Trump DOJ’s suit over California vote counting meets a doubtful appeals court panel

President Donald Trump’s eleventh-hour campaign to intervene in California’s vote counting encountered the first signs of resistance in federal court over the weekend, with appellate judges expressing deep skepticism over the legality of the effort.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held rare oral arguments on Sunday as the U.S. Department of Justice seeks a court order requiring California election officials to segregate and not count the ballots of some 20,000 voters, who federal officials say are suspected noncitizens, until those voters can prove otherwise.

Two of the three judges sharply questioned a Justice Department lawyer over the demand, as well as the timeline of the agency’s actions. A third judge appeared more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s arguments.

The oral arguments, held virtually, came after the Justice Department said a district court judge hadn’t ruled fast enough on its request for a temporary restraining order to require California officials to set aside the ballots of suspected noncitizens. 

But one of the appellate judges emphasized on Sunday that the district court judge had swiftly scheduled a hearing, currently set for Tuesday, less than a week after receiving the case.

“I don’t see how we have jurisdiction,” said Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee who often led the skeptical questioning of the DOJ.

Last-minute push

As Election Day approaches, the Trump administration is mounting a furious final bid to assert authority over state and local election officials. 

The Justice Department first demanded immediate action in a last-minute lawsuit that alleges ballots cast by alleged noncitizens in California risk diluting the votes of U.S. citizens. 

It then opened a new front on Friday, preemptively suing Alaska over the future certification of its U.S. Senate race. Democrats and voting rights groups filed a flurry of court papers over the weekend opposing the Alaska lawsuit.

Sunday’s oral arguments in the California case, which lasted nearly two hours, marked the first courtroom showdown in the Trump administration’s new round of preelection legal action. One or both lawsuits could be before the U.S. Supreme Court within days, depending on the speed of lower courts.

An ‘astronomical’ number of ballots

Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly told the three-judge panel that the DOJ decided to seek an emergency order after learning how many mail-in ballots election officials were already processing, at least several hundred thousand so far. 

He said the agency hadn’t been aware of what he called the “astronomical” number of ballots as he explained why the DOJ didn’t ask for a temporary restraining order until four days after it first sued California.

“Frankly, we did not appreciate the scale,” Donnelly said, though California is a universal vote-by-mail state that sends a ballot to all voters.

Seth Waxman, a lawyer for Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, told the court that Donnelly’s assertion was “absurd on its face.” Election officials in California have warned that complying with the Justice Department’s demands so close to Election Day could have catastrophic consequences. 

“The numbers are publicly available,” Waxman said.

Authority over elections

The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause places the responsibility for administering elections with the states, with Congress retaining the power to override state regulations. 

Donnelly clashed with Bennett over whether the legal basis for the Justice Department’s demands of California, a federal law that makes it a misdemeanor crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, represents an instance of Congress asserting its authority over elections.

Donnelly said the federal law preempts California’s action “here that frustrates its purpose” — in other words, the refusal of state and local officials to set aside the suspected noncitizen ballots. 

But Bennett said California law also bans noncitizen voting, and he argued that what Congress passed doesn’t directly change the rules state lawmakers adopted, which require voters to attest under penalty of perjury that they are qualified to vote.

‘An emergency of their own making’

The Trump administration has said the Department of Homeland Security compiled the list of 20,000 suspected noncitizens based on public California voter data it obtained. 

Judge Gabriel Sanchez, an appointee of President Joe Biden, questioned the reliability of the list, noting that federal officials initially told California this summer they believed the state had potentially more than 190,000 noncitizens on its rolls.

“Somehow the district court was supposed to resolve all this in a matter of hours by noon on October 22?” Sanchez said, referring to the deadline the Justice Department requested for a decision from the district court judge.

Samuel Siegel, a lawyer representing California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, told the appeals court the voter list the Trump administration obtained was “wildly outdated.” He said the 9th Circuit has nothing to decide because U.S. District Court Judge David Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, has yet to rule.

“It is an emergency of their own making,” Siegel said of the Justice Department.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee and the only judge on the panel who at times appeared to agree with the Justice Department’s arguments, pushed Siegel on the consequences of not ordering California to set aside the ballots. Donnelly said repeatedly that once the ballots are processed, it becomes impossible to pull them out, even if it later becomes clear they were fraudulently cast.

“Without an injunction, you’ll never know, correct?” Bumatay asked Siegel, who responded that voters must affirm their citizenship.

The 9th Circuit panel could rule at any time. Whatever the judges decide, the case may be back before the appeals court soon. 

Carter has promised to rule promptly after a Tuesday hearing on the Justice Department’s request for a temporary restraining order. A denial could prompt the DOJ to appeal again.