Federal Judge Blocks Trump Bid to Toss 20,000 California Votes, Warns of Democratic 'Chaos'

Federal Judge David Carter on Wednesday rejected the Department of Justice's (DOJ) request to temporarily bar California from counting mail ballots from more than 20,000 registered voters whom the DOJ alleges are non-citizens. The ruling is the latest blow to President Donald Trump's ambition to expand the federal government's role in running elections, just days before the midterm vote on 3 November.

In his ruling, Carter—a judge appointed by President Bill Clinton—stated that federal intervention in the final minutes before an election violates the long-standing constitutional principle that places election authority in the hands of the states. He warned that granting the DOJ's request would create "chaos" and could potentially strip thousands of registered voters of rights that took generations to secure.

"If the executive can set aside votes and threaten the conduct of an election based on unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger," Carter wrote in his ruling.

The DOJ had filed suit on 15 October, marking a rare intervention in the voting process weeks before an election. The move was seen as a signal of the Trump administration's willingness to contest election results in court. However, Carter stressed that the DOJ never explained how counting ballots could impede criminal prosecution of non-citizens who vote, since states are not required to assist federal investigations.

Carter's ruling came two days after a federal appeals court rejected an unusual emergency DOJ request to block ballot counting before Carter had ruled. The DOJ did not specify how many of the 20,000 flagged individuals had actually cast ballots. DOJ lawyer Bill Essayli immediately appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and said that processing ballots every day "disenfranchises American citizens through vote dilution."

California strongly denied the allegations. The state asserted it has strong protections against non-citizen voting and accused the DOJ of basing its claims on "dubious data." According to California election officials, complying with the DOJ's request would instead risk stripping legitimate voters of their rights.

The matter is not merely a legal battle on the eve of an election. Since returning to the White House, Trump has aggressively attacked California—the most populous state and a Democratic stronghold—over its "sanctuary state" policy that limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. He has repeatedly claimed that non-citizen voting is rampant, even though various studies and state audits show the practice is extremely rare.

Besides California, the DOJ has also sought to intervene in elections in two other closely contested states. In Alaska, the DOJ last week asked a judge to prevent certification of election results if the Republican incumbent senator loses narrowly, arguing that the presence of another candidate with a similar name could confuse voters. Alaska urged the case be dismissed because it had already taken steps to distinguish the two candidates. Meanwhile in Washington state, the DOJ sent a letter to local officials urging them not to count ballots from 400 voters who may not be citizens. Washington election officials viewed the timing of the request as showing an intent to cast unfounded suspicion on the election results.

Voting rights activists worry that the federal method of checking voter rolls to identify non-citizens risks wrongly flagging naturalized citizens and removing them from the rolls. The case also raises broader questions about how far the federal government may intervene in state election administration—an issue that will continue to play out in the appeals courts and could potentially affect the midterm election results.

With the appeal already filed, the public now waits to see whether the 9th Circuit will uphold Carter's ruling or make room for federal ambition. What is clear is that the precedent from California will be a test of the limits of executive power in American democracy—and of public trust which, as Carter wrote, "cannot be restored" once votes have been set apart.