Ninth Circuit Judges Question DOJ Bid to Freeze 20,000 California Ballots

Ninth Circuit Judges Question DOJ Bid to Freeze 20,000 California Ballots

A Rare Sunday Hearing Puts Federal Lawyers on the Defensive

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit convened a rare Sunday hearing on Oct. 25 to weigh the Justice Department's emergency request that California set aside roughly 20,000 mail-in ballots. The session ran for well over an hour, with Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly facing sharp questions from the bench. According to the Los Angeles Times, the panel comprised Circuit Judges Mark Bennett and Patrick J. Bumatay, both appointed by President Trump, and Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden. Two of the three judges appeared openly skeptical of the administration's case.

20,000 Flagged Voters Sit at the Heart of the Fight

At issue are 20,000 registered voters the Justice Department describes as "likely noncitizens" who were nevertheless mailed ballots. The department wants the court to order California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan to stop counting those ballots until each voter's U.S. citizenship is definitively confirmed. Donnelly told the panel that California is inflicting irreparable harm by letting ineligible votes be counted, arguing the damage would be irreversible once ballots are mixed and tabulated. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli warned earlier that with every passing minute, the votes of American citizens in California are being diluted.

An Oct. 15 Lawsuit Followed an Unanswered 48-Hour Ultimatum

The department sued California on Oct. 15, naming the state, Weber, and Logan as defendants. Two days earlier, Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter had written to Weber and Logan giving them 48 hours to segregate the ballots of the flagged voters so their citizenship could be investigated. Weber refused, calling it an emergency of the department's own making and rejecting demands for unprecedented measures based on unverifiable information and unexplained methodology. Federal officials say U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security Investigations reviewed voter registrations, and the list of 20,000 names was delivered to state officials on a password-protected thumb drive.

Jurisdiction Question Comes First, With District Court Yet to Rule

Judge Bennett opened by questioning whether the appeals court even has jurisdiction to intervene before the lower court has ruled. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California only days earlier, and District Judge David Carter has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, Oct. 27. The Justice Department nevertheless appealed immediately, seeking an expedited decision. California argues the circuit court should not step in before the district judge speaks. Bennett also pressed Donnelly on the Constitution's Elections Clause, suggesting the requested injunction would contradict the very election laws California's legislature adopted under that clause.

Tenth Amendment Clash Tests the Limits of Federal Power

Judge Sanchez challenged the federalism premises of the request, asking whether ordering state officials to enforce a federal misdemeanor statute against noncitizen voting amounts to commandeering the state in violation of the Tenth Amendment. He separately questioned the reliability of the data behind the 20,000 names, including the government's reliance on unnamed third-party analytics. California attorney Sam Siegel responded that voters already attest to their citizenship when registering, and that if the executive branch wants the kind of intervention it seeks, it should ask Congress for that authority rather than demanding it from a court.

One Sympathetic Voice Says an Order Could Bring Clarity

Judge Bumatay struck a notably different tone, saying everyone shares an interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens vote. Granting emergency relief, he suggested, could supply clarity: "Without an injunction, you will never know" whether ineligible ballots are being counted, he told Siegel. His remarks were the administration's warmest reception of the day. Still, outlets that covered the hearing, including Democracy Docket and the Orange County Register, concluded the panel as a whole appeared skeptical of the emergency bid.

Los Angeles County Is the Epicenter as Ballots Keep Moving

Many of the flagged addresses are in Los Angeles County, which is why Logan is a defendant alongside Weber. The department stresses urgency: once the disputed ballots are processed alongside others, there may be no way to unscramble them. California automatically mails a ballot to every registered voter, a system the department claims frustrates federal voting law. State officials counter that the methodology behind the list has never been explained and cannot justify burdening tens of thousands of voters' rights.

Tuesday Hearing and a Looming Appellate Ruling Decide What Counts

Two tracks now converge: Carter's district-court hearing on Oct. 27 and the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the emergency request, which the department had hoped would land by Saturday, October 24. The Nov. 3 midterm election is fast approaching — California began mailing ballots on October 5, about ten days before the Oct. 15 lawsuit — and counting continues in the meantime. Whichever way the courts rule, the outcome will decide whether these 20,000 ballots are counted and set a fresh precedent for how far Washington can go in directing how states run their elections.