The U.S. Department of Justice’s effort to intervene in California’s election processes faced a setback after a federal appellate court denied an emergency appeal to block ballot counting in Los Angeles County. The DOJ had sought immediate intervention following revelations that the state had been publicly posting daily tallies of ballots and using live camera feeds to monitor ballot processing — procedures the federal government claimed to have learned about only recently.
The legal dispute stems from ongoing claims by former President Donald Trump and his legal team alleging widespread voter fraud involving unauthorized ballots cast by undocumented individuals to benefit Democratic candidates. Despite sustained allegations, investigations in California have yielded limited evidence. Initially, the DOJ presented a list of approximately 190,000 individuals believed to be improperly registered to vote; however, that number has since dwindled to around 20,000. Federal prosecutors have indicted only 28 people statewide, with some cases appearing tenuous.
The DOJ’s latest legal action aimed to compel Los Angeles County election officials to segregate potentially illegal ballots before processing, citing concerns that once ballots are removed from their envelopes, voter identities cannot be confirmed due to vote anonymity. The Trump legal team argued that allowing potentially invalid ballots to be counted could harm the integrity of the election and all voters. However, they provided little explanation for how they would verify votes without compromising ballot secrecy.
California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel P. Siegel challenged the federal government’s assertions, noting that the DOJ’s sudden discovery of standard election procedures was "absurd on its face." He emphasized that hundreds of thousands of ballots had already been processed transparently and legally. Moreover, election experts and judges noted that the scale of alleged illegal voting is insufficient to influence election outcomes in Los Angeles or California broadly.
The case was originally assigned to a federal judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton after being reassigned from a Trump appointee. The Trump legal team sought an expedited ruling on their restraining order request, petitioning the court and then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when the district judge did not issue a ruling by the hastily requested deadline. The appellate panel questioned whether the federal government even had jurisdiction over state-administered elections, citing constitutional principles favoring states’ authority in this area.
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit rejected the DOJ’s emergency appeal on jurisdictional grounds, sending the matter back to the district court for further consideration. Two judges on the panel, including one appointed by Trump, indicated they would have denied the government's request on other grounds if jurisdiction had been established.
The DOJ's involvement in similar election-related litigation is also ongoing in Washington, D.C., where a separate lawsuit challenges the government’s compilation of national voter lists using undisclosed and potentially flawed data sources. A federal judge there is expected to rule soon, a decision that could influence outcomes in related cases.
As the legal challenges continue, election officials and legal experts have underscored the robustness of California’s vote validation systems and cautioned against last-minute attempts to disrupt ballot counting, stressing such efforts risk undermining public confidence in the electoral process. A hearing in the California case is scheduled for Tuesday.