The recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit marks another development in the contentious debate over alleged noncitizen voting in California. The court rejected the Trump administration’s request to set aside mail ballots from over 20,000 voters whose citizenship status was questioned by federal authorities. This 2-1 ruling denied the administration’s motion for an emergency injunction, stating that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had not adequately supported its claims [source].
The controversy originated during the summer when federal agencies compiled a list of California voters they suspected were noncitizens by cross-referencing voter records with both federal and third-party databases. California election officials were skeptical about the findings and questioned the methodology behind the collection of this data. Despite the DOJ’s demands in October to quickly segregate and review the ballots, California declined, citing concerns over the accuracy and legality of the proposed actions.
The DOJ’s legal argument was rooted in the claim that allowing ballots from potentially noncitizen voters contravened federal law, thereby violating the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. However, the Ninth Circuit court’s majority opinion warned that such actions might disenfranchise legitimate voters and disrupt election administration processes. Judge Patrick Bumatay, however, dissented, indicating a division within the panel.
After US District Judge David Carter denied a temporary restraining order sought by the DOJ, finding that it threatened state authority and posed risks to eligible voters, the DOJ proceeded with an appeal. However, the Ninth Circuit took a firm stance, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that the DOJ had not provided sufficient time for the district court to review its application.
This decision follows a trend of court rulings that underscore the importance of balancing federal oversight with state autonomy in election administration. The rejection of the temporary restraining order and subsequent injunction highlights the ongoing tension between federal aims and state election management, with courts often serving as critical arbiters in such disputes. Further details on the court’s decision can be found in reporting by Politico, which outlines the broader implications of these legal battles in the context of federal and state relations.