Judge Rejects Trump Administration's Bid to Block California Ballots

What Happened

On October 29, 2026, US District Judge David Carter rejected a request by the Justice Department to temporarily block California from counting mail ballots from over 20,000 registered voters who the department alleges are likely noncitizens.

The decision marks the latest setback for President Donald Trump's effort to boost the federal government's role in elections ahead of the November 3 midterms, with his Republican Party locked in a tight battle to retain control of both houses of Congress.

The Justice Department's lawsuit, filed on October 15, was a rare intervention in the voting process weeks before an election and signaled the Trump administration's willingness to contest the midterm results in court.

What the Evidence Establishes

Judge Carter's decision was based on the constitutional principle that states have control over their elections, and that the Justice Department's last-minute request to exclude over 20,000 ballots ran afoul of this principle.

The judge noted that the Justice Department's assertions relied on 'suspect data' and that complying with its demands would risk disenfranchising eligible voters.

California has said the state's safeguards against noncitizen voting are robust, and that the Justice Department's methods for scrutinizing state voter lists to identify noncitizen voters risk wrongly flagging naturalized citizens for removal from the rolls.

Where the Accounts Conflict

The Trump administration has repeatedly insisted that states are not doing enough to stop voting by noncitizens, which he says is widespread despite multiple studies and state audits showing it is rare.

The Justice Department has argued that a restraining order is necessary to ensure that California does not impede prosecutors' ability to enforce a federal law that makes it illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.

However, Judge Carter noted that the Justice Department never explained why counting ballots would impair any prosecutions under the law, as states are not required to help the federal government investigate and prosecute crimes.

Context and Stakes

The ruling comes as the Trump administration expands efforts to search for alleged noncitizen voters, with subpoenas issued in at least 13 states.

The decision has significant implications for the upcoming midterm elections, with the Republican Party fighting to retain control of both houses of Congress.

California is the most populous US state and a Democratic stronghold, with 52 seats in the House of Representatives, more than any other state.

The Trump administration's efforts to intervene in elections in California and other states have raised concerns among voting rights activists, who argue that the federal government's methods for scrutinizing state voter lists risk disenfranchising eligible voters.

What to Watch Next

The Justice Department has appealed Judge Carter's decision to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case is likely to be closely watched in the coming days.

Additionally, the Trump administration's efforts to intervene in elections in other states, such as Alaska and Washington, will be closely monitored.

Voting rights activists will also be watching to see how the federal government's methods for scrutinizing state voter lists are implemented, and whether they will lead to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

Bottom Line

Judge Carter's ruling is a significant setback for the Trump administration's efforts to expand the federal government's role in elections, and highlights the importance of protecting the constitutional principle of state control over elections.

The decision also underscores the need for careful scrutiny of the federal government's methods for scrutinizing state voter lists, to ensure that they do not disenfranchise eligible voters.

As the midterm elections approach, it is essential to ensure that the voting process is fair, secure, and accessible to all eligible voters, and that the federal government's efforts to intervene in elections do not undermine the integrity of the democratic process.