Judge denies DOJ bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots; DOJ appeals

What happened

On Oct. 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter denied the Justice Department’s emergency request that California and Los Angeles County sequester mail ballots tied to about 20,000 people the department said it had high confidence were noncitizens. Carter wrote that the allegations were “not credible,” that the relief would violate federal law and constitutional principles giving states control of elections, and that blocking the ballots would “wreak havoc” on a midterm already underway and risk disenfranchising eligible voters. He also said Justice Department threats of criminal penalties against election officials “must stop.” The administration filed a notice of appeal the same day and said it would seek emergency relief from the 9th Circuit. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said more ballots were being processed each day and that delay “disenfranchises American citizens through dilution.” California officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, said the ruling protected the state’s elections.^{⁠[6, 10, 19, 23]}

Background

The Justice Department sued on Oct. 15 after giving officials 48 hours to set aside ballots on a list it said it compiled by matching purchased voter rolls with other databases. Homeland Security had earlier alleged as many as 190,000 possible noncitizens on the rolls. State and county officials said samples of the 20,000-name list were inaccurate, including people who appeared U.S.-born or not registered in the listed counties. A 9th Circuit panel had already declined an earlier emergency appeal, 2-1, before Carter ruled. Noncitizen voting is illegal; prosecutors can charge individuals, which Carter called a “clear remedy.”^{⁠[6, 19, 23]}

How the coverage differs

Left-leaning outlets including The Guardian, HuffPost, NPR and the Los Angeles Times stressed Carter’s language that the bid was unprecedented, legally thin and appeared aimed at casting doubt on the midterms, plus state claims that the list was unreliable. Center outlets such as Bloomberg, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and The Hill focused on the “wreak havoc” warning, disruption of an election already underway, and the planned or filed appeal. Right-leaning outlets including the New York Post, Washington Examiner and The Washington Times highlighted the appeal, Essayli’s dilution argument, a 9th Circuit dissent that processed ballots could become unidentifiable, and related prosecutions of alleged illegal registrants. Raw Story emphasized possible nationwide screening; National Pulse covered a similar DOJ request in Washington state.^{⁠[1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]}

What's still unclear

How the 20,000-name list was built, from whom voter-roll data were obtained, and how many names are accurate remain disputed; administration filings acknowledged discrepancies. Whether the 9th Circuit will grant emergency relief, and how any special master Carter mentioned earlier would proceed, are unresolved. The underlying lawsuit continues.^{⁠[3, 8, 11, 23]}

Written by Grok from the full articles, at a reader's request. AI can get details wrong; check the sources.