A federal judge in California on Wednesday, October 28, denied the Trump administration’s emergency request to separate roughly 20,000 mail ballots associated with voters it alleges may be noncitizens, citing risks to lawful voters and election administration ahead of November 3.
The ruling and its timing
The dispute concerns mail ballots associated with roughly 20,000 people the federal government alleges may be ineligible on citizenship grounds. In a ruling dated October 28, Judge David O. Carter denied an emergency request to segregate the ballots. Voting was already underway ahead of the November 3 election, and millions of Californians had cast ballots.
What the federal government argued
The Justice Department alleged that California issued ballots to people who may not be U.S. citizens and sought a temporary mechanism to separate and potentially exclude those ballots pending eligibility verification. That allegation is not equivalent to a judicial finding that these individuals were noncitizens or cast unlawful votes.
Why California opposed the request
State and local election officials said late-stage segregation would be exceptionally difficult once ballots were processed and could interfere with established election administration procedures. The court emphasized potential disenfranchisement of eligible voters and interference with the state’s responsibilities. Reporting on the ruling also cites federal limits on major voter-roll changes close to federal elections.
The filed-notice statement and its limits
After the October 28 denial, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said a Notice of Appeal had been filed and that the government would immediately seek an emergency order from the Ninth Circuit, according to El País reporting. The district-court decision rejected emergency relief; it did not establish that 20,000 illegal votes were cast. A filed notice and a request for relief are distinct from an appellate ruling granting relief. The public court materials and reporting checked for this account did not authenticate a subsequent appellate disposition; no claim is made that no later filing exists.
Why the precedent matters
All sides say elections should include eligible voters and exclude ineligible ones. The dispute is over the legal authority, reliability of evidence and practical consequences of a particular late-stage remedy. State administration of elections and federal statutory protections are both relevant, as is public confidence in accurate vote counting.
