Judge rejects intervention in Californian ballots
A federal judge refuses to set aside thousands of votes over government suspicions about voters without US citizenship.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
.JPG){kind=link}
A federal judge in California on Wednesday rejected a request from the Trump administration to set aside the ballots of up to 20,000 voters. The administration said these people might not be US citizens; the judge warned that the measure would disrupt the midterm elections.
The case concerns a list compiled by federal agencies of more than 20,000 registered voters whom the administration says are probably not US citizens. The US Department of Justice wanted California not to count their postal ballots until their status had been checked individually.
According to AP, Judge David O. Carter of the federal court in Los Angeles rejected the request. Setting aside the ballots could throw the elections into confusion and increase the risk that valid votes would not be counted. Carter ruled while more than 3.7 million people had already voted in California.
In October, the administration asked California to check the list within 48 hours. When the state did not agree, the department went to court on 15 October. The federal government argued that California would be acting unlawfully if it counted the votes of people on the list without additional checks.
Californian election officials did not dispute that non-citizens may not vote in federal elections. They did argue that the federal list was not reliable enough to suspend individual votes. According to documents in the case, most people in a random sample identified as immigrants appeared to have been born in the United States.
An appeal court had already refused on Monday to have the votes immediately set aside. The court said the federal government had given the lower court insufficient time to consider the case. Two judges also expressed doubts about the accuracy of the list and warned against excluding eligible citizens; a third judge disagreed.
According to AP, the ruling comes shortly before the US elections on 3 November, in which voters will decide the composition of Congress. AP describes how the Trump administration is trying to gain more influence over election oversight in several states. According to AP, the department has also asked in Washington state for the ballots of suspected non-citizens to be set aside.
The case highlights a broader clash over the division of responsibilities between the federal government and the states. States organise and count elections, while the federal government oversees compliance with national voting laws. The ruling in California may still be appealed; this case did not decide the ultimate validity of the individual votes.
Also show the region and a close-up
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- A federal judge rejected a request to keep up to 20,000 Californian ballots separate.
- The federal government says the voters concerned may not be US citizens; this has not been established for the individual voters.
- An appeal court had earlier imposed no immediate block.
- California organises and processes elections within the framework of its own electoral law, while federal law prohibits non-citizens from taking part in federal elections.
Left
Arguments The state must prevent federal action shortly before the election from invalidating valid votes. Without verifiable evidence for each person, the approach risks mainly excluding citizens and damaging trust in elections.
Values The right to vote, equal access, judicial restraint and protection against political interference in electoral procedures.
Consequences A federal victory could, from this perspective, lead to greater pressure on states, prolonged uncertainty over results and voter deterrence.
Centre
Arguments Non-citizens may not vote, but checks must be careful, timely and legally reviewable. An independent procedure with individual verification is more defensible than collectively freezing votes shortly before the election.
Values Legal certainty, administrative feasibility, equal treatment and trust in verifiable procedures.
Consequences A compromise could limit future errors, but would require additional capacity and clear agreements between federal and state authorities.
Right
Arguments The federal government must enforce election laws and prevent invalid votes from being counted. From this perspective, the risk of undermining the election result outweighs the inconvenience of temporarily checking suspicious ballots.
Values Enforcement of electoral law, national responsibility and protection of election integrity.
Consequences Under this approach, not setting aside the votes could make fraud harder to detect and encourage states to disregard federal warnings.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article's central claim is directly confirmed by the ruling and by AP reporting from the same day. Allegations about suspected non-citizens are presented as government claims, not established fact.
- confirmed On 28 October 2026, a federal judge rejected a request to set aside up to 20,000 Californian ballots. — This is stated in AP's reporting on Judge David O. Carter's ruling. source
- confirmed The federal government linked more than 20,000 registered voters to a suspicion of non-citizenship. — The Ninth Circuit describes the list and its size in the procedural history. source
- confirmed More than 3.7 million people had voted in California when the district judge ruled. — AP cites this figure in its report on the ruling. source
- confirmed An appeal court had earlier refused to impose an immediate block on the votes concerned. — This is stated in the Ninth Circuit ruling and in AP's overview. source
- confirmed Non-citizens may not vote in federal elections in the United States. — The rule is mentioned in AP's report; the case concerns its application to this list. source
Editor's note
It is certain that the federal district judge rejected the request on 28 October and that an appeal court had earlier imposed no immediate block. The allegations about non-citizens are claims by the federal government; the sources do not confirm that the voters concerned actually voted unlawfully.Sources
- Judge denies federal request to segregate California ballots — Associated Press
- Appeals court declines to block California from counting 20,000 disputed ballots — Associated Press
- United States v. State of California, order 26-7070 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
More on this in Dutch media
- AD — „verenigde staten”
- de Volkskrant — „verenigde staten”
- RTL Nieuws — „verenigde staten”