Supreme Court rejects DOJ bid to set aside California ballots

The facts

1. Judges Mark J. Bennett and Gabriel P. Sanchez formed the appellate majority; Judge Patrick J. Bumatay dissented and favored granting the requested relief. ^[6][7]

2. The majority said the government had not shown that law and facts clearly supported the requested intervention, and warned that the new segregation procedure could disenfranchise eligible voters and disrupt the election. ^[6]

3. The district court denied the requested temporary restraining order on 28 October, citing problems with the government’s identification process and the risks of disrupting an election already underway. ^[1]

4. The government's list was an allegation, not a judicial finding that those registered voters were noncitizens or had voted unlawfully. ^[1][2]

5. The Ninth Circuit denied emergency injunctive relief on 30 October. That decision does not finish the entire lawsuit or establish that the listed voters were noncitizens. ^[6][7]

6. CBS News reported that subpoenas sent between 21 and 24 October sought communications and records about screening for unlawful voting. It reviewed three directed to Los Angeles County election officials. ^[3]

7. CalMatters reported that an additional subpoena was delivered to Orange County's elections office on 29 October, seeking unredacted records for sixty people. It separately reported that three Los Angeles employees were ordered to appear before a grand jury on 4 November. ^[4]

8. The Justice Department said receiving a subpoena does not itself make someone an investigation target. Registrar Dean Logan said officials were following election law and would protect staff and voter access. ^[3][4]

9. In an earlier public statement, Logan warned that preliminary record checks should not be treated as findings about citizenship. The civil ballot-segregation ruling and the criminal records investigation are separate proceedings. ^[5][3][4]

10. AP reported on 31 October that an expert analysis in the separate CHIRLA v. DHS case found 8,880 of the 20,930 DOJ entries, or 42%, did not match California's active voter file. The researchers also identified at least 22 entries belonging to U.S. citizens and estimated that nearly 7,500 naturalized citizens were highly likely to be flagged under the government's methodology. The unmatched entries are not all established as citizens or as people who cast ballots. ^[8]

11. The analysis was filed in a separate challenge by CHIRLA and the UCLA Voting Rights Project; the project's release confirms the case. AP reported that U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli disputed the analysis as bogus. These are litigants' expert claims and a prosecutorial response, not a court finding in the California ballot-segregation case. ^[8][9]

12. AP reported on 1 November that DOJ asked Judge James Boasberg to consider a criminal-contempt referral, arguing that an expert analysis of its voter list violated a protective order. The referral was requested, not ordered, and the judge had made no contempt finding in the report. ^[10]

13. AP reported UCLA's position that the plaintiffs' expert had complied with the protective order. This is a litigant-side response, not a judicial ruling on contempt. ^[10]

14. DOJ’s 2 November Supreme Court application asks for a limited injunction directing California to segregate ballots tied to more than 20,000 people the government believes are likely noncitizens. The application says the government identified them from voter-roll information; that is the applicant’s claim, not a court finding or proof of any individual’s citizenship or vote. ^[11][12]

15. AP reported that California said the federal list appeared error-filled and that setting aside ballots could disenfranchise eligible voters. The Supreme Court later rejected the application; citizenship and voting status remain unresolved. ^[12]

16. The application followed the Ninth Circuit’s denial of emergency relief and the district court’s denial of a temporary restraining order; the new Supreme Court filing is a separate request for emergency relief, not a grant of that relief. ^[11][6][7]

17. The Supreme Court rejected DOJ’s emergency request on 2 November. AP reported that the court did not detail its reasoning and that no justice publicly dissented. ^[12]

18. Separately, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that DOJ and Homeland Security could not demand California officials set aside ballots or depart from state procedures based on federal lists of suspected noncitizens; AP and Axios report he found the pressure likely violated the Elections Clause. ^[12][14]

19. Axios reported that the Boasberg order does not prohibit federal investigations or prosecutions; it addresses demands to change ballot procedures. ^[14]