The Justice Department moved to stop California from counting some mail ballots tied to more than 20,000 “likely noncitizen” voters, then rushed an appeal before the trial judge ruled.
Story Snapshot
- Justice Department identified over 20,000 “likely noncitizens” on California rolls and sought to set aside related ballots.
- Appeal to the Ninth Circuit claimed the trial court’s silence was a “constructive denial” of urgent relief.
- California officials said the list is unreliable and that no unlawful ballots were proven.
- Federal request aimed to hold, not void, ballots until citizenship checks could confirm eligibility.
What the Justice Department Asked the Courts to Do
The Justice Department said it flagged more than 20,000 registered voters in California as “likely noncitizens” and asked a federal judge to require election officials to set aside ballots linked to those names until citizenship could be confirmed. The filing stressed ballot secrecy and said errors cannot be fixed once votes are mixed in the count. The government said the request would not permanently reject votes, but would pause them for verification during the canvass period.
The government sought emergency action before counting began. Officials argued that waiting would force the state to either remove votes later, which is often impossible due to anonymity, or let possibly ineligible ballots remain. The filing emphasized speed and asked the court to act before a self-imposed deadline. The Justice Department said this step protects legal votes while checking disputed records and aligns with federal rules that bar noncitizen voting in federal elections.
Why the Case Jumped to the Appeals Court
After the district judge did not rule by the government’s noon deadline, the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal on October 22 and asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to step in. The appeal argued the lack of a ruling had the “practical effect” of denying urgent relief, a posture sometimes called a “constructive denial.” Whether the Ninth Circuit would accept that theory was not yet clear in initial reports on the filing.
The emergency appeal sought to authorize ballot segregation tied to the flagged names until checks could be completed. The filing framed this as a narrow remedy that preserves voter anonymity while allowing citizenship confirmation. It also stressed that the request did not demand a final eligibility ruling on every person before Election Day, only that counties keep those ballots separate until status could be verified during the canvass.
How California Officials Responded
California officials, including Secretary of State Shirley Weber, said the federal government did not provide the data or method behind its list and had not proved that any listed person cast an unlawful ballot. Los Angeles County’s election chief said his office could not refuse or withhold ballots based only on unverified allegations. State filings argued the request would disenfranchise voters without due process and was unworkable so close to the election.
BREAKING: DOJ asks a federal appeals court to block California from counting 20,000+ mail-in ballots over alleged non-citizen voters. Watch next: a green light here sparks copycat ballot fights in other states before Nov 3. #BreakingNews #Elections #California pic.twitter.com/X7HYrUsxT2
— Usman Ali (@UsmanAl88381850) October 24, 2026
County officials also said some people on the list reported being born in the United States, suggesting the federal matches were unreliable. The state argued the government was stacking assumptions: that database matches proved noncitizenship, that those people would vote, and that counties would count such ballots. California said its elections comply with federal law and that the Justice Department’s approach would flip the burden onto voters to prove they are eligible during a high-pressure period.
Why This Fight Matters for Trust and Turnout
This clash reveals a gap between data flags and proven cases. The Justice Department presented a large number and asked for urgent controls, while the state demanded individualized proof before touching any ballots. Research and past audits show that lists of “potential” ineligible voters often shrink after careful review, which is why process quality and timing loom large in these disputes. Voters across the spectrum want both secure rolls and fair treatment.
What to Watch Next
Courts will decide if the appeals path is proper and whether ballots tied to the list must be set aside during verification. Key facts remain missing in public view, including the data sources, match rules, and error rates behind the federal list. The number of listed voters who actually returned ballots is also unclear. Clear disclosures and prompt, accurate checks would help protect lawful votes while reducing doubt and anger on all sides.
Sources:
zerohedge.com, justice.gov, washingtontimes.com, thehill.com, yahoo.com, washingtonpost.com, valawyersweekly.com, democracydocket.com
