A US appeals court panel has questioned the Trump administration’s attempt to force California election officials to separate more than 20,000 mail ballots linked to people suspected of being noncitizens.
During an emergency hearing on Sunday, judges from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals raised concerns about the legal basis for the Justice Department’s demand and the reliability of the data behind its allegations.
The case centres on the administration’s request to intervene in California’s ongoing midterm elections by preventing officials from processing ballots associated with voters whose citizenship the government questions.
Judges Question Federal Authority Over Elections
Judge Mark Bennett, appointed by President Donald Trump, said California appeared to have constitutional authority to manage its elections.
He questioned whether a federal law criminalising voting by noncitizens automatically gave the Justice Department the power to dictate how the state processes ballots.
Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, also challenged the administration’s approach. Both judges questioned why the Justice Department appealed to the circuit court before the federal district court had held its scheduled hearing.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, appeared more receptive to the government’s arguments. He questioned California and Los Angeles County lawyers about how election officials investigate suspected noncitizens on voter rolls.
Dispute Over Alleged 20,000 Noncitizen Voters
The Justice Department claims that about 20,000 names on California’s voter rolls may belong to noncitizens. It wants election officials to set aside the associated mail ballots while the allegations are examined.
However, the judges pressed government lawyer Matthew Donnelly to explain how officials reached that figure and whether the underlying data could be trusted.
Judge Sanchez stressed that the government’s case depended heavily on the reliability of its list.
Samuel Siegal, representing California and the secretary of state, argued that the list was unreliable and relied on outdated information. He also warned that the federal government was seeking to disrupt an election already in progress.
Donnelly said the administration had received a purchased list and relied on sworn declarations from Department of Homeland Security officials to support its position. He maintained that setting the ballots aside would preserve the government’s ability to investigate suspected illegal voting rather than immediately discard votes.
The judges remained concerned about the evidence presented to justify such an extraordinary intervention.
California Says Ballot Processing Is Already Underway
The dispute comes as California continues counting votes in the midterm elections. Los Angeles County has already processed more than 300,000 mail ballots, according to the report.
The Trump administration sued California and Los Angeles County earlier this month, seeking to stop officials from counting more than 20,000 ballots associated with people it believes may not be citizens.
Siegal argued that the government’s request would undermine the democratic process while voting was still underway.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, said the matter required urgent attention because ballots were already being processed. Donnelly urged the appeals court to act before a district court hearing scheduled for Tuesday.
Court Weighs Need for Urgent Intervention
During the hearing, the judges also questioned whether California could still investigate suspected noncitizen voting after processing the ballots.
Siegal rejected the suggestion that counting the ballots would prevent authorities from determining whether voters had improperly participated. He pointed to the steps voters must take to attest to their citizenship.
The panel did not resolve the dispute during the hearing. Its questions focused on the government’s legal authority, the quality of its evidence and the need to intervene before the lower court considered the case.
The legal battle is part of a broader series of actions by the Trump administration involving election procedures in several states. The administration has said its efforts aim to address potential illegal voting, while critics have questioned the evidence and the scope of federal intervention.
The outcome of the California case could determine whether state officials must separate the disputed ballots while the legal challenge continues.