A federal appeals court has expressed skepticism over a Justice Department lawsuit that seeks to force California to discard thousands of mail-in ballots deemed by the federal government as likely to belong to noncitizens. During a rare weekend oral argument, a three-judge panel reviewed the high-stakes legal challenge, with a decision expected as soon as possible according to Circuit Judge Mark Bennett.
Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump, voiced sharp concern during the proceedings regarding whether the administration’s legal effort could withstand judicial scrutiny. Bennett pointed directly to the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution, which grants individual states the authority to administer elections rather than giving that power to the federal government.
Addressing Justice Department lawyer Matthew Donnelly directly during the hearing, Bennett questioned the legal foundation of the government’s request. It seems entirely inconsistent with state laws adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause to issue such an injunction, the judge indicated.
The case forms part of a broader push by the Trump administration to exert greater influence over the electoral process and crack down on alleged noncitizen voting ahead of the critical November 3 midterm elections. The outcome of these races will determine which political party controls the United States Congress, alongside numerous key state and local positions.
The Justice Department filed its complaint against California on October 15, less than three weeks prior to the midterm races. The federal lawsuit asks the court system to set aside thousands of mail-in ballots that the administration contends were sent to likely noncitizens. According to the court filings, the federal government provided California officials with a list containing 20,000 names of individuals it alleges are ineligible to vote based on citizenship status.
President Donald Trump has frequently promoted claims regarding widespread voting by noncitizens that benefit the Democratic Party, and California has long been a primary target of his election claims. Earlier in the year, Trump denounced the state’s primary elections after right-wing candidates, including Los Angeles mayoral hopeful Spencer Pratt, fell short of expectations, subsequently announcing that the state would face investigation by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office.
Voting rights advocates have raised alarms over the administration’s methods, noting that the Justice Department has not publicly revealed the methodology behind compiling its list of alleged noncitizen voters. Whistleblower reports have further cast doubt on the accuracy of such data compilations. Meanwhile, public opinion polls predict steep challenges for Republican candidates in the upcoming midterms, driven by souring approval ratings for Trump and widespread voter dissatisfaction with issues such as the cost of living and the U.S.-Israel war on Iran.
In response to the federal legal action, California officials have strongly defended the state’s electoral integrity, maintaining that robust safeguards are already in place to prevent noncitizens from casting ballots. State leaders have dismissed the Justice Department’s assertions as being rooted in dubious data.
California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statement earlier in the month condemning the federal lawsuit as a desperate attempt to use a politicized Justice Department to suppress voters just weeks before Election Day. The state remains committed to carrying out free and fair elections, Newsom stated.
