Judge Carter blocks federal interference in California ballots

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta · October 29, 2026

Judge David Carter rightly rejected a Department of Justice bid to halt California ballots, refusing to let executive overreach substitute administrative whim for statutory command.

The executive overreach and the judicial check

U.S. District Judge David Carter denied an emergency request by the Department of Justice to segregate thousands of California ballots in the midterm elections, as reported by NPR and CNN. The DOJ requested that California election officials stop processing ballots for 20,000 individuals the agency identified as "likely" noncitizens. Judge Carter, a Clinton appointee, issued a ruling on Wednesday evening denying the request for a temporary restraining order. His holding rests on a proper understanding of structural limits. "Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch," Judge Carter wrote.

The administration’s push is the direct operational result of Executive Order 14399, which laid the groundwork for Postal Service rules. This regulatory machinery empowered the Justice Department to demand citizenship verification protocols through emergency litigation. Yet, as The Guardian and ABC News detailed, the government delivered a USB drive with a password handwritten on a Post-it note to election officials in Los Angeles and Sacramento, giving them a mere 48 hours to act. Local officials reviewed the list. They found that a significant portion of the names were either not on the rolls, in a suspended status, or belonged to individuals born in the United States.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 restricts the timing and process by which states may remove ineligible voters from official rolls. Judge Carter correctly observed that the federal request would likely violate this statute, which prohibits states from removing registered voters from the voter rolls unless certain criteria are met. "A ballot segregated, in effect, would be a ballot removed," he wrote. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 limits how states handle voter rolls to prevent arbitrary disenfranchisement. Basic principles of federalism stop the executive branch from inventing ad-hoc administrative hurdles on the eve of voting.

The danger of procedural shortcuts

The Department of Justice and its defenders argue that swift action is necessary to protect election integrity and prevent illegal voting by noncitizens. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, wrote on X that "every day, more ballots are processed by election officials." "This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution." This argument misapprehends both the record and the remedy. The DOJ has charged dozens of people in recent months for registering or voting without U.S. citizenship, including 28 green card holders in California. The federal government possesses adequate post-hoc criminal statutes to prosecute illegal voting without seizing or discarding ballots from eligible U.S. citizens.

Judge Carter addressed this directly, noting that the federal government may address the issue by continuing to indict individuals for the crime of illegally voting as noncitizens. "The United States does not explain why Defendants continuing to count ballots impairs any present or future prosecution," he wrote. To accept the government's shortcut is to endorse a rule that only works while your people hold power. If an administration can manufacture an emergency using a purchased list of voters matched with flawed government data, then any future executive can do the same to any state it targets.

As Clarín reported, Judge Carter stated that people on California's electoral rolls "no deben ser privadas de un derecho fundamental a causa de acusaciones infundadas procedentes de un procedimiento lastrado por la incertidumbre y los errores." Jonathan Miller, chief program officer at the Public Rights Project and counsel for Los Angeles County, put it plainly: "Tonight's decision makes clear that the federal government's actions are election interference." A preliminary analysis by Los Angeles County indicated many individuals on the DOJ's list do not have active voter registrations. A small sample showed a significant portion stated in records they were born in the U.S. Nicolas Bartell, a senior official with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, acknowledged in court filings that even among the sampled individuals, four "might have a claim to U.S. citizenship." Kassra Oskooi, a political scientist and expert witness, declared that the USCIS matching protocol "is likely to be unreliable."

The enduring cost of legitimacy

Legitimacy is a capital stock that spends fast and refills slowly. When the executive branch attempts to upend state-run elections using unverified data and rushed litigation, it draws down that stock past the point of safety. The temptation to bend procedure for an immediate political advantage is perennial, but the institutional cost is always borne by the rule of law.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote that "this litigation is a precursor to further interference here in California." The court "must not be drawn into this chilling degradation of democratic values and constitutional principles." Judge Carter echoed this warning, writing that "eroded trust in our democracy is irreparable." "Once a vote is segregated, lasting harm has occurred." "If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger." "This Court declines to be a party to such process."

Following the denial, the DOJ filed a notice of appeal. Bill Essayli stated he would seek an emergency order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The legal machinery will grind forward, but the underlying principle remains untouched by their petitions. A rule that permits the executive to halt an election on the strength of a password on a Post-it note is no rule at all. Judge Carter got the law right because he judged the process. He refused to let an executive branch agency substitute administrative whim for statutory command.

Judge Carter blocks federal interference in California ballots

The executive overreach and the judicial check

The danger of procedural shortcuts

The enduring cost of legitimacy

Sources