Judge Bennett questions DOJ plan to void California mail ballots

A federal appeals court panel is skeptical of a Department of Justice lawsuit that seeks to force California to discard mail-in ballots sent to individuals flagged as likely noncitizens. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, expressed doubt about the legal basis for the government’s request during oral arguments held on Sunday.

The dispute began on October 15, when the Justice Department filed a complaint against the state. The administration submitted a list of 20,000 names to federal court, arguing that these individuals were not eligible to vote due to their citizenship status. This action is part of a wider executive push to address alleged noncitizen voting ahead of the midterm elections scheduled for November 3.

Bennett challenged the logic of the suit by pointing to the Elections Clause of the US Constitution. He noted that this clause grants states, rather than the federal government, the authority to set the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. The judge questioned how the court could issue an injunction that contradicts the laws adopted by the California legislature under this constitutional provision.

“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law that the California legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett told Matthew Donnelly, the lawyer representing the Justice Department. “How can we do that?” The panel is expected to issue a decision as soon as possible following the weekend proceedings.

California officials responded to the lawsuit by citing existing safeguards designed to prevent noncitizens from voting. Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the timing and data behind the federal claim. “This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day,” Newsom said in a statement. He characterized the move as an effort to use an “authoritarian” playbook to influence the race.

The Justice Department has not publicly detailed the methodology used to compile the list of 20,000 names. Whistleblower reports have raised questions about the accuracy of similar lists in the past. Voting rights advocates argue that the lack of transparency adds to the confusion surrounding the upcoming elections. The midterm results will determine which party controls Congress, along with various state and local offices.

The three-judge panel will now consider whether the federal government’s interest in enforcing citizenship requirements outweighs the state’s constitutional power to administer its own elections. The decision will determine if the ballots remain on the official count or if they are set aside before the November 3 deadline.