Ninth Circuit Rejects Justice Department Bid to Set Aside 20000 California Ballots as Midterms Near

A federal appeals court has declined to intervene in California’s ballot counting in the final stretch before the November 3 midterm elections, turning away an emergency request from the Justice Department that sought to set aside mail ballots linked to about 20,000 registered voters the department described as likely noncitizens. The Ninth Circuit California ballots Justice Department 20000 dispute ended, for now, with a divided panel ruling that the appeal had arrived too early, because the trial judge had not yet ruled on the government’s request.

The practical effect of the ruling is straightforward, even though the underlying legal fight is not over. California election officials may continue processing ballots under the state’s existing procedures while the case returns to the district court. The appeals court did not decide whether any particular voter was eligible, whether any particular ballot should ultimately count, or whether the federal list at the centre of the case was reliable. Those questions remain open, and they are the reason the ruling should be read as a procedural holding about timing and jurisdiction, not as a final judgment on the merits.

What the Court Decided

A Two to One Panel Ruling

Why Timing Mattered More Than the Merits

The panel ruled two to one on October 26, 2026. Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez formed the majority, and Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented. The majority dismissed the emergency appeal because United States District Judge David O. Carter in Los Angeles had not yet issued a ruling on the government’s request for temporary relief, and the government had given that court only a short window, reported as about 15 hours, to act before appealing.

The dissent would have taken a different course and supported emergency relief, a reminder that the panel was divided about how urgently the court should act. The majority’s reasoning, however, rested on the ordinary sequence of litigation: a trial court ordinarily considers a request first, and an appeals court reviews what that court has decided. Skipping that step, the majority concluded, left the appeals court without the jurisdictional footing to grant the sweeping order the government sought.

The Ballots at the Centre of the Case

A List of About Twenty Thousand Names

Mail Ballots Already in Motion

The dispute concerns mail ballots that may be returned by roughly 20,000 people named on a federal list. The Justice Department said those people were likely noncitizens, and it asked that their ballots be separated, or sequestered, until their citizenship could be verified, rather than counted in the ordinary flow. California officials and voting rights advocates questioned the accuracy of that list, and the dispute over its reliability became a central theme of the litigation.

Timing made the request unusually disruptive in the state’s view. California mailed ballots to registered voters on October 1 under state election law, and voting was already underway when the federal government pressed its demand in mid-October. Ordering officials to redesign ballot handling at that stage, California argued, would be logistically difficult and could risk the lawful votes of eligible citizens being delayed or set aside in error.

How the Dispute Reached the Appeals Court

Warnings in July and a Demand in October

A Lawsuit Filed Weeks Before Election Day

The sequence began in July, when federal immigration agencies told California officials they had identified thousands of registered voters believed to be noncitizens, using comparisons between voter registration records and federal immigration databases, together with information from third parties. California questioned the findings and asked for details about the method used to build the list, a request that, according to state accounts, was not answered to its satisfaction.

The Justice Department sent officials a list of more than 20,000 suspected noncitizens on October 13 and demanded verification within 48 hours or separation of the ballots. It then filed suit on October 15, less than three weeks before the November 3 midterms. The compressed calendar shaped everything that followed: a request that might have been manageable months earlier arrived when ballots were already out, counting systems were running, and election officials were operating under fixed deadlines.

What the Majority Judges Said

Elections Are Primarily a State Responsibility

The Risk of Disorder and Disenfranchisement

Judge Sanchez wrote that the injunction the government wanted would transform California’s election rules for an election already underway, and that election administration is primarily the responsibility of the states under the United States Constitution. The federal government, in this view, was asking a court to dictate a matter within the state’s traditional domain, a step that could invite disorder and confusion in the middle of voting.

Judge Bennett added a related concern: the requested restrictions could prevent eligible citizens from voting and disrupt ballot counting already underway. Bennett also wrote separately that he would have denied the request on the merits as well, going further than the jurisdictional holding alone. The majority also noted that at least part of the delay in the case was attributable to the government’s own timing in filing suit, describing the claimed crisis as partly self-created in coverage of the order.

Why California Challenged the List

Sampling That Raised Doubts

The Question of Where the List Came From

California’s challenge to the list rested on more than a general objection. Los Angeles County election officials reported that a sample of 200 people on the list showed a high share who were born in the United States, and other county reviews found cancelled or inactive registrations among the names. Those findings, if confirmed more broadly, would mean the list swept in people who were plainly eligible or who were no longer active voters, a point the majority treated seriously.

A second, unresolved question concerned the list’s provenance. At oral argument, according to state accounts, the government’s lawyer could not fully explain where the list was obtained, how it was used to identify the 20,000 people, or what role unidentified non-governmental third parties played. One county account said the lawyer indicated only that information had been bought from a third party. The exact sources and method remain unconfirmed in public reporting, and the post must not present any single account of the list’s origin as settled fact.

The Government’s Argument

Irreparable Harm Without Verification

A Small Number of Criminal Cases Cited

The Justice Department argued that counting the disputed ballots without verification would cause irreparable harm, because votes cast by ineligible voters, once counted, cannot easily be undone. From the government’s perspective, separation was a modest, precautionary step: hold the ballots apart, check eligibility, and count only those that pass. That framing treats sequestration as a safeguard for election integrity rather than as a barrier to voting.

The department also noted that 28 people on its list had been criminally charged with illegal voting. That figure is far smaller than 20,000, and it does not by itself establish the status of the remaining names. California officials and critics used the gap between the two numbers to argue that the list was overbroad, while the government treated the charges as evidence that the underlying concern was real. The appeals court did not resolve that disagreement.

Reaction and the Wider Legal Campaign

California Officials Welcome the Ruling

One Case Among Many Over Voter Rolls

California Governor Gavin Newsom welcomed the ruling and urged Californians to vote early, while Attorney General Rob Bonta said the Constitution gives states and Congress, not the president, power over how elections run. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber described the litigation in sharper terms, calling it a reckless political stunt. Those reactions reflect the political stakes of a case filed weeks before a midterm election, when any change to ballot handling is read through a partisan lens as well as a legal one.

The California case is also one front in a broader campaign. The Justice Department has sought access to voter rolls in 30 states and Washington, DC, and reporting on the campaign says the department has lost 26 cases so far. That broader record matters for context, but it does not decide the California dispute, which turns on its own list, its own timing, and its own procedural posture. Each case still depends on its facts, and a loss in one state does not automatically determine the outcome in another.

What Happens Next Before Any Ballots Are Finally Decided

The District Court Hearing

Appeals That Could Still Follow

The case now returns to Judge Carter, who can grant or deny the temporary restraining order after a hearing that was scheduled for Tuesday, October 27. That hearing is the next concrete step, and its outcome is not yet confirmed in the reporting used for this post. Until the district court rules, election officials may continue processing ballots under existing state procedures, and no higher court has ordered California to segregate the ballots.

Further appellate review remains possible after the district court acts, and the underlying request for separation remains alive even though the emergency appeal failed. That is the key distinction for readers: the Ninth Circuit closed the door to immediate intervention, but it did not close the case. What happens next will depend on evidence about the list, on the district court’s view of the legal authority for a federal injunction, and on whether any order can be implemented without disrupting an election already underway.

Comments

comments