A federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s decision that rejected the Justice Department’s demand to set aside mail ballots from roughly 20,000 alleged noncitizens. The Justice Department is attempting to have state and county officials in California identify and separate mail ballots returned by any of the alleged noncitizens on a Department of Homeland Security-produced list.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the federal government had failed to justify its request for emergency relief, reiterating the constitutional authority of states to run their own elections and pointing to serious questions about the reliability of its voter list. The court also warned that changing election procedures just days before Election Day could disrupt voting and prevent eligible Americans from having their ballots counted. As the judges made clear, the administration can’t use unproven allegations and questionable data to upend an election already underway.
In the initial ruling, the district court judge also raised the alarm about a broader pattern of federal election interference. He pointed to the administration’s actions in other states and warned that these demands could create chaos, disrupt elections, and keep eligible Americans from having their votes counted.
The Justice Department also demanded that Washington state set aside ballots from more than 400 registered voters it alleges are noncitizens, drawing criticism from state election officials just days before Election Day. Washington respondedshowing the data that the Justice Department is using is unreliable.
Key takeaways:
- We’ve seen this playbook before.
- The Trump administration keeps trying to make noncitizen voting into a widespread problem when it simply isn’t one.
- Noncitizen voting is illegal and incredibly rare.
- States already have safeguards in place to make sure only eligible voters can receive and cast ballots. Allegations of illegal voting need to be backed up by real evidence.
- States have been preparing for and experiencing exactly this kind of federal pressure for months.
- From threats of investigations and prosecutions to attempts to interfere with election administration, state officials have anticipated these efforts and sought to protect free and fair elections.
- They’re prepared to defend their constitutional authority, protect eligible voters, and ensure that elections proceed according to the law.
- This is more of the same from an administration determined to insert itself into how elections are run.
- Federal officials can’t use unsubstantiated claims, lawsuits, and threats of legal action to dictate how states administer elections.
- States know how to investigate legitimate concerns, and they won’t be bullied into disregarding their own election systems, disenfranchising voters, or violating state law.
- States are focused on ensuring November’s elections are free, fair, and secure.
- The court rulings denying DOJ’s request are significant victories for voters and state-run elections ahead of the midterms.
- California election officials can continue doing their jobs under state law, without this last-minute federal disruption.
- These decisions reinforce an important principle for the midterms: States run elections, not the president. State and local election officials remain responsible for following the law, protecting voters, and making sure every eligible vote is counted.
Source: statesunited.org
