Supreme Court Declines Trump Administration Bid to Exclude 20,000 California Ballots Ahead of Midterm Elections

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in a push by the Trump administration to set aside roughly 20,000 mail-in ballots in California, rejecting the request on the eve of the final day of pivotal midterm elections.

The high court refused to immediately block the ballots, which belong to voters flagged by the Republican administration as potential noncitizens on the state’s largely Democratic voter rolls. No justices publicly dissented.

The administration had asked the Court to withhold the challenged ballots until the voters’ citizenship could be verified. California officials countered that the list was riddled with errors and that excluding the ballots could effectively disenfranchise eligible voters.

The justices offered no reasoning for their decision, which is common in emergency orders. The Court had previously rejected a similar Trump administration effort in September to restrict mail ballots nationwide, though it has sided with the administration in several other emergency appeals.

The identification of noncitizen voters has been a priority for the Trump administration this year, despite evidence that such voters are rare.

A district court judge had earlier denied the Justice Department’s request, warning that it could disenfranchise citizens. Also on Monday, Chief Judge James Boasberg ruled against another last-minute administration demand on California election officials, finding it violated the U.S. Constitution.

“The Executive Branch has likely violated the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which commits authority over election rules to the states and Congress alone,” Boasberg wrote.

The administration argued that segregating the ballots was a modest step that would ultimately allow valid votes to be counted. However, it has faced a series of courtroom losses and criticism for waiting until weeks before the election to present California officials with a list that even the Justice Department acknowledges is not entirely reliable.

During a hearing on whether to lift her order preventing the administration from threatening to prosecute election workers who allow potentially ineligible voters to cast ballots, District Judge Trina Thompson pressed Justice Department attorney Kenneth Kao on reports of widespread inaccuracies in the data.

“Would you agree there’s a high error rate?” Thompson asked.

“That’s a fair statement,” Kao replied. “That’s why we ask for the registrars’ aid in verifying these are all valid voters.”

Meanwhile, Bill Essayli, the federal prosecutor overseeing the Justice Department’s Los Angeles office, told a news conference that he was highly confident the individuals on the list were not entitled to vote. “This isn’t speculation. This isn’t a theory,” Essayli said, though he later conceded there may be errors.

Voting has been underway in California since early October, and all roughly 23 million registered voters are mailed a ballot. Hundreds of thousands have already been processed. State election officials said locating and setting aside the challenged ballots now would be logistically impossible.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, called the appeal “desperate” and another attempt to undermine elections and trample the rule of law.

Lower courts have sided with the state. District Judge David O. Carter, nominated by President Bill Clinton, warned that segregating ballots would “wreak havoc” on the midterms and erode trust in democracy.

“If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger,” Carter wrote.

A 2-1 appellate panel upheld Carter’s order. One Trump appointee and one Biden appointee voted to uphold it, while the third panel member, also a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that California’s refusal to separate the ballots encourages violations of federal law.

The Justice Department sought to expedite the case but was unsuccessful in its request for an appeals court to intervene early.

Source link