USAupdated 1h ago3 min read
Archive photo · 3 August 2024Judge David O. Carter Warns Trump Administration Against Disenfranchising California Voters
“it would be too rushed to make a decision without an independent special master”
“appointing a special master to dig into the data provided by both the federal government and Los Angeles County”
Photo: Alexis Doine, CC0 · Cropped for layout
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
Judge David O. Carter questioned the DOJ's demand to set aside 20,000 California ballots. He warned the move could disenfranchise voters during the midterm, delaying final ruling.
Carter weighs ballots
A federal judge in California signaled skepticism about the Trump administration’s demand that California election officials set aside 20,000 ballots tied to alleged noncitizens, warning that “Some of these may be very valid voters, and that’s my concern about disenfranchisement,” U.S. District Judge David O. Carter said in court.
Carter said he was likely to appoint a special master to weigh evidence presented at a hearing in two weeks, and he told the courtroom he was “likely going to appoint a special master to weigh the evidence both sides present at a hearing in two weeks.”
Carter also warned that any threats to election workers should stop, telling the courtroom, “This court believes it would be wise that any threats to state or county (election) employees cease immediately.”
Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, acknowledged the government’s list of 20,000 people may include citizens, but he argued that the risk of illegal voting was too great, saying, “I would ask the state how many illegal votes is OK for them?”
The Justice Department’s California lawsuit sought a temporary restraining order forcing the state to comply with a 48-hour deadline to set aside ballots from up to 20,000 people flagged as possible noncitizens until citizenship could be verified.
Lists expand to Washington
Federal prosecutors in Washington state asked the state’s top election official to set aside ballots from more than 400 people they believe are not U.S. citizens, with Neil Floyd saying, “This is not the full number of noncitizens who have been voting in Washington,” and Pete Serrano joining the request. Floyd said the Justice Department’s list was “only the tip of the iceberg,” and he estimated that more than 1,500 ballots had been illegally cast. Steve Hobbs confirmed his office received the letter from the Justice Department but raised concerns about the accuracy of the list, saying, “We take our responsibility to protect voter information seriously and will only respond to requests that follow due process.”
The Justice Department’s demands in Washington came as the administration also pursued California, and CNN described the administration sending multiple states lists of alleged noncitizen voters in the closing days of the midterms. CNN said the demands were a “recipe for disenfranchisement” in court arguments, quoting Anna Baldwin as saying, “This is a deeply troubling process, that is trying to use social security numbers that they’ve glued to the voter file, to go fishing for anyone who has an alien number.”
Special master and stakes
In California, AP reported that Carter was considering appointing a special master to evaluate the Trump administration’s claims that California has some 20,000 noncitizens on its voter rolls and to determine whether counties could separate ballots belonging to ineligible voters.
Carter said it would be too rushed to decide without an independent special master, and he emphasized that the evaluation could be completed before the state’s Dec. 11 deadline to certify election results.
Carter also pressed the federal government on why it was suing rather than pursuing criminal cases, telling Essayli, “You got a remedy for goodness sakes — go out and indict.”
NBC News reported that the Justice Department gave Washington election officials 24 hours to review a list for citizenship records, and it quoted Hobbs criticizing the timing as “no doubt intended to cast unfounded suspicion on the results.”
Across the cases, the Justice Department’s approach hinged on whether its lists were accurate enough to justify setting aside ballots, while the California dispute centered on whether counties could separate ballots in time and whether the federal government’s data was outdated or flawed.
