Judge to appoint special master in California voting case in setback to DOJ’s attempt to quickly intervene

Judge to Appoint Special Master in California Voting Case

Cyberzenhub.com – A federal judge is expected to appoint a special master to review the Justice Department’s list of roughly 20,000 registered California voters it says may be noncitizens. The decision is a setback for the department’s effort to quickly require the state to separate ballots connected to those names before the election.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter heard arguments Tuesday in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against California. The department is seeking emergency relief that could affect the treatment of mail ballots ahead of the November 3 midterm election.

Rather than immediately granting the request, Carter raised concerns about imposing significant changes while voting is already underway. The judge to appoint special master approach would allow for independent scrutiny of how the federal government created its voter list.

Justice Department Seeks Emergency Election Order

The Justice Department filed the case earlier this month, alleging that California failed to investigate people on its list who received mail ballots. Federal law bars noncitizens from voting, and government lawyers argued that election officials should act immediately to ensure ballots linked to the listed names are not counted.

Bill Essayli, the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, told the court that the administration was seeking enforcement of federal voting restrictions. The requested order would require California to set aside approximately 20,000 ballots while the lawsuit continues.

California officials and legal advocates opposed to the lawsuit argued that the request came too close to Election Day. They warned that requiring workers to identify and isolate ballots during tabulation could disrupt the state’s election process in the days and weeks after voting concludes.

Accuracy of Voter List Under Review

The accuracy of the Justice Department’s list is central to the dispute. Los Angeles officials said in court filings that an initial review of 200 names found that a substantial share of those contacted said they were born in the United States. Officials also said many people in that sample had no voting record.

That limited review does not settle the question for every person on the list. Still, it illustrates why Carter indicated that he would have a neutral expert examine the information before deciding whether emergency action affecting ballots is justified.

A special master is a court-appointed neutral who helps a judge address complex factual or procedural questions. If the judge to appoint special master plan moves forward, that review could examine the records used to compile the list and the reliability of the conclusions drawn from them.

Carter had not ruled on the Justice Department’s request for a temporary restraining order by the end of the hearing. He said he expected to issue an order by Wednesday outlining the next steps in the litigation.

Judge Warns Against Threats to Election Workers

Near the end of Tuesday’s hearing, Carter also addressed letters the administration sent to California state officials. The letters suggested that people involved in counting ballots tied to the disputed list could face prosecution.

This court believes it would be wise that any threats to state and county elected employees cease immediately.

The judge’s comments underscored his concern about the pressure placed on election administrators while the factual dispute remains unresolved.

California Voting Case FAQ

What does a special master do?

A special master is an independent person appointed by a court to investigate or manage complicated issues. In this case, the person could review how the Justice Department identified voters as likely noncitizens.

Will California ballots be separated immediately?

No final ruling on the Justice Department’s emergency request had been issued at the close of the hearing. Carter’s decision to seek further review suggests that the court wants more information before ordering changes to ballot handling.

Why is the timing important?

The case was brought while voting and election preparations were already in progress. California officials argued that a late court order could interfere with ballot counting and the state’s administration of the election.