Judges skeptical of Trump administration effort for force California to set aside mail ballots

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty Images

A three-judge US Circuit Court of Appeals panel expressed significant skepticism Sunday over the Justice Department’s desire to inject itself into California’s midterm vote-counting process by forcing election officials to set aside the votes of suspected noncitizens who have been issued mail ballots.

During a highly unusual emergency hearing, 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals Judge Mark Bennett told a Justice Department attorney that California appears to have legal authority to handle its elections on its own, and that the fact that Congress passed a criminal law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal and state elections doesn’t mean the Justice Department has authority to regulate California’s voting process.

The legal action in California is one of many steps the Trump administration has taken as voting is underway in the midterm elections to try to help prove President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of massive voter fraud. This past week, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in Alaska, seeking to block certification of the election of incumbent GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, because a candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan is also on the ballot.

Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, on Sunday both questioned the Justice Department’s decision to appeal to the 9th Circuit before the US District Court in California, where the case was originally filed, had held a hearing. They also pressed DOJ attorney Matthew Donnelly about the reliability of the Trump administration’s claims that there are 20,000 noncitizens on California’s voter rolls, information the DOJ has said came from a purchased list of voters and analyzed by third parties.

The Trump administration is attempting to convince the court that it should be able to immediately change California’s ballot processing because of a fear that noncitizens could have sent in votes. The state has already processed more than 300,000 midterm ballots.

But at least two of the three judges on the panel disputed the argument that federal law trumps the Constitution giving the power of running elections primarily to the states.

“It seems to me that under the Elections Clause, they have the right to determine the manner of the elections, including sorting out noncitizens,” Bennett said during the hearing, which was held over videoconference and broadcast on YouTube.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, appeared more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s argument, questioning attorneys for California and Los Angeles County about how noncitizens are investigated on the voter rolls. He also asked about DOJ’s suggestion in court filings that not setting aside mail-in ballots would keep California from ever learning whether noncitizens illegally voted in the midterms.

Sunday’s emergency hearing was the Trump administration’s sharpest effort to date to inject itself into a state’s midterm elections. DOJ sued California and Los Angeles County earlier this month, seeking to prevent officials from counting more than 20,000 mail-in ballots associated with people the government believes are likely noncitizens.

Samuel Siegal, an attorney arguing on behalf of California and the secretary of state, argued Sunday that the Justice Department was asking the court “to short-circuit the democratic process” while California’s election was already underway.

Beyond the constitutional issues, Bennett and Sanchez both questioned why the judges should rely on the Justice Department’s claims that 20,000 noncitizens were on the voter rolls, pressing Donnelly to explain how the administration came up with that number and why it should be relied upon to take extraordinary action.

“Your claims very much depend on the reliability of that list,” Sanchez said.

Siegal argued that the Trump administration’s list of alleged noncitizens voters was unreliable, saying it isn’t clear where the Trump administration’s list came from and that the data being used was “wildly outdated.”

“This is coming against the backdrop of the federal government compiling similar lists, and those also demonstrate having been demonstrably unreliable,” Siegal said.

Donnelly offered little clarity about why the administration believes 20,000 names on a list of California voters may include noncitizens, and how that list became part of the emergency hearing.

The Trump administration “was supplied a list that was purchased” from California, Donnelly said.

Donnelly argued that the DOJ’s briefs, including sworn declarations from Department of Homeland Security officials about their process for learning about noncitizen voters they say helped solidify the list, should be reliable enough to warrant segregating the ballots in question. He argued they are in an emergency situation because midterm ballots are being counted, and the administration isn’t asking to throw out votes and instead just set aside ballots the federal government would like to question.

The judges also questioned why the Justice Department took its case to the appellate court before the district court ruled. Donnelly responded that DOJ had asked for a ruling ahead of a hearing schedule for this week because more than 300,000 mail ballots had already been processed.

Bumatay questioned Siegal about whether California would be able to know whether noncitizens voted without an injunction, if the ballots are processed.

“We would respectfully disagree with that because of the number of steps that people have to take to attest to their citizenship,” Siegal argued.

Bennett asked Donnelly whether the appeals court needed to rule ahead of a planned hearing in district court Tuesday. Donnelly argued the court should rule as soon as possible, because voting is still ongoing in the state.

