Judge denies federal request to segregate California ballots, says it would 'wreak havoc' on voting
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge rejected on Wednesday a Trump administration request to stop California from processing the ballots of up to 20,000 people over allegations they are likely noncitizens, warning it would “wreak havoc” on the midterm elections.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter comes as more than 3.7 million people have already voted in the state.
“Eroded trust in our democracy is irreparable. Once a vote is segregated, lasting harm has occurred,” Carter wrote. “If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger. This Court declines to be a party to such process.”
Prosecutors for the Justice Department said they would immediately appeal the decision.
The decision is the latest legal setback for President Donald Trump in his efforts to expand federal control over state-run elections ahead of voting that will decide control of Congress for the rest of his term.
The Republican administration sued election officials in the Democratic state in mid-October, accusing the officials of failing to meet a 48-hour deadline to review a list of 20,000 people it alleged were likely noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls. The administration had asked the judge to require the state to wait to count those ballots until the voters’ immigration status could be verified.
The Justice Department made a similar request in Washington state this week for the state to sequester ballots submitted by hundreds of people it suspects are not U.S. citizens. Meanwhile, another lawsuit filed in Alaska last week seeks to delay certification of the vote if the Republican incumbent running for U.S. Senate doesn’t win. All three states have House or Senate races that will help determine the balance of power in Congress.
Carter's order was a forceful rebuke of the federal government's demand, arguing that segregating ballots at this time in the election would require counties to develop new methods for sorting ballots and “risk disenfranchising an untold number of voters.” In other words, Carter argued, it would have the same effect as purging voters and therefore violates the National Voting Rights Act, which prohibits changes to voter rolls within 90 days of an election.
The federal government’s request, Carter wrote, “would wreak havoc and disrupt the election that is already underway, create a chilling effect on election workers and voters alike, and discount the votes of United States citizens.”
California mails ballots to all 23 million registered voters. Court filings show over 500,000 ballots had already been processed by this week, meaning their envelopes had been verified and the ballots removed. That would make it virtually impossible to know which ballot belonged to a particular voter, Los Angeles county officials have testified.
Carter, an appointee of former Democratic President Bill Clinton, also rejected the Justice Department's argument that California was impeding the federal government's ability to enforce the law. He argued that prosecutors already demonstrated the ability to enforce election law when they arrested 28 noncitizens who had allegedly voted or registered to vote illegally.
Carter previously said in court that he was inclined to appoint a special master to vet the government's data processes. His Wednesday order appeared to reverse course, and he did not establish one in his order denying the Trump administration's demands.
The federal government said it would file an appeal in the case for the second time on Wednesday evening. The USA's first appeal was denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, since it preempted the district court's decision. Two of the three judges also expressed overwhelming skepticism about the merits of the lawsuit itself.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli doubled down on the lawsuit's arguments Wednesday.
“Every day, more ballots are processed by election officials,” Essayli wrote on social media following the ruling. “This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution.”
Essayli, who argued on behalf of the federal government on Tuesday, has previously said the federal government’s request wouldn’t impede the election. Instead, he argued that the Justice Department was trying to prevent the “dilution” of the vote with noncitizen voters.
“Segregating a ballot does not prevent it from being counted later," Essayli said. "It is designed to preserve the status quo and prevent the infection of our election with illegal ballots.”
Election law experts following the case have said the ruling is consistent with a broader change.
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the district court’s ruling “confirmed what we already know: states, not the federal government, run elections.”
He said the DOJ’s demands of California election officials, so close to Election Day, seemed “designed to cause chaos.”
“But fortunately, the administration’s efforts to interfere with the midterms are failing,” he said.
Jon Miller — the Chief Program Officer for the Public Rights Project, a progressive civil rights organization that is representing LA County officials — said that he considers Wednesday’s ruling a “major victory for voters.” But he said that his organization is still prepared for more challenges as part of broader "efforts to undermine the election, undermine the credibility of election officials and sow distrust in the electoral process,” he said.
———
This story has been updated to correct that over 500,000 votes have been processed, not counted.
© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
