Judge Carter halts Bill Essayli’s unlawful bid to block ballots

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

Bill Essayli seeks to substitute political will for established electoral procedure. As the top U.S. prosecutor in southern California, he sued the state. He moved to force officials to set aside 20,000 ballots. He alleged these voters were likely noncitizens. The law disregards the score to preserve the rules.

By seeking a temporary restraining order on the eve of an election, he disrupted the process. A temporary restraining order is a short-term mandate to preserve the status quo. The Department of Justice based its suit on a list of names.

The failure of the federal list

According to NBC News, the government first cited 190,000 suspect voters in July. By October, that number dropped to 20,000. This volatility suggests a process of convenience rather than a process of law.

In Nevada, the government identified 15,903 registered voters as noncitizens. It later reduced that number to 185. Officials confirmed all 185 individuals were citizens.

Judge David Carter saw this pattern. He wrote that the request would wreak havoc. While the judge's language is broad, his focus on procedural finality is sound.

He stated that states must have control over their elections. Once a ballot is separated from its envelope, it cannot be retrieved. To segregate them is to destroy the process.

A record of political signaling

The lawsuit is not an isolated event. It is the latest entry in a professional ledger defined by aggression. The Guardian reports that since spring 2025, Essayli’s office has prosecuted 113 people.

In that group, 33 charges were dismissed. Nine people were acquitted by juries. This hit rate is a failure of prosecutorial discretion.

Four people were found guilty at trial. Thirteen people pleaded guilty to felonies. A judge dismissed one case with prejudice after finding the government acted in bad faith.

A dismissal with prejudice is a final ruling that prevents refiling. Essayli also pursued takedowns in MacArthur Park and Skid Row. In one case, a defendant was accused of selling 0.4 grams of meth for $20.

In the Skid Row cases, a man was jailed for two nights. The government then realized the complaint had a photo of the wrong person. This is the work of a prosecutor seeking a headline.

The cost of institutional overreach

Reports from July 2025 indicate the office lost one-third of its legal staff. Former prosecutor Julius Nam stated that internal policies were being bent. This serves political statements rather than the mission of justice.

This is the same mechanism at work in Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. That case involves the 2026 Wisconsin gubernatorial election. It features David Crowley and Tom Tiffany as nominees.

This effort mirrors the 2020 United States presidential election. In that contest, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris defeated Donald Trump. It follows the pattern of the 2022 United States House of Representatives elections. Those elections involved all 435 U.S. congressional districts.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judge Carter. Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez wrote that the government cannot dictate to a state legislature. A federal judge also ruled that Essayli was acting unlawfully as a de facto United States attorney.

The term de facto describes an official acting without lawful authority. The Ninth Circuit will likely uphold the denial of the temporary restraining order. California will certify its results without segregating the 20,000 ballots.

Legitimacy is a capital stock that spends fast and refills slowly. By treating the Department of Justice as a campaign arm, Essayli has spent more than he can ever replace.

Judge Carter halts Bill Essayli’s unlawful bid to block ballots

The failure of the federal list

A record of political signaling

The cost of institutional overreach

Sources