DOJ Petitions Supreme Court to Block California Mail-in Ballots
The administration seeks to exclude 20,000 potentially non-citizen votes before Election Day.
1Emergency Supreme Court Petition
The Department of Justice filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court on Monday to block California from counting approximately 20,000 mail-in ballots. The government argues these voters may not be U.S. citizens. This legal maneuver occurs just one day before the scheduled Election Day, creating significant urgency for the judicial branch.
2Lower Court Rejection
This petition follows a 2-1 ruling by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last Friday, which denied the DOJ's request to overturn a District Court decision. Judge David Carter originally dismissed the lawsuit, emphasizing that the federal government lacks the authority to coerce states into abandoning established constitutional election procedures during active cycles.
3Sovereignty and Standing Arguments
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that the United States suffers a cognizable injury to its sovereignty through the violation of federal laws. The DOJ contends that once California commingles these disputed ballots with lawful ones, the process becomes irreversible. They maintain that the federal government has a compelling interest in protecting federal election integrity.
4Identification of Disputed Voters
The DOJ previously provided Los Angeles County officials with a thumb drive containing names of individuals identified as potential non-citizens. The department claims these individuals are registered to vote based on publicly available information. Federal law strictly prohibits non-citizens from participating in federal elections, forming the core basis for the government's ongoing legal challenge.
5Judicial Concerns Regarding Disenfranchisement
Circuit Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez warned that granting the requested relief poses a material risk of disenfranchising eligible voters. Their majority opinion highlighted the danger of federal intervention in state-run election processes. The ruling underscores the tension between federal oversight and the constitutional sovereignty granted to individual states regarding their own election administration.
6Historical Context of Intervention
Judge Carter noted that never before in American history has the executive branch sought to force a state to abandon its election procedures on the eve of a vote. This case challenges the balance of power between federal authorities and state officials. The court remains wary of setting a precedent that undermines local control.
7Broader Election Litigation Trends
This legal action is part of a wider pattern of election-related litigation. On Sunday, a federal judge dismissed a separate DOJ lawsuit in Alaska that attempted to block the certification of U.S. Senate results. These concurrent cases reflect a heightened focus on ballot verification and the legal standards governing the finality of election outcomes nationwide.
8Implications for Election Day
The Supreme Court has no formal deadline to act on the petition, leaving the status of the 20,000 ballots uncertain as polls open. The outcome will likely influence how states manage voter rolls and ballot tabulation in future cycles. Observers are watching for any immediate judicial signals regarding the scope of federal authority over state ballots.