In brief
Judge Carter’s ruling preserves California’s control over its elections, rejecting the Trump‑era Department of Justice’s last‑minute bid to halt the counting of ballots for a list of alleged noncitizens. The decision comes as the DOJ issues subpoenas across 13 states and immediately appeals the ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The case highlights federal‑state tensions over voting rights and election administration.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge David Carter in the Central District of California denied the Department of Justice’s request to prevent the state from counting the mail ballots of 20,000 voters it claims are noncitizens. The move, filed on October 15, came just six days before voters head to the polls for the 2026 midterm elections. It marks a setback for the Trump administration’s broader push to expand federal oversight of elections.
“Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” Judge Carter wrote in his ruling. He emphasized that California, like all states, retains control over the conduct and counting of its elections, and that the Justice Department’s last‑minute request violated “longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections.”
The DOJ’s lawsuit came weeks after the agency issued more than 100 subpoenas to state and local election officials in at least 13 states, targeting records on tens of thousands of voters. The subpoenas went to both Republican‑leaning and Democratic‑leaning jurisdictions and were intended to identify noncitizens who might have voted in federal elections. The request to halt ballot counting in California was part of this coordinated effort.
In Los Angeles County, the DOJ’s list contained a significant number of voters whose records indicate they were born in the United States—one in four on the "noncitizen" list, according to the department. Legal experts argue that a flawed list could risk disenfranchising legitimate U.S. citizens. The DOJ has maintained that it is “deeply flawed” and that its assertions are based on suspect data, though it has not yet supplied evidence that noncitizen voting is widespread.
After the judge’s ruling, the Justice Department promptly petitioned the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the decision. No comment has yet been released by the DOJ regarding the appellate filing. The appellate process may bring the case back before the federal courts soon after the election, but the 2026 ballot count will move forward under California’s established procedures.
Implications for Election Integrity and Federal‑State Dynamics
The judge’s decision underscores the tension between federal oversight and state sovereignty in election administration. California has historically had robust safeguards against noncitizen voting, and the state’s election officials have cited the DOJ’s claims as "overscanned" and “suspected” of jeopardizing voter rights. By upholding the state’s authority, the ruling affirms that last‑minute federal interventions are unlikely to alter the electoral process in the weeks leading up to a midterm election.
However, the DOJ’s line of action—issuing subpoenas and filing lawsuits—signals an intensified federal focus on voting integrity that many see as a potential threat to democratic participation. The appeals process could have long‑term effects on how states are able to set and enforce their own electoral procedures. It remains to be seen whether the Ninth Circuit will uphold Judge Carter’s refusal or whether the DOJ will succeed in its appeal.
While the federal government may continue to seek evidence of voter fraud, the current ruling reminds voters that authority over elections is largely a state-level responsibility. The upcoming midterm election will ultimately be decided by the ballots already in hand, and California’s election officials are preparing to count every vote in accordance with the nation’s constitutional framework. For citizens, the case highlights the constitutional checks that protect the democratic process, even as federal agencies push to modify it.
