Judge Rejects Bid to Hold 20,000 Ballots

Voters at polling booths in a gymnasium — Photo: Steve Sanchez Photos / Shutterstock

A federal judge slammed the Justice Department’s evidence and refused to let 20,000 California ballots be sequestered days before counting.

Story Snapshot

A judge denied the Justice Department’s emergency bid to set aside flagged California ballots.
The Justice Department said about 20,000 likely noncitizens were registered and got mailed ballots.
The court said the list’s reliability and legal basis were not proven for last-minute ballot holds.
Federal law bans noncitizen voting, but the lawsuit over how to enforce that rule continues.

What the Judge Decided and Why It Matters

U.S. District Judge David Carter denied the Justice Department’s request to force California to set aside about 20,000 ballots from people the government labeled likely noncitizens. He said the government had not shown its list was reliable and that the court would not upend California’s process days before counting begins. He stressed that separating ballots can harm eligible voters, and he declined to make the court a partner in that process so close to the election.

The ruling did not end the larger case. The Justice Department sued California on October 15, saying that Homeland Security investigators reasonably believe around 20,000 noncitizens were registered and received vote-by-mail ballots. It asked the court to hold those ballots until citizenship could be verified. The department framed the remedy as a temporary safeguard, not a cancellation of votes, but sought court action before tabulation.

What the Justice Department Claimed

The Justice Department said it worked with federal homeland security investigators to identify people it believes are noncitizens on California voter rolls. It argued that federal law bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections and asked the court to stop any possibly illegal ballots from being counted while statuses were checked. The government sought a temporary restraining order to segregate ballots from the flagged group until verification could occur.

Officials said the goal was to protect election integrity without tossing ballots outright. They asked California to separate the ballots and confirm citizenship jointly or independently before counting. This approach aimed to prevent wrongful tabulation while allowing eligible voters to be cleared through verification. The government chose to file in federal court rather than rely only on warning letters or after-the-fact reviews, highlighting the urgency it claimed.

Why the Court Pushed Back

Judge Carter focused on the quality of the evidence and the timing. Reports on the ruling say he found the government’s explanations vague and the list’s creation unclear, raising questions about false matches and harm to eligible voters. He called the requested change to California’s election procedures “monumental.” He also noted that investigators could use signed return envelopes to probe suspected illegal voting without halting the broader ballot process.

DOJ Lost in California. The Constitution Explains Why.

Judge David O. Carter has denied DOJ's attempt to force California to segregate ballots from approximately 20,000 suspected noncitizen voters.

And predictably, DOJ supporters are promising to appeal all the way to the…

— Chris A (@ChrisInSLC) October 29, 2026

State and county officials disputed the federal list and said the Justice Department lacked authority to force the change so late in the process. A preliminary Los Angeles County review of 200 names reported that nearly 40 percent appeared to be U.S.-born, and over 70 percent had no voting history, which suggested major error risks if ballots were set aside based on the list alone. The Ninth Circuit also rejected an emergency bid to speed the case, limiting immediate relief.

The Bigger Tension: Integrity, Access, and Trust

Federal law is clear that noncitizens cannot vote in federal races. The hard part is using fast, accurate methods to spot ineligible voters without sidelining lawful votes. Courts often resist last-minute changes that can confuse election workers and risk disenfranchising eligible citizens. Here, the judge said the record did not justify emergency disruption. That does not settle whether any flagged person is ineligible; it only says the government did not meet the bar for urgent relief now.

This fight taps into frustrations across the spectrum. Many worry that elites and bureaucracies fail basic tasks like keeping clean rolls or sharing clear methods. Others fear that sweeping crackdowns, fueled by shaky data, will block rightful votes. Both concerns can be true at once. Durable trust will likely require transparent data, independent audits, and documented results. If the Justice Department’s list is solid, proof can come in court. If not, fixes should follow.

What Comes Next and What To Watch

The underlying lawsuit continues. The Justice Department can seek discovery, present methods, and show how many flagged people, if any, actually returned ballots. California can defend its systems and point to safeguards like signature checks on envelopes. Either side could agree to independent testing of the list’s accuracy under privacy rules. Clear, verifiable facts—not rush orders—will decide the lasting outcome.

For voters, the core takeaway is simple. The judge kept ballots moving because the emergency proof and legal case were not strong enough, not because the law allows noncitizen voting. Expect more filings, possible sampling or audits, and attention to how many, if any, returned ballots match the federal list. Results there, not heated claims, will shape reforms and trust in the process.