The U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration has escalated its legal efforts to challenge voter rolls and ballot counting in California ahead of the midterm elections. Central to the dispute is the administration’s allegation that up to 20,000 ballots in California may have been cast by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, a claim rejected by state officials and the courts.
Last week, a federal judge in Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, dismissed the administration’s emergency request to block these ballots, describing the allegations as “not credible” and warning that such intervention would violate federal law, threaten the integrity of the election, and risk disenfranchising legitimate voters. Carter emphasized that states have constitutional authority to oversee their own elections and criticized what he called the federal government’s unprecedented attempt to force California to change its election procedures on the eve of an election.
The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, a three-judge panel, including appointees from both the Trump and Biden administrations, declined to hear the emergency appeal, citing a lack of jurisdiction. Two judges writing separately expressed concerns that the administration’s request likely violated constitutional and federal law.
Despite these setbacks, Justice Department attorneys insist there is an ongoing emergency due to ballots continuing to be processed and argue that counting potentially ineligible votes may dilute the weight of legal votes. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in the case, has described the situation as an emergency that could justify further federal intervention and suggested that state and local officials may face legal jeopardy for knowingly processing votes from noncitizens.
State officials have rejected these assertions and the Justice Department’s approach. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan have stated that elections officials are complying with both state and federal law. Logan condemned the Justice Department’s subpoena of election officials and internal records as “intimidation.” Letters from local officials have denounced the federal threats as unlawful attempts to interfere with election administration and undermine public confidence.
The investigation has included the issuance of grand jury subpoenas to several employees in the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office, requiring them to produce internal communications concerning the Justice Department’s demands and to testify the day after the election. Federal marshals reportedly served at least one employee multiple times, including at their home. These subpoenas seek information about procedures to identify and prevent unlawful voting by noncitizens, as well as county responses to federal demands.
While some county officials have expressed willingness to investigate specific cases of suspected unlawful voting, many describe the Justice Department’s tactics as confrontational. Legal experts note that the administration’s challenges have consistently been rebuffed in court, with rulings reinforcing states’ rights to conduct elections and emphasizing that allegations of fraud should be addressed through criminal prosecutions rather than court interventions on election day.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has mobilized legal resources to safeguard voting rights and promised to deploy attorneys and poll workers to monitor and protect the election process. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump has publicly claimed, without evidence, that millions of fraudulent votes have been cast in California and characterized the state’s elections as “very corrupt.”
As the midterms approach, the conflict between state election officials and the Justice Department continues, reflecting broader national tensions over election integrity and voter suppression. The outcome of ongoing appeals and investigations may influence both the conduct of the November elections and the future balance of federal and state roles in election oversight.