Appeals Judges Skeptical of DOJ Effort to Block California Mail Ballots

A three-judge US Circuit Court of Appeals panel expressed deep skepticism Sunday regarding a Justice Department effort to intervene in California’s midterm election procedures. The federal government is seeking to force election officials to isolate mail-in ballots cast by individuals suspected of not being U.S. citizens. The Justice Department filed a lawsuit in Alaska, seeking to block certification of the election of incumbent GOP Sen, this past week. He also asked about DOJ’s suggestion in court filings that not setting aside mail-in ballots would keep California from ever learning whether noncitizens illegally voted in the midterms.

During an emergency hearing conducted via videoconference, Judge Mark Bennett questioned the federal government’s authority to dictate election protocols. Bennett, a Trump appointee, told a Justice Department attorney that California maintains primary legal jurisdiction over its own electoral processes. He noted that while federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting, this does not grant the Justice Department the power to regulate state voting procedures. “It seems to me that under the Elections Clause, they have the right to determine the manner of the elections, including sorting out noncitizens,” Bennett remarked. Because a candidate named Daniel J, dan Sullivan loses. But at least two of the three judges on the panel disputed the argument that federal law trumps the Constitution giving the power of running elections primarily to the states.

The legal challenge is part of a broader series of actions by the Trump administration during the midterm voting period aimed at supporting claims of widespread voter fraud. The Justice Department, led by attorney Matthew Donnelly, is asking the court to allow the segregation of ballots associated with approximately 20,000 individuals identified as potential noncitizens. Donnelly argued that despite more than 300,000 ballots already being processed in Los Angeles County, the court should rule immediately to prevent these specific ballots from being finalized before they can be vetted. The legal action in California is one of many steps the Trump administration has taken as voting is underway in the midterm elections to try to help prove President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of massive voter fraud. Beyond the constitutional issues, Bennett and Sanchez both questioned why the judges should rely on the Justice Department’s claims that 20,000 noncitizens were on the voter rolls, pressing Donnelly to explain how the administration came up with that number and why it should be relied upon to take extraordinary action. “Your claims very much depend on the reliability of that list,” Sanchez said.

Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, joined Bennett in challenging the administration’s legal strategy.

Both judges questioned why the Justice Department bypassed a pending hearing in the lower district court to seek an appellate ruling. Furthermore, they scrutinized the origins of the 20,000-person list. Donnelly stated that the list was purchased from a third party, but he struggled to clarify the methodology behind the data, which was subsequently analyzed by the government. Samuel Siegal, representing the California secretary of state, dismissed the data as “wildly outdated” and argued the government was attempting to “short-circuit the democratic process” while voting is already in progress.

Siegal emphasized that voters must undergo multiple verification steps to attest to their citizenship before casting a ballot. He contended that the government’s reliance on such lists follows a pattern of producing unreliable data. Meanwhile, Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee on the panel, showed more receptiveness to the administration’s position. He questioned state attorneys on the difficulties of verifying voter eligibility after ballots have been processed and asked how California intends to identify illegal votes if the government’s requested injunction is denied. “This is coming against the backdrop of the federal government compiling similar lists, and those also demonstrate having been demonstrably unreliable,” Siegal said.

The administration’s filing, which includes sworn declarations from Department of Homeland Security officials, argues that separating the ballots is a necessary, limited measure to safeguard election integrity. However, the panel focused heavily on the constitutional division of power. As the hearing concluded, the dispute remained centered on whether the federal government has the evidence and legal standing to disrupt established state ballot-processing systems during an active election cycle.