WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from requiring California election officials to segregate ballots belonging to suspected noncitizens, ruling Nov. 2 that the federal government likely exceeded its constitutional authority by attempting to impose new election procedures just one day before the midterm elections.
The ruling came as the U.S. Supreme Court separately rejected an emergency request from the administration to require California to set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 voters federal officials alleged might be noncitizens.
Together, the decisions left California’s existing election procedures in place ahead of the Nov. 3 election, despite the administration’s efforts to require additional citizenship verification before certain ballots could be counted.
Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of the District of Columbia issued the preliminary injunction in Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) v. Department of Homeland Security, a lawsuit challenging federal demands that California election officials alter ballot-processing procedures based on government-generated lists of suspected noncitizens.
Boasberg determined that the administration’s demands likely violated the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which gives states primary responsibility for administering federal elections while reserving authority for Congress to regulate those procedures.
The executive branch, the judge concluded, cannot independently require states to adopt its preferred election procedures.
“California may decide for itself what procedures to use for verifying the citizenship of registered voters,” Boasberg wrote, according to Reuters.
The judge added that the executive branch lacked authority to impose its preferred procedures unilaterally.
The lawsuit was filed Sept. 2 by the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and California voter Pedro Trujillo, represented by attorneys affiliated with CHIRLA and the UCLA Voting Rights Project.
The plaintiffs argued that the administration’s demands threatened to disenfranchise eligible voters, particularly naturalized citizens who could be incorrectly identified as noncitizens through federal database-matching procedures.
According to the UCLA Voting Rights Project, the Justice Department provided California officials with a list of more than 20,000 individuals suspected of being noncitizens and demanded that election officials review their eligibility.
Federal officials sought to have ballots associated with those individuals withheld or segregated until their citizenship could be independently verified.
The government also threatened potential legal consequences for election officials who failed to comply with its demands.
The plaintiffs argued that these actions exceeded federal authority and created a substantial risk that eligible voters would have their ballots improperly set aside.
On Oct. 30, Boasberg ordered the Justice Department to provide the disputed list to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, allowing researchers to examine its accuracy.
An analysis by UCLA researchers Matt Barreto and Michael Rios identified significant discrepancies in the federal government’s records.
According to reporting by The Associated Press, the federal list contained 20,930 names, but 8,880 of those names, approximately 42%, did not match anyone in California’s voter registration file.
Researchers also identified at least 22 U.S. citizens on the list and concluded that nearly 7,500 naturalized citizens were highly likely to have been incorrectly flagged.
In a separate comparison involving CHIRLA’s citizen members and clients, the researchers identified 22 full matches and 66 additional near-certain matches.
The findings raised serious questions about the reliability of the federal government’s identification process and the possibility that eligible voters could be prevented from casting ballots or having their votes counted.
The Justice Department disputed the researchers’ analysis.
In granting the injunction, Boasberg found that CHIRLA had demonstrated that its members faced a concrete risk of harm because of the government’s flawed lists and the demands placed on election officials.
The judge also recognized that the effects could extend beyond individuals directly identified by federal authorities.
“Defendants’ flawed lists risk chilling or preventing lawful votes from being cast and counted,” Boasberg wrote, according to the UCLA Voting Rights Project’s Nov. 2 announcement.
The court further expressed concern that changes to voting procedures after voting had already begun could create confusion and discourage eligible voters from participating.
According to CHIRLA, the organization had redirected limited resources to address members’ concerns and assist eligible voters who feared being incorrectly identified as noncitizens.
The court considered those disruptions in determining that the organization had standing to seek emergency relief.
Chad Dunn, legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, welcomed the decision, emphasizing that eligible citizens should not face uncertainty about whether their ballots would be counted because of inaccurate government records.
“Eligible citizens should not have to fear that their ballots will be set aside because their government wrongly labeled them noncitizens,” Dunn said.
CHIRLA Executive Director Angelica Salas also welcomed the ruling, saying the decision provided relief to voters, volunteers and election officials preparing for the election.
The preliminary injunction was narrower than the protections originally requested by the plaintiffs, but it prohibited the federal government from continuing its demands that California segregate ballots or depart from existing state election procedures based on the disputed lists.
The ruling followed a separate legal battle in California, where the Justice Department had sought an emergency order requiring election officials to isolate ballots from voters identified as likely noncitizens.
On Oct. 28, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter rejected that request, raising concerns about the reliability of the federal government’s data and the consequences of changing election procedures immediately before voting concluded.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently refused to grant the administration emergency relief, finding that the government had not met the demanding legal standard required for an injunction.
The administration then asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
On Nov. 2, the Supreme Court rejected the emergency application without explanation, leaving the lower-court decisions in place.
The unsigned order recorded no dissents and did not resolve the underlying legal dispute.
The Supreme Court’s decision and Boasberg’s preliminary injunction arose from separate cases, but both concerned the administration’s efforts to require California to isolate ballots associated with its lists of suspected noncitizens.
The administration maintained that additional verification was necessary to prevent ballots cast by ineligible voters from being counted.
California officials and voting rights advocates countered that the federal lists contained significant errors and that the state’s existing procedures already provided mechanisms for investigating voter eligibility.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment on Boasberg’s ruling.
Although Boasberg granted preliminary relief, the underlying lawsuit remains pending, and the Justice Department’s separate motion challenging portions of the plaintiffs’ expert report and seeking sanctions had not been resolved in the ruling.
The injunction prevents the administration from compelling California officials to change their ballot-processing procedures based on the disputed lists while the litigation continues.
The Supreme Court’s separate rejection of emergency relief likewise leaves the lower-court rulings against ballot segregation in place as Californians vote in the Nov. 3 general election.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
