A federal judge is questioning a Justice Department plan to set aside about 20,000 ballots in California. The move comes just days before the state’s election. The government claims the ballots may be linked to people who are not U.S. citizens.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter heard arguments in the case on Tuesday. He showed doubt about the government’s request for urgent court action. He also said he plans to appoint a special master to review how the Justice Department created its list of people it calls likely noncitizens.
The judge’s move is a setback for the Trump administration. The government wants quick action to change how California handles the ballots. But Carter questioned whether such a major step was right so close to election day.
The judge did not make a final ruling at the end of the hearing. He said he would issue an order on the next steps in the case by Wednesday. The court has not yet told California to separate the ballots.
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit to force California to take action over the voter records. It wants state officials to set aside roughly 20,000 ballots tied to people it believes may not be citizens. The department says federal law does not allow noncitizens to vote in federal elections.
Bill Essayli, a Trump-appointed leader in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, defended the government’s request. He told the court that the administration was trying to ensure the state follows federal law.
The government says its case is about enforcing rules that protect the voting process. It argues that ballots linked to likely noncitizens need special attention. Yet the judge’s questions suggest that the court wants more details about the list and how it was made.
California officials and lawyers against the lawsuit raised concerns about the government’s plan. They said the case could weaken the role of states in running elections. They argued that the Constitution and long-standing legal rules give states key control over election work.
They also warned that the timing could cause serious problems. Election staff are already working to process ballots and count votes. A sudden order to separate thousands of ballots could add new steps and delay the final count.
The dispute is also about how the state should handle ballots when officials are close to reporting results. Opponents say the government’s plan could cause confusion and lead to more legal fights. They fear that the process could become harder for local election workers and voters to understand.
Carter’s plan to appoint a special master could play a key role in the case. The official would review the process used to build the list of about 20,000 people. That review may help the judge decide whether the list supports the urgent action the Justice Department seeks.
The court has not yet made a finding that the people on the list are noncitizens. The government’s claims remain at the center of the legal dispute. The review could help clarify how the names were chosen and what evidence supports the claims.
The judge also raised concern about letters sent by the administration to election officials across California. The letters suggested that officials could face prosecution if they helped count ballots that might be tied to people on the list.
Carter said the court believed that threats against elected state and county workers should stop at once. His remarks came as the hearing ended. They showed concern about the pressure that such warnings could place on officials who must carry out their election duties.
Election workers have to follow the law while counting votes and checking records. Threats of prosecution could add stress to a process that is already under close public watch. The judge’s warning added another point of concern for the administration.
The case is part of a wider legal debate over federal power and state control of elections. The Justice Department says it is acting to enforce voting laws. California and other opponents say the lawsuit could disrupt election work and challenge the state’s role in managing its vote.
The next court order will help decide how the case moves forward. Carter may set rules for the planned review and determine whether the government can seek emergency relief before the election. Until then, California has not been ordered to separate the ballots.
The dispute leaves key questions about the government’s list, the timing of its request and the impact on election staff. The judge’s planned review may offer a clearer view of those issues as the case continues.
