California mail ballots judges sent an unmistakable message on Sunday: the Justice Department will have a hard time forcing California to set aside more than 20,000 mail ballots in the middle of an election. In a highly unusual emergency hearing, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals expressed significant skepticism about the department’s bid to intervene before a lower court has even ruled, questioning both the timing of the appeal and the reliability of the voter list at the heart of the case. The California mail ballots judges made clear they were not inclined to grant extraordinary relief on a rushed timetable.
The hearing, held on a Sunday, underscored how aggressively the Trump administration is moving to insert the federal government into state election administration. Department lawyers want the appeals court to order California to segregate the mail ballots of voters the government claims are noncitizens, even as Los Angeles County has already processed more than 300,000 ballots and a district-court hearing on the same request is scheduled for Tuesday.
California mail ballots judges question DOJ’s rush to appeals court
From the opening minutes, the California mail ballots judges pressed the Justice Department on a threshold issue: why it was asking an appeals court to act before the district judge had decided anything. Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, both probed the department’s lawyer about the rush, noting that emergency relief is typically reserved for situations where waiting would cause irreparable harm that a lower court cannot address.
Matthew Donnelly, arguing for the Justice Department, said the administration needed immediate action to preserve the ballots in question. But the California mail ballots judges did not sound convinced. They asked pointed questions about whether the department had given the district court a fair chance to weigh the evidence, and whether the claimed urgency was manufactured by the department’s own decision to sue in the first place.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, also a Trump appointee, appeared more sympathetic to the government’s position, asking questions that suggested openness to federal intervention. But even he did not signal that the department had clearly met the high bar for emergency relief that the California mail ballots judges expect.
The 20,000-name list at the center of the fight
The entire case turns on a list. The Justice Department claims California’s voter rolls contain roughly 20,000 noncitizens who were issued mail ballots, and it wants those ballots identified and set aside so they can be scrutinized or excluded. Donnelly told the panel the administration “was supplied a list that was purchased” from California, suggesting the data came from a commercial or third-party source rather than from the state’s own election officials.
That claim drew sharp pushback from California’s lawyer, Samuel Siegal, representing the secretary of state. Siegal called the list “wildly outdated” and unreliable, arguing that the department was asking the court to disrupt an election based on stale and error-ridden data. The California mail ballots judges seized on this dispute, with Bennett and Sanchez both questioning how the court could order the segregation of ballots tied to a list whose accuracy the state vigorously contests. If the underlying data is flawed, the California mail ballots judges suggested, the requested relief could sweep in lawful voters and disenfranchise citizens based on a spreadsheet.
What California’s lawyers told the court
Siegal framed the department’s request as an attack on the democratic process itself. He told the California mail ballots judges the Justice Department was trying to “short-circuit the democratic process” by asking a federal appeals court to override state election administration on an emergency timetable, without the usual fact-finding that a trial court provides.
California’s core legal argument rests on the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which assigns states the primary role in running elections. While Congress can set rules for federal elections, the day-to-day administration, including how mail ballots are processed and counted, belongs to the states. Siegal argued that the department had not shown the kind of extraordinary justification the California mail ballots judges would need to see for federal judges to seize control of that machinery mid-election.
He also warned of practical chaos. With hundreds of thousands of ballots already processed in Los Angeles County alone, pulling tens of thousands of ballots out of the stream for special handling would strain election workers, delay results, and erode public confidence, all on the basis of disputed data.
Why the timing matters: ballots already being processed
The calendar is working against the Justice Department. Los Angeles County, the nation’s largest election jurisdiction, has already processed more than 300,000 ballots. Each day brings more mail ballots into election offices across California, where workers verify signatures, sort, and tabulate under tight deadlines.
A district-court hearing on the department’s request is set for Tuesday, giving the trial judge a chance to hear evidence and decide. The California mail ballots judges repeatedly returned to this point: if the district court is about to rule, why not let it? Donnelly argued that waiting risked allowing challenged ballots to be counted and commingled, making any later remedy meaningless. The California mail ballots judges, however, seemed to view the department’s impatience as a reason for caution rather than speed.
Election law experts say emergency appeals in voting cases face long odds precisely because courts are wary of last-minute changes to election rules. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned lower courts against altering procedures close to an election, a principle that cuts against the department’s request even if the California mail ballots judges never cited it by name.
The Alaska lawsuit and the bigger picture
The California fight is not happening in isolation. The Justice Department sued California and Los Angeles County earlier in October, and it has filed a separate lawsuit in Alaska seeking to block certification of results if incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan loses, on the theory that a candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan is also on the ballot and could confuse voters.
Taken together, the lawsuits reflect a sweeping assertion of federal authority over state elections. Critics say the administration is using the courts to relitigate election administration in states it does not trust, while supporters argue the federal government has a duty to ensure only eligible citizens vote.
For now, the California mail ballots judges have given little comfort to the department. A ruling could come quickly given the emergency posture, but the tone of Sunday’s hearing suggests the panel is unlikely to grant the extraordinary relief the government seeks before the district court has its say.
Sources and Resources
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the California mail ballots judges decide at the emergency hearing?
No final ruling was issued at the Sunday hearing. The three-judge 9th Circuit panel heard arguments on the Justice Department’s emergency request and expressed significant skepticism, but a written decision had not been released. The district-court hearing remains scheduled for Tuesday.
Why does the DOJ want California to set aside 20,000 mail ballots?
The Justice Department claims about 20,000 noncitizens appear on California’s voter rolls and were issued mail ballots. It wants those ballots identified and segregated so they can be scrutinized, arguing that counting ineligible votes would undermine the election. California disputes the list’s accuracy, calling it wildly outdated.
Which judges heard the California mail ballots case?
The 9th Circuit panel consisted of Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, and Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee. Bennett and Sanchez sharply questioned the Justice Department, while Bumatay appeared more sympathetic to the government’s position.
How many ballots has Los Angeles County already processed?
Los Angeles County has already processed more than 300,000 ballots, according to the proceedings. That volume is one reason California argues that pulling tens of thousands of ballots out for special handling midstream would cause chaos and delay results.
What is the Alaska lawsuit mentioned alongside the California case?
In a separate action, the Justice Department sued in Alaska seeking to block certification if incumbent GOP Senator Dan Sullivan loses, arguing that another candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan on the ballot could confuse voters. It is part of the same broader push to assert federal oversight of state elections.
Conclusion
The California mail ballots judges made their doubts plain: an emergency appeals court is no place to resolve a factual brawl over a disputed voter list in the middle of an election. With the district court set to hear the case on Tuesday and hundreds of thousands of ballots already processed, the Justice Department’s bid to short-circuit the normal process faces steep resistance from the California mail ballots judges. Whatever the panel decides, the hearing marked another flashpoint in the administration’s campaign to bring state election machinery under federal supervision, and California is not yielding quietly. For more political coverage, explore the latest politics stories on World Reach Daily.
