California mail ballots: Supreme Court rejects request to set aside votes before midterms

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to step into a dispute over California mail ballots. President Donald Trump’s administration wanted thousands of ballots held back over noncitizen claims. The court’s move came one day before the midterm elections. Those elections will decide control of Congress for the final two years of Trump’s second term.

Representative image

The case centred on about 20,000 people flagged as likely noncitizens on California voter rolls. The Trump administration asked for ballots from those voters to be set aside. California officials said the list appeared error-prone. Officials warned the request could block valid voters from having votes counted.

Supreme Court rejects Trump administration mail ballots request

The justices gave no explanation, which is common in emergency orders. The court had also turned down Trump’s bid to limit mail voting nationwide in September. Still, the court has backed Trump’s administration in other emergency appeals. Monday’s order was part of a wave of election lawsuits filed just before voting.

California said separating the challenged ballots now would be unworkable. Voting began in early October across the state. All roughly 23 million registered voters receive a ballot by mail. Officials said hundreds of thousands of ballots were already processed. Registrars said locating and isolating specific ballots would be logistically impossible.

Trump administration noncitizen voters drive meets court resistance

The Republican Trump administration made noncitizen voting a focus this year, even though it is rare. A district court judge earlier refused the Justice Department request. The judge warned the plan could disenfranchise citizens during Tuesday’s elections. The administration also faced criticism for acting only weeks before the vote.

On Monday in Washington, another federal judge ruled against new demands on California election officials. Chief Judge James Boasberg wrote, "The Executive Branch has likely violated the Constitutions Elections Clause, which commits authority over election rules to the states and Congress alone.\" The judge found the administration’s late actions conflicted with constitutional limits.

The administration argued the step was limited and temporary. Officials said separating ballots would still allow valid votes to count later. Yet court filings noted even the Justice Department accepted the list was not fully dependable. Judges highlighted the risk of errors affecting lawful voters. Critics also questioned the timing of the request.

Justice Department data accuracy questioned in Trump administration case

During a hearing, District Court Judge Trina Thompson pressed a Justice Department lawyer on data quality. \"Would you agree theres a high error rate?\" Thompson asked Kenneth Kao. Kao replied, \"Thats a fair statement, Kao said. Thats why we ask for the registrars aid in verifying these are all valid voters.\"

At a separate news conference, Bill Essayli defended the list. \"This isnt speculation. This isnt a theory,\" Essayli said. Essayli later acknowledged the list could include mistakes. The dispute added to the administration’s court setbacks on the issue. Lower courts repeatedly rejected the ballot segregation plan.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta criticised the Supreme Court appeal. Bonta said the request \"reeks of desperation and is another attempt to undermine our elections and trample on the rule of law.\" A district judge also warned segregating ballots would damage election administration and public confidence.

US District Judge David O. Carter wrote, \"If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger.\" An appeals court panel upheld Carter’s order by a 2-1 vote. One Trump-appointed judge and one Biden-appointed judge formed the majority.

A third judge, also appointed by Trump, dissented from the panel decision. The dissent said California’s refusal to separate ballots encouraged breaches of federal law. The Justice Department also tried to speed up the case. It unsuccessfully asked an appeals court to step in earlier and take action before election day.

The Supreme Court’s refusal left California’s approach in place ahead of the midterms. State officials continued to argue the noncitizen list contained many inaccuracies. Federal judges said election rule authority sits with states and Congress. With ballots already moving through the system, courts sided with warnings about voter harm.

With inputs from PTI