Supreme Court may be next stop

Supreme Court may be next stop in DOJ's lawsuit targeting ballots of 20,000 Californians

By Tierney Sneed

The 2-1 appeals court ruling against a Justice Department lawsuit targeting the counting of ballots for potentially thousands of voters in California sets up the possibility that President Donald Trump will now go to the US Supreme Court.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the administration does not have the legal right to second-guess how the state was verifying voters’ citizenship status. The majority pointed to the Constitution’s Election Clause, which says states are in charge running elections while giving Congress the option to pass regulations.

“Because Congress has not exercised the specific power granted to it under the Elections Clause to override California’s established laws for challenging ballots or removing ineligible voters, the State Legislature’s statutory scheme remains the only method to do so,” the majority opinion, issued by Judge Mark J. Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, a Joe Biden appointee, said.

The majority’s ruling also pointed to a Supreme Court legal doctrine regarding federal court rulings that would create chaos in elections when voting is near or already underway.

In the case, DOJ is demanding that California officials not count any ballot that comes in from individuals on a list of 20,000 people until the individual’s citizenship status is confirmed.

“Major concerns remain that granting the United States’s requested relief might result in immense hardship to Defendants and harm the public interest by risking the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy,” the majority wrote.

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay dissented. He wrote that the Justice Department’s request was “a modest remedy—stopping California from mixing the ballots of citizens and suspected noncitizens.”

“California decided long ago that aliens can’t vote in its elections,” he wrote. “Today, the federal government merely seeks to safeguard that decision. We should have let them try.”