In the slow machinery of election law, a federal appeals court has declined to hurry. The Justice Department had asked for a swift order compelling California to set aside roughly 20,000 mail ballots linked to alleged noncitizen voting, and the court did not grant that emergency step. The matter now rests where most contested questions of democracy rest: in a pending lawsuit, with ballots still moving through the ordinary count, and with the larger question of how such claims should be tested left open for another day.
Appeals Court Rejects DOJ Bid to Quickly Force California to Set Aside Mail Ballots
Nothing changes on the ground for now.
In the slow machinery of election law, a federal appeals court has declined to hurry. The Justice Department had asked for a swift order compelling California to set aside roughly 20,000 mail ballots linked to alleged noncitizen voting, and the court did not grant that emergency step. The matter now rests where most contested questions of democracy rest: in a pending lawsuit, with ballots still moving through the ordinary count, and with the larger question of how such claims should be tested left open for another day.
An appeals court has told the Justice Department it will not move fast. The department had asked for a quick order requiring California to set aside roughly 20,000 mail ballots tied to alleged voting by noncitizens, and the court declined to grant that request.
The department had already sent the state demand letters targeting these ballots and then pressed the matter into court. Coverage describes the judges as skeptical rather than simply procedural, with the Ninth Circuit questioning the demand to set the ballots aside. Reuters framed the result as a setback for the administration's effort to block votes it says came from noncitizens.
For now, nothing changes on the ground. California's ballot processing continues, and the disputed ballots remain in the ordinary flow rather than being pulled aside.
The reporting is thin on how the department reached the figure of 20,000, what evidence it offers, and the court's full reasoning. What is clear is that the emergency relief was denied, while the lawsuit itself and the question of how these ballots should be treated remain unresolved. More rulings are likely as the case moves forward.
An appeals court has told the Justice Department it will not move fast. In a ruling reported on Monday by several outlets, the court declined to grant the department's request for a quick order forcing California to set aside roughly 20,000 mail ballots. The ballots are at the center of a dispute over alleged voting by noncitizens.
The request came as part of a lawsuit the department has brought against California. The department had sent the state demand letters targeting the ballots, and it asked the court to compel California to separate them from the rest of the count while the case proceeds. The court's answer, in the headline words of Politico, was that it rejected the bid to quickly force the state's hand.
The coverage describes a court that was skeptical, not merely procedural. The Associated Press reported that the 9th Circuit questioned the department's demand to set aside the 20,000 ballots. Reuters framed the outcome as a loss for the Trump administration in its push to block votes from alleged noncitizens. The New York Times described the court as declining to intervene in the ballot lawsuit.
The practical effect is that nothing changes on the ground for now. According to reporting carried by Yahoo, California's ballot processing continues, even after the state received the department's demand letters and while the court challenges move forward. The ballots stay in the ordinary flow of processing instead of being pulled aside.
The available reporting is thin on specifics. The material summarized here does not lay out how the department arrived at the figure of 20,000 ballots, what evidence it has offered that noncitizens cast them, or the court's reasoning in full. It also does not say whether any panel member dissented. Those details would matter in judging how strong the department's position is.
What the ruling does establish is narrower: the department did not get the emergency, expedited relief it asked for. The underlying lawsuit remains pending, and the question of whether California must treat these ballots differently has not been finally decided.
Because ballot processing is continuing while the case proceeds, further rulings on the disputed ballots are likely. Watch for the court's fuller reasoning, any filings from the department explaining its count, and whether California's processing outpaces the litigation.
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur Google News ↗
Politics & Governance