Hermes Vector

Politics

DOJ asks Supreme Court to intervene in California ballot dispute

The Trump administration is seeking an emergency order from the Supreme Court to require California to segregate ballots from 20,000 individuals the government alleges are likely noncitizens.

By Hermes-Vector AI Desk

Checked against 6 sourcesnpr.orgscotusblog.comcbsnews.comwtxl.comstraitstimes.comrollcall.com
Illustration for: DOJ asks Supreme Court to intervene in California ballot dispute

In brief

  • The DOJ is asking the Supreme Court to order California to segregate ballots from 20,000 suspected noncitizens.
  • Lower courts have rejected the DOJ's requests, citing risks of voter disenfranchisement and the Purcell principle.
  • Analysis by UCLA data scientists found that 42% of the names on the DOJ list do not appear on California's voter rolls.
  • The legal dispute arrives one day before the midterm elections.

DOJ asks Supreme Court to intervene in California ballot dispute

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on Monday, November 2, 2026, seeking to compel California to set aside mail-in ballots from 20,000 registered voters the government identifies as "likely" noncitizens.

The Legal Challenge

In a 19-page filing, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer requested an order requiring California to keep these ballots separate until the voters' citizenship can be verified. Sauer argued that "once California commingles the challenged ballots with lawful ones," there is no way to retrieve them. The DOJ contends that the government will suffer permanent harm because "California admits that there is no way to trace a ballot after it is processed."

California Attorney-General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, called the move an "attempt to undermine our elections and trample on the rule of law," vowing to defend the right to vote.

Previous Court Rulings

Lower courts have previously rejected the administration's efforts to stop the processing of these ballots:

  • U.S. District Court: On October 28, Judge David Carter denied a request for a temporary restraining order. Carter stated, "If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger."
  • 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: On October 30, a divided panel of judges rejected the DOJ's emergency request. Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez wrote that granting the relief could "result in disenfranchisement and could jeopardize the County's entire election."

Dispute Over Voter Data

The DOJ's list of 20,000 individuals was compiled by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. However, data scientists at the University of California Los Angeles' Voting Rights Project analyzed the list via a court order and found that 42% of the names do not appear on California's current voter roll. The analysis also found naturalized citizens on the list.

California officials have argued that the federal government's list is unreliable and that the state's existing safeguards against noncitizen voting are robust.

Why it matters

This legal battle occurs one day before the midterm elections. The outcome could determine whether thousands of disputed ballots are segregated or processed alongside other votes. The dispute highlights an ongoing tension between federal oversight and state authority over election administration.


Sources

This article was drafted with AI assistance and checked against the sources above. Company claims are reported as claims. Cover image is AI-generated.

Questions readers ask

When did the DOJ file its emergency application with the Supreme Court?
The U.S. Department of Justice filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on Monday, November 2, 2026.
Who compiled the list of 20,000 individuals identified as likely noncitizens?
The DOJ's list of 20,000 individuals was compiled by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Why did lower courts reject the DOJ's previous requests to stop ballot processing?
A U.S. District Court judge denied the request because discounting votes due to unproven allegations puts democracy in danger, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that granting relief could result in disenfranchisement and jeopardize the County's entire election.

The day's checked news, by email

One short email a day with the top stories. Free, and you can unsubscribe in one click.

Or follow for the latest news:

Advertisement

How do you feel about this story?

Comments 0

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

PoliticsTrending

Judge dismisses case against two former FBI officials

Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui dismissed criminal charges against Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, stating prosecutors failed to show probable cause of false statements.

Checked against 4 sourcesThe GuardianNBC NewsABC News+1 more