Politics news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Justice Department drops bid to force California to set aside disputed ballots
The US Justice Department has asked to dismiss its lawsuit seeking to stop California from counting about 20,000 ballots it said may have been cast by non-citizens. The decision came days after Republican losses in the midterm elections and shortly before a hearing on the accuracy of the federal list used to identify the disputed ballots.
California officials say the list is out of date and includes eligible voters. A judge had allowed the election to proceed, warning that separating ballots could disenfranchise citizens; ballots are anonymised once processed. California had processed about 9 million of its roughly 14 million ballots by Friday, with nearly 5 million still to count. The Justice Department says it will pursue other election-law cases and is supporting a separate lawsuit over California’s voter rolls.
In short
- Justice Department seeks to drop its challenge to about 20,000 California ballots.
- California says the list of suspected non-citizens includes legitimate voters.
- About 5 million ballots remained to be counted on Friday.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The Justice Department could argue that election officials have a duty to investigate credible indications that non-citizens voted, since accurate voter rolls and lawful ballot counting protect public confidence and ensure votes are counted under the rules. Seeking to preserve disputed ballots while a court examines the federal list could be seen as a precaution, with the broader aim of enforcing election law rather than assuming every flagged ballot was unlawful.
The case against
California officials and other critics could argue that the list is outdated and wrongly flags eligible citizens, so acting on it risks excluding lawful votes without reliable evidence. Because ballots become anonymous once processed, setting aside ballots could also create practical and constitutional problems; the judge’s concern was that citizens might be disenfranchised before the list’s accuracy had been tested.