Federal judge rejects DOJ bid to segregate 20,000 California ballots
publishers 36articles 40first reported 26 Oct, 22:30 UTCdeveloping since 27 Oct · 6 editions
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected the Justice Department’s request to require California election officials to segregate about 20,000 mail ballots linked to people the Trump administration described as likely noncitizens.
U.S. District Judge David Carter ruled that California may process the disputed ballots under its normal procedures. He wrote that the requested order would “wreak havoc and disrupt the election that is already underway,” potentially discounting votes cast by U.S. citizens. Carter also said the request conflicted with constitutional principles giving states control over elections and would likely violate a federal law limiting systematic voter removals within 90 days of an election.
The Justice Department sued California on Oct. 15 after giving election officials a list it said identified potential noncitizens and demanding that their ballots be set aside pending citizenship checks. State and county officials disputed the list’s reliability. Los Angeles officials said a preliminary review of 200 names found a high percentage of people who reported being born in the United States, while Santa Clara County officials said their review found duplicates and other flaws.
Earlier in the week, a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s emergency attempt to obtain an immediate order, saying it lacked jurisdiction because the district court had not yet ruled.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta welcomed the appellate decision. The Justice Department has also contacted several counties directly seeking verification of voters identified on its lists.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 3 with the publisher's own text; 7 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 54 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 36
- Source articles
- 40
- Given to the writer
- 8, 3 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 7
- This version written
- 54 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →