The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive blow to the Department of Justice’s last-minute efforts to halt the counting of approximately 20,000 mail-in ballots in California, which the DOJ contended were from potentially non-citizen voters. Hours before Election Day, the high court issued a one-sentence order denying the injunction without explanation or dissent, upholding lower court rulings that prioritized the prevention of voter disenfranchisement. California Attorney General Rob Bonta hailed the decision as “completely appropriate” and dismissed the DOJ’s appeal as a “baseless Hail Mary.”
In a significant decision just hours before Election Day, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday evening rejected a last-minute attempt by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prevent California from counting mail-in ballots cast by approximately 20,000 voters. The DOJ had suggested these voters might not be U.S. citizens.
The high court's order was concise, consisting of a single sentence, and notably offered no explanation for its denial, nor did it record any dissenting opinions. The request from the DOJ was presented to the full court by Justice Elena Kagan, a court that includes three appointees of former President Donald Trump.
This swift ruling marks another setback for the Trump administration, which has been involved in several other legal challenges pertaining to the ongoing midterm elections. These elections are poised to determine the balance of power in both the House and Senate, with many pollsters and analysts projecting considerable gains for Democrats.
The Supreme Court's decision comes on the heels of previous judicial defeats for the DOJ in this matter. Just three days prior, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had also rejected the department's attempt to overturn a federal district court judge's ruling that permitted the ballots to be counted. Furthermore, in an unrelated but concurrent case, another federal district judge in California issued an order preventing the DOJ from intimidating election workers with threats of criminal prosecution for processing ballots or resisting other demands.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed his satisfaction with the Supreme Court's denial, calling it "completely appropriate, very expected." In a phone interview, Bonta dismissed the DOJ's action as a "Hail Mary" that was "baseless," adding that the speed and lack of a request for California's response from the Supreme Court highlighted its lack of merit. He noted such an immediate denial without a request for response is a rare occurrence, not seen since 2018.
During a hearing in the separate case concerning election worker threats, a DOJ lawyer reportedly acknowledged to Judge Trina Thompson that the lists of alleged non-citizens on California's voter rolls contained a "high error rate." However, the lawyer maintained that these inaccuracies underscore the necessity for election officials to scrutinize voter rolls to ensure all registered voters are U.S. citizens.
In his application to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer had asserted that the U.S. government identified over 20,000 individuals "who appear to be registered to vote in California... but who, in the United States' view, are likely not U.S. citizens." Sauer argued that the United States had a strong likelihood of winning its appeal, citing "injury to its sovereignty" from the "violation of its laws" and warning that once the disputed ballots were commingled, they could not be retrieved.
The DOJ had initially filed its lawsuit against California on October 15 in a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, seeking to block state election officials from counting mail-in ballots from "likely non-citizens" until their citizenship status could be verified. The department had provided Los Angeles County officials with a list of names of voters it suspected were noncitizens.
However, Judge David Carter of the federal district court firmly rejected the DOJ's request last Wednesday, emphasizing the fundamental right of every American citizen to vote. Carter condemned the federal government's eleventh-hour intervention, stating, "Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch." He underscored California's own sovereignty, asserting that "California and its people are sovereign, too."
The 9th Circuit later affirmed Judge Carter's decision in a 2-1 ruling, with Circuit Judges Mark Bennett (a Trump appointee) and Gabriel Sanchez (a Biden appointee) forming the majority. Their ruling highlighted a "material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement," reinforcing the protection of voters' rights.
