California's disputed 20,000 mail ballots face a federal court fight, but judges seem wary of blocking them. The Trump administration claims the ballots went to noncitizens, while state officials question the data behind that claim.
At the hearing, two judges on a three-member appeals panel raised doubts about the federal request. A Justice Department lawyer had a hard time showing how officials knew the people on its list lacked U.S. citizenship and had each received a ballot.
Matthew Donnelly, who spoke for the government, said an unnamed third party had bought California voter data. Federal officials then used outside software to check the records against citizenship files. He called the checks strict but gave few details about how they worked.
Judge Mark J. Bennett, whom Trump named to the court, wanted more proof. He asked why local election staff should reject voters based on federal claims that a trial court had yet to test.
A Los Angeles election tech worker had warned that sorting out the flagged ballots could cause severe harm to election work. Bennett questioned why the appeals court should accept the government's account over that sworn warning without a full review of the facts.
Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, a Biden appointee, raised another issue. The government had once claimed California's rolls held up to 190,000 people who lacked citizenship. That figure later fell by a large amount, and Sanchez wanted to know why.
There was also a risk of catching the wrong people. Sanchez warned that using names and addresses from ballot envelopes could lead staff to pull valid votes from people who merely share a name with someone on the federal list.
The appeals panel also raised the option of letting the lower court act first. That would give Judge David O. Carter a chance to weigh the claims and issue a formal ruling. Federal lawyers could appeal once more if they objected to his decision.
The administration had sought a fast order, arguing that Carter's pace was, in effect, blocking its bid for relief. At the government's request, he had set a hearing to hear the case.
This fight comes as federal officials seek greater control over vote rules in other states, with Alaska facing a separate Senate election dispute. Critics see the actions as an effort to shape the vote, while the administration maintains that it wants to stop unlawful ballots.
For California, the key issue remains proof. The judges have not ruled that the flagged voters are eligible or ineligible. Their questions focused on whether the federal data is sound enough to justify pulling ballots before a trial court has checked the facts.
At the hearing, two judges on a three-member appeals panel raised doubts about the federal request. A Justice Department lawyer had a hard time showing how officials knew the people on its list lacked U.S. citizenship and had each received a ballot.
Matthew Donnelly, who spoke for the government, said an unnamed third party had bought California voter data. Federal officials then used outside software to check the records against citizenship files. He called the checks strict but gave few details about how they worked.
Judge Mark J. Bennett, whom Trump named to the court, wanted more proof. He asked why local election staff should reject voters based on federal claims that a trial court had yet to test.
A Los Angeles election tech worker had warned that sorting out the flagged ballots could cause severe harm to election work. Bennett questioned why the appeals court should accept the government's account over that sworn warning without a full review of the facts.
Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, a Biden appointee, raised another issue. The government had once claimed California's rolls held up to 190,000 people who lacked citizenship. That figure later fell by a large amount, and Sanchez wanted to know why.
There was also a risk of catching the wrong people. Sanchez warned that using names and addresses from ballot envelopes could lead staff to pull valid votes from people who merely share a name with someone on the federal list.
The appeals panel also raised the option of letting the lower court act first. That would give Judge David O. Carter a chance to weigh the claims and issue a formal ruling. Federal lawyers could appeal once more if they objected to his decision.
The administration had sought a fast order, arguing that Carter's pace was, in effect, blocking its bid for relief. At the government's request, he had set a hearing to hear the case.
This fight comes as federal officials seek greater control over vote rules in other states, with Alaska facing a separate Senate election dispute. Critics see the actions as an effort to shape the vote, while the administration maintains that it wants to stop unlawful ballots.
For California, the key issue remains proof. The judges have not ruled that the flagged voters are eligible or ineligible. Their questions focused on whether the federal data is sound enough to justify pulling ballots before a trial court has checked the facts.
