In brief
In a 2‑to‑1 vote on October 27, the Ninth Circuit held that the Trump administration’s petition to remove about 20,000 California mail‑in ballots would be unconstitutional and could disenfranchise eligible voters. The decision came less than four days before the November 3 midterm election and underscores the court’s role in protecting electoral integrity. The ruling confirms that allegations of non‑citizen voting in California lack sufficient evidence to overturn ballots and sets a precedent against similar challenges.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, October 27, struck down a petition filed by the Trump administration seeking to set aside roughly 20,000 mail ballots in California on the grounds that the voters had been identified as non‑citizens. The court held that the request would violate the Constitution and risk disenfranchising eligible voters, effectively keeping the ballots in the official count just hours before the November 3 midterm election.
The Department of Justice subpoenaed California's voter registration data on October 15, producing a list it claimed contained nearly 20,000 “likely non‑citizens.” The list was then offered to state officials to purportedly remove those ballots. The lawsuit also intimated that the ballots would be excluded from the final tally, a move that critics argued could erase thousands of votes from the voting rolls.
Of particular concern to voters is the court’s acknowledgement that removing the ballots would amount to a cancellation of the votes themselves. In a majority opinion, the judges underscored that the demand was not merely segregation of ballots but a potential removal of voters from the rolls, which carries a significant threat to voter rights.
The decision was reached by judges Mark Bennett, appointed by Trump, and Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden. The 5‑member panel ruled 2‑to‑1, with judge Patrick Bumatay—also a Trump appointee—voting in dissent and labeling the petition a “reasonable request.” The majority found the action unconstitutional, noting the lack of credible evidence supporting widespread non‑citizen voting in the state.
“The consequence of the United States’s request is not merely ballot segregation, but ultimately both the cancellation of the ballot and the removal of voters from the voting rolls,” the majority wrote, highlighting the potential harm to the democratic process.
California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, have been quick to reject the DOJ’s claim. State audit reports from earlier in the year repeatedly documented inaccuracies in the Trump lists, and officials have consistently insisted that the list contained no reliable evidence of non‑citizen voting. Newsom’s office noted that the state’s voter rolls are regularly audited and have not indicated any widespread irregularities.
The ruling comes at a crucial juncture, as California is set to elect 52 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. With the midterms on November 3, the decision reinforces the integrity of California’s electoral process and ensures that eligible voters will not be pre‑emptively barred from casting their ballots.
Beyond California, the decision may serve as a precedent for other states confronting similar federal challenges. Earlier this year, states such as Nevada and Washington also received lists of alleged non‑citizen voters, but state authorities found those documents largely inaccurate. The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to accept the DOJ’s arguments suggests a broader trend of courts protecting the procedural and substantive rights of voters against unfounded federal claims.
In the broader civic landscape, the ruling highlights the tension between the federal government’s interests in election security and the constitutional safeguards designed to prevent disenfranchisement. The court’s decision underscores that the right to vote remains protected against attempts to strip eligibility without sufficient evidence, reaffirming the judiciary’s role as a check on executive excesses.
For voters across California, the outcome means that the millions who have cast mail ballots in this cycle can remain confident that their votes will be counted. For the state’s election officials, the ruling provides a legal reaffirmation of their duty to administer elections fairly and equitably, even in the face of high‑profile federal challenges. The court’s latest judgment thus reinforces the fundamental democratic principle that every eligible vote must be counted and protected by the Constitution.