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty Images

周日，美国巡回上诉法院一个由三名法官组成的小组对司法部试图干预加州中期选举计票过程表示了极大的怀疑，司法部此举强迫选举官员搁置已收到邮寄选票的疑似非公民的选票。

在一次极其罕见的紧急听证会上，美国第九巡回上诉法院法官马克·贝内特告诉司法部律师，加利福尼亚州似乎有法律权力自行处理其选举，国会通过了一项禁止非公民在联邦和州选举中投票的刑事法律，但这并不意味着司法部有权监管加利福尼亚州的投票过程。

在加州提起的法律诉讼是特朗普政府在中期选举投票期间采取的众多举措之一，旨在帮助证实唐纳德·特朗普总统毫无根据的大规模选民舞弊指控。上周，司法部在阿拉斯加提起诉讼，试图阻止现任共和党参议员丹·沙利文败选的选举结果认证，因为另一位名叫丹尼尔·J·沙利文的候选人也出现在选票上。

周日，特朗普任命的法官贝内特和拜登任命的法官加布里埃尔·桑切斯都对司法部在加州联邦地区法院（该案最初由该法院受理）举行听证会之前就向第九巡回上诉法院提起上诉的决定提出质疑。他们还就特朗普政府关于加州选民名册上有2万名非公民的说法向司法部律师马修·唐纳利施压，司法部称该信息来自购买的选民名单，并由第三方进行了分析。

特朗普政府试图说服法院，由于担心非公民可能投递了选票，因此应该有权立即更改加利福尼亚州的选票处理流程。该州已经处理了超过30万张中期选举选票。

但该小组的三名法官中至少有两名对联邦法律凌驾于宪法之上，并将选举权主要赋予各州的论点提出异议。

“在我看来，根据选举条款，他们有权决定选举的方式，包括排除非公民，”贝内特在听证会上说。此次听证会通过视频会议举行，并在 YouTube 上直播。

特朗普任命的法官帕特里克·布马泰似乎更倾向于特朗普政府的论点，他质问加利福尼亚州和洛杉矶县的律师，如何对选民名册上的非公民进行调查。他还询问了司法部在法庭文件中提出的建议，即如果不搁置邮寄选票，加利福尼亚州将永远无法得知是否有非公民在中期选举中非法投票。

周日的紧急听证会是特朗普政府迄今为止最强硬地干预各州中期选举的举措。本月初，司法部起诉加利福尼亚州和洛杉矶县，试图阻止官员清点超过2万张邮寄选票，政府认为这些选票的持有者很可能不是公民。

代表加利福尼亚州和州务卿的律师塞缪尔·西格尔周日辩称，司法部要求法院“绕过民主进程”，而加利福尼亚州的选举已经开始。

除了宪法问题之外，贝内特和桑切斯都质疑法官们为何要依赖司法部关于选民名册上有 2 万名非公民的说法，并敦促唐纳利解释政府是如何得出这个数字的，以及为何应该依赖这个数字采取非常规行动。

桑切斯说：“你的说法很大程度上取决于这份名单的可靠性。”

西格尔认为，特朗普政府公布的所谓非公民选民名单不可靠，称目前尚不清楚特朗普政府的名单来源，而且所使用的数据“严重过时”。

“与此同时，联邦政府也在编制类似的名单，而这些名单也明显不可靠，”西格尔说。

唐纳利并未明确说明政府为何认为加州选民名单上的 20,000 个名字可能包含非公民，以及该名单如何成为紧急听证会的一部分。

唐纳利说，特朗普政府“收到了一份从加利福尼亚州购买的名单”。

唐纳利辩称，司法部提交的简报，包括国土安全部官员关于他们如何了解非公民选民的宣誓证词（他们声称这些证词有助于最终确定名单），应该足够可靠，足以证明将这些有争议的选票单独存放是合理的。他辩称，由于中期选举选票正在计票，情况紧急，而且政府并非要求作废选票，而只是将联邦政府想要质疑的选票单独存放。

法官们还质疑司法部为何在地区法院作出裁决前就将此案上诉至上诉法院。唐纳利回应称，司法部要求在原定于本周举行的听证会之前获得裁决，因为已有超过30万张邮寄选票被处理完毕。

布马泰质问西格尔，如果选票得到处理，加州是否能够在没有禁令的情况下知道非公民是否投票。

“我们对此表示异议，因为人们需要采取很多步骤来证明自己的公民身份，”西格尔辩称。

贝内特询问唐纳利，上诉法院是否需要在周二地区法院举行听证会之前做出裁决。唐纳利辩称，法院应尽快做出裁决，因为该州的投票仍在进行中。