Courts reject Justice Department bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots
publishers 39articles 46first reported 26 Oct, 22:30 UTCdeveloping since 27 Oct · 6 editions
A federal appeals court on Friday rejected the Trump administration’s effort to force California to set aside about 20,000 mail ballots cast by people the Justice Department alleges may not be U.S. citizens.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the requested action could cancel ballots and remove voters from the rolls, potentially disenfranchising eligible citizens. Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez formed the majority, while Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented.
The decision followed a Wednesday ruling by U.S. District Judge David Carter, who refused to order California to segregate the ballots. Carter wrote that the request would disrupt voting already underway, burden election workers and potentially discount citizens’ votes. He said states have longstanding constitutional authority over election administration.
Late Friday, Carter also barred the Justice Department from threatening or coercing local election workers to stop processing ballots, or from demanding that officials segregate or decline to count ballots the federal government considers disputed.
The Justice Department sued California on October 15 after providing officials with a list of roughly 20,000 people it described as likely noncitizens. California and county officials have challenged the list’s accuracy. Los Angeles officials said an initial review found many listed people reported being born in the United States, while Santa Clara County officials said their review uncovered duplicate and unreliable entries.
The Justice Department has said federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting and that enforcing the prohibition is its responsibility.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 5 with the publisher's own text; 7 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 102 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 39
- Source articles
- 46
- Given to the writer
- 8, 5 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 7
- This version written
- 102 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 →