The U.S. Department of Justice recently escalated its legal battle with California by appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This move follows a situation where a federal judge in California has neither approved nor denied the DOJ’s request to halt the counting of mail ballots from over 20,000 registered voters. These voters have been flagged by federal agencies as likely noncitizens, a claim California disputes due to insufficient evidence provided by the DOJ details state.
The DOJ’s original lawsuit, titled United States v. California, was filed on October 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The DOJ argues that the state’s procedure for mailing and counting ballots is preempted under the Supremacy Clause. They assert it potentially violates 18 U.S.C. § 611, which prohibits noncitizen voting. The department further requested the court to mandate the segregation and verification of these ballots to ascertain voters’ citizenship before counting them. Despite this, California’s Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan maintain that the state’s verification processes are robust, highlighting that signature checks are performed on all ballots received.
Judge David O. Carter, who received the case on October 21, had set a hearing for the DOJ’s temporary restraining order for October 27. Frustrated by the absence of a timely ruling, the DOJ proceeded with an appeal and an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. This motion emphasizes the complexity of tracing a ballot back to a voter once it has been detached from its envelope according to additional reporting.
California’s defense challenges the DOJ’s standing, suggesting that § 611 does not regulate voting procedures but targets individual noncitizen voters. They argue that neither civil injunctions nor changes to election rules close to an election are granted by this section, referencing precedents such as the National Voter Registration Act’s restrictions and the Purcell principle. Their stance is supported by a motion to dismiss from Logan, who notes that once a ballot is processed, its anonymity is irrevocable and prosecuting based on assumptions risks infringing on voters’ rights.
Currently, Judge Carter has ordered responses from California and Logan, with deadlines over the weekend, maintaining his focus on the merits of the DOJ’s initial injunction request rather than the appeal. This intricate legal confrontation will be closely monitored, with potential implications for how voter validation processes are managed across state and federal lines as noted in recent analyses.