News Analysis · October 28, 2026

Federal Judge Rejects Request to Segregate California Ballots

Permanent article number: 102826042   Find another article by number

A federal court’s rejection of a request to segregate ballots, focusing on the competing concerns about verifying voter eligibility and avoiding disruption or disenfranchisement. Confidence 3/5

Original article being examined

Published by: wtop.com

Judge denies federal request to segregate California ballots, says it would ‘wreak havoc’ on voting — 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. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — Public professional press contact
Question: What is the immigration status of the approximately 20,000 individuals flagged as likely noncitizens on California's voter rolls?
Contacted: October 29, 2026 at 2:53 AM (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.
Federal Judge Rejects Request to Segregate California Ballots

A federal judge on Wednesday, Oct. 28, rejected the Trump administration’s request to stop California from processing ballots from as many as 20,000 people whom the federal government alleged were likely noncitizens. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter warned that segregating ballots during the ongoing election could disrupt voting. More than 3.7 million people had already voted in the state, according to the reports.

The administration had asked Carter to require California to wait before counting the ballots until the voters’ immigration status could be verified. The request followed a federal lawsuit filed in mid-October accusing state election officials of failing to meet a 48-hour deadline to review a list of 20,000 people the administration alleged were likely noncitizens on the voter rolls.

Carter said separating ballots at this stage would require counties to develop new sorting methods and risk disenfranchising voters. He reasoned that the request would have an effect similar to purging voters and would violate the National Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on changes to voter rolls within 90 days of an election. The ruling rejected the government’s demand; it did not determine whether the people named in its allegations were citizens.

The Justice Department said it would immediately appeal. The administration’s stated aim was to hold the ballots until immigration status could be checked, while Carter concluded that segregation itself could harm voters and disrupt an election already underway. The appeal was announced, but the supplied reports do not establish that it had been decided.

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.