News Analysis · October 28, 2026

Judge Weighs DOJ Bid to Set Aside California Ballots

Permanent article number: 102826027   Find another article by number

A federal judge’s scrutiny of the DOJ’s emergency request to hold ballots while voter citizenship is checked. Confidence 3/5

Original article being examined

Published by: Democracy Docket

Judge questions DOJ on emergency bid to block California ballot counting: 'Go out and indict' - Democracy Docket — Read the exact original

Original reporting and source documents

Open the reporting and original documents used for this article. These include evidence sources; not every link is necessarily the original claim being examined.

Evidence and accountability

Archive transparency: this article has not yet completed the site's newer independent fact-audit process. Its source links are provided below. Do not treat allegations, commentary, or a rating as a legal finding.

Questions sent by Radical Reading Room

These requests have a recorded outbound message ID and send time. A request for comment does not establish that its recipient read the message.

U.S. Department of Justice — Public professional press contact
Question: What criteria and methods did the Department of Justice use to identify the approximately 20,000 individuals suspected of being noncitizens and having submitted ballots in California?
Contacted: October 28, 2026 at 7:02 PM (server time).
Status: Response pending; no substantive response recorded.

No verified accountability finding This archive item is sourced reporting, not a finding that a claim is false or misleading.
Judge Weighs DOJ Bid to Set Aside California Ballots

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter heard arguments in Los Angeles on Oct. 27 over the Justice Department’s request for an emergency order requiring California to set aside ballots from about 20,000 people the department suspects are noncitizens. The ballots would be held until voters’ citizenship could be verified. Carter said he would rule on the request the following day.

Carter pressed the government on the legal basis for sequestering ballots and raised concern that the requested change could disenfranchise eligible voters while election processing was underway. He pointed to criminal prosecution as a traditional remedy for suspected unlawful voting, rather than stopping ballots from being counted. The request would temporarily prevent officials from processing or counting the flagged ballots.

DOJ attorney Bill Essayli argued that the federal government’s intervention was needed to address suspected illegal voting. California officials disputed the department’s approach, questioning how it identified the people on its list and warning that setting aside ballots could affect eligible voters. The judge’s questions left the request unresolved at the end of the hearing; he did not issue an immediate ruling.

Carter also indicated interest in a later hearing with expert testimony from both sides. He noted California’s Dec. 3 deadline for certifying election results as a date relevant to resolving the dispute. The department is seeking a temporary restriction while citizenship is checked, not a final determination that every person on its list is ineligible. The court’s ruling on the emergency request was expected Oct. 28.

Reporting sources

Sources used for this report

These are the source links stored with this report when it was published. Open them directly to inspect the underlying reporting or primary document.

Reader action

Follow the court record

Read the filed complaint, order, or opinion and follow the docket as the case develops. Share the primary documents when explaining what the court has—and has not—decided.

This card only appears on stories where there is a concrete, lawful, worthwhile step a reader can actually take.

Comments

Read the discussion freely. Posting and voting require a verified member account. Every comment and reply is screened by AI before publication. Clear spam and abuse are blocked; only strongly cleared comments publish automatically, while uncertain drafts wait for moderator review. Civil factual disagreement alone is not grounds for rejection.

Log in to comment or join free to take part.


No comments yet. Be the first reasonably on-topic person here.