The potential clash between the original public meaning of the U.S. Constitution and the policies pursued by the Trump administration is once again a subject of legal scrutiny, particularly over the issue of noncitizen voting. After previous encounters such as the Trump v. Barbara case, a new lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against California looms, aiming to prevent noncitizens from voting. The DOJ’s lawsuit seeks to compel California’s election officials to segregate ballots of individuals believed to be noncitizens, a group exceeding 20,000 registered voters according to federal authorities. This matter is currently pending in federal district court following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s denial of an emergency appeal due to procedural shortcomings (Court Listener).
The DOJ’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 611, a statute criminalizing voting by noncitizens in federal elections, faces notable hurdles. The Constitution, particularly Article I, Section 4, assigns states the authority to govern the “manner” of elections, leaving the “who” to vote to state discretion. Furthermore, states retain considerable latitude in extending voting rights, constrained only by constitutional amendments like the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th, which prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, taxes, and age, respectively. Notably, states are empowered to set different qualifications or extend voting rights, an interpretation previously affirmed by decisions such as Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., where Justice Antonin Scalia delineated Congress’ authority to regulate election procedures but not voter qualifications.
Historically, significant oversight of election processes has been curtailed, with federal interventions limited post-Reconstruction and following the repeal of the Enforcement Act of 1871. Recent history underscores how federal courts have traditionally refrained from engaging in state election processes absent clear congressional authorization, a stance maintained during notable contested elections such as the 1948 Texas Senate race involving Lyndon Johnson (AP News), notwithstanding exceptions like Bush v. Gore.
The constitutional basis for the DOJ’s interference in state-run election processes remains tenuous unless Congress opts to explicitly grant such powers under its Article I, Section 4 authority. As such, the Supreme Court’s potential involvement will critically hinge on upholding this balance of powers, deciding whether to constrain the DOJ’s efforts against California’s election practices (SCOTUSblog).