admin
The Ninth Circuit this week refused the Justice Department’s emergency appeal asking California and Los Angeles County to set aside roughly 20,000 mail ballots the federal government says may have been sent to noncitizens. The three‑judge panel said it lacked jurisdiction to grant the rushed relief and faulted the DOJ’s last‑minute timing while counties were already processing millions of ballots.
What the court actually did — and didn’t do
Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett and Circuit Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez formed the majority. They said the appeals court should not step in before the district court had a fair chance to weigh the government’s emergency request. They also leaned on the Purcell principle — courts should avoid changing election rules right before ballots are counted. Circuit Judge Patrick J. Bumatay dissented, arguing the federal government has a clear interest in stopping illegal voting.
Timing, token lists, and the question of seriousness
No one should pretend the situation is tidy. The Department of Justice produced a list of roughly 20,000 registrants it says are “likely” noncitizens after the Department of Homeland Security reported a much larger possible problem. Counties like Los Angeles had already processed hundreds of thousands of mail ballots when the DOJ asked for emergency action. That messy mix of late evidence and large, ongoing processing created real practical problems — and the court seized on that mess to punt.
Did the court protect voters or paper over a problem?
Here’s the conservative truth people in both parties should admit: protecting election integrity and protecting voting access aren’t mutually exclusive, but you can’t do either well by hiding behind procedure when bad things might be happening. The Ninth Circuit’s majority focused on timing and disruption. Fine — but timing was in part of the government’s own making, and California’s universal mail‑ballot system makes last‑minute fixes hard. If the rule is “no rescue missions near Election Day,” then bad data and lax rolls will always get a pass.
Where this goes next and what should happen
The case goes back to the district court, and the DOJ can seek rehearing en banc or, if needed, take the fight higher. That’s the right move. Republicans and conservatives who care about lawful elections should push for swift, careful fact‑finding — not applause for an appellate dodge. At the same time, California officials like the Attorney General and Secretary of State should stop acting as if process alone equals truth and start fixing voter rolls and verification now.
In short: the Ninth Circuit avoided a big mess today, but it didn’t solve the underlying problem. If we are serious about secure, lawful elections, courts and officials must stop treating timing and technicalities as shields. Otherwise the question won’t be whether ballots were counted — it will be whether anyone cared to check.
