-in ballots before the Nov. 3 midterms.

Appeals court questions DOJ case over California voter rolls

Key takeaways

  • The DOJ wants certain California mail-in ballots separated pending citizenship checks.
  • Two appeals judges questioned the request’s legal basis and timing.
  • California disputes the reliability of the federal government’s data.
  • The three-judge panel has not issued a decision.

Judges question requested order

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the Justice Department’s case during a two-hour hearing Sunday. The department wants California to separate certain mail-in ballots and withhold them from the count until officials verify the voters’ citizenship.

Judge Mark Bennett, appointed by President Donald Trump, questioned whether that order would conflict with California’s election procedures. He pointed to the Elections Clause, a constitutional provision giving states authority to set election rules.

Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, questioned whether the appeals court had authority to intervene now. The federal trial judge handling the case in Los Angeles had already scheduled a hearing for Tuesday.

What the Justice Department wants

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit Oct. 15 and asked the appeals court to speed up the case. It gave California officials a list of 20,000 people whom it described as likely noncitizens registered to vote.

The department wants ballots from people on that list kept separate and uncounted unless their citizenship is verified. It has also warned California election officials that they could face federal scrutiny if they do not help identify suspected noncitizens on voter rolls.

California has said its safeguards against noncitizen voting are strong and argued in court that the federal government’s claims rely on questionable data. A Reuters review this year identified 129 cases in which noncitizens were federally charged with illegal voting; many appeared connected to confusion or administrative mistakes rather than intentional fraud.

What happens next

Bennett said the panel would try to issue a decision quickly. The separate lower-court hearing remains scheduled for Tuesday, ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

What to watch

  • The 9th Circuit’s decision on the emergency request
  • Tuesday’s hearing in the federal trial court
  • How courts address California’s authority to set election procedures

Was this useful?

Related stories