Trump-appointed judge questions president’s bid to block 20,000 California ballots

Federal appeals judges on Sunday raised sharp questions about the timing, constitutionality, and legal authority behind the Justice Department’s request that California election officials isolate thousands of mail-in ballots from individuals federal authorities suspect are noncitizens.

During a rare weekend hearing before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two of the three judges expressed skepticism toward the lawsuit filed in mid-October by President Donald Trump’s administration.

The suit claims California authorities failed to meet a 48-hour deadline to review 20,000 names of federal officials identified as potential noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls.

Federal attorneys asked a district judge to halt counting those ballots until individual voters’ immigration statuses could be confirmed. While the district judge scheduled a hearing for Oct. 27, shortly after receiving the case, the federal government appealed directly to the 9th Circuit seeking an expedited ruling.

Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly told the panel that California is causing irreparable harm “by allowing noncitizens to vote in violation of their own state laws. The damage is irreversible and irrevocable.”

Efforts to identify potential noncitizen voters have become a key focus for the Trump administration this year, despite noncitizen voting being exceptionally rare.

Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, appointed by Trump, questioned whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to intervene before the lower court made its decision.

Donnelly argued that the lower-court judge’s schedule was overly slow and effectively denied the government’s request, noting that local election workers process thousands of mail ballots every day.

Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, pressed the government on whether its demand violated the Tenth Amendment by effectively commandeering state officials to enforce a federal law that makes noncitizen voting a misdemeanor.

Donnelly replied that federal authorities were simply asking California to enforce its own statutes banning noncitizen voting, contending that the state’s refusal to set aside the ballots was “frustrating the purpose” of federal legislation.

Bennett emphasized that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures the power to establish the time, place, and manner of holding congressional elections.

The executive branch may be “unhappy with what they’re doing, and doesn’t like the manner,” Bennett said, but under the Constitution, the state retains the right to govern those procedures, including how it handles potential noncitizen voters.

Attorney Seth Waxman, representing Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan, argued that the federal database was unreliable and that segregating the ballots would disenfranchise legitimate voters.

If staff spent just three minutes cross-checking each of an anticipated 2.75 million mail ballots against the federal list, the process would take 140,000 labor hours—about 16 years of work, Waxman noted.

Waxman pointed to a review of 200 records from the administration’s list conducted by Los Angeles County staff. In a court declaration, Assistant Registrar-Recorder Monica Flores stated that the sample included canceled or inactive registrations, individuals with no voting history, and voters born in the United States, which she noted “is strong evidence of citizenship.”

Attorney Sam Siegel, representing California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, said that if the administration objects to how California conducts its elections, it should ask Congress to change the process.

Siegel added that the federal government had offered no credible evidence to support its claims. “It has no basis in law or in fact,” he told the panel. “We just dispute the premise that noncitizens are voting.”

However, Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, noted that all parties share an interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens participate in elections. He suggested that granting the emergency request could offer clarity. “Without an injunction, you will never know if illegal voting is occurring,” Bumatay told Siegel.

Bennett concluded that the appellate panel would try to issue its ruling as quickly as possible.