Midterm Election: Supreme Court declines to pause California mail-in vote count

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to intervene in a dispute over mail-in ballots in California, leaving the state's current vote count intact ahead of Tuesday's midterm elections. The justices refused to pause the counting process for approximately 20,000 voters whose citizenship status is being questioned by the federal government.

The decision came in a case brought by the Department of Justice, which asked the court to set aside the challenged ballots until the voters' citizenship could be verified. The administration argued that separating these votes was a modest measure that would allow legal ballots to be counted later. The high court did not provide a written explanation for its denial, a practice common in emergency docket decisions.

The administration has prioritized identifying noncitizen voters on state rolls this year. Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles maintained that the people on the list were not entitled to vote. Bill Essayli, the federal prosecutor leading the Justice Department's Los Angeles office, told reporters that the agency was highly confident in its findings. He stated that the list was not a theory or speculation, though he later conceded that errors might exist within the data.

California officials argue that the list provided by the federal government contains numerous errors. Setting aside the ballots now could effectively disenfranchise legal voters who have already mailed in their votes. The state's election officials have stated that it is logistically impossible to locate and separate the challenged ballots from the hundreds of thousands already processed. Voting in California has been underway since early October, with roughly 23 million registered voters receiving mailed ballots.

Lower courts have consistently sided with California in this dispute. A district court judge previously denied the Justice Department's initial request, warning that the move could disenfranchise citizens. That judge, David O. Carter, wrote that allowing the executive branch to discount votes based on unproven allegations puts democracy in danger. A two-judge majority on the appeals court panel upheld Carter's order, rejecting the administration's bid for an early intervention.

The legal battle extended to a separate ruling on Monday from a federal judge in Washington. Chief Judge James Boasberg ruled that the administration's last-minute demands of California election officials likely violated the U.S. Constitution. Boasberg wrote that the Elections Clause commits authority over election rules solely to the states and Congress. The judge found that the executive branch's actions infringed on this constitutional division of power.

During a hearing on a separate issue regarding threats to prosecute election workers, District Court Judge Trina Thompson questioned the accuracy of the Justice Department's data. She asked Kenneth Kao, a Justice Department attorney, if he agreed there was a high error rate in the list provided. Kao responded that it was a fair statement and that the agency asked for help from state registrars to verify the voters. The administration has faced criticism for waiting until weeks before the election to present the list, which its own officials admit is not entirely reliable.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, described the Supreme Court appeal as an attempt to undermine the elections. He said the move reeks of desperation. The Supreme Court's refusal to step in is the latest development in a series of election-related litigation cases decided just before the midterms. These elections will determine the balance of power in Congress for the final two years of President Donald Trump's second term.