9th Circuit Blocks Trump Ballot Freeze

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration's petition to set aside 20,000 mail-in ballots in California on Friday. The ruling arrives with fewer than four days remaining until the November 3 midterm elections. This marks the second time in less than a week that federal judges have blocked the White House from halting the count of these specific ballots.

The administration filed its initial lawsuit on October 15. It cited a list of nearly 20,000 individuals it identified as likely non-citizens who received mail-in ballots. The Justice Department argued that counting these votes would allow foreign nationals to participate in federal elections, a practice prohibited by law in all 50 states.

The timeline of the legal battle has been rapid. The administration first sent the list of names to California on October 12, just three weeks before the election. State officials refused the demand to set the ballots aside, requesting proof that the individuals were indeed non-citizens. The California government stated that no such evidence had been provided as of the recent court filings.

After the initial lower court proceedings, the administration sought an emergency ruling from the 9th Circuit. The appeals court rejected that first petition on Monday, citing the need for lower courts to handle the matter first. A lower court then ruled against the administration on Wednesday. The White House immediately appealed that decision, leading to the final ruling on Friday.

The majority opinion was authored by Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez. Bennett was appointed by President Trump, while Sanchez was appointed by President Joe Biden. The two judges wrote that the federal government's request would violate the Constitution. They noted that the action would not just segregate ballots but effectively cancel them and remove eligible voters from the rolls.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, issued a dissenting opinion. He described the administration's petition as a reasonable request. The majority countered that granting the bid would undermine the Elections Clause. This constitutional provision grants states exclusive authority to administer their own elections, a power the court found the federal government was trying to override.

The majority expressed major concerns that the move would harm the public interest. They warned that the ruling risked disenfranchising eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy. The court declined the United States' invitation to contravene the plain text of the Constitution by interfering with state election procedures.

The accuracy of the administration's list has faced scrutiny from other states. Nevada and Washington received similar lists of alleged non-citizen voters. In Nevada, state authorities issued a statement in September claiming the federal list was largely inaccurate. The state said not a single name on its portion of the list was correct, with citizens erroneously identified as non-citizens.

President Trump has long criticized California, a Democratic stronghold, accusing its leadership of cheating in elections. Governor Gavin Newsom responded to the October 15 lawsuit by calling it a desperate attempt to suppress voters using a politicized Justice Department. Newsom stated the administration was seeking to sow distrust among voters in the Golden State.

The administration recently charged 28 foreign nationals in California with election-related infractions. Some of the accused told the Los Angeles Times they had never registered to vote. The newspaper reported that some defendants shared the same name as eligible citizens. California will elect 52 members of the House of Representatives on November 3.