- Trump administration asks Supreme Court to void over 20,000 California ballots over alleged noncitizen status, asserting federal authority over state-run elections.
- Los Angeles review found DOJ list errors: many not registered, some US-born, and DOJ withheld methodology and error rates.
- Forcing counties to isolate ballots risks disenfranchising eligible voters and imposes huge manual burdens on large jurisdictions like Los Angeles.
- Administration deploys varied federal monitors and threats of prosecution to instill fear, while election officials prepare and counting takes time.
For voters, Election Day marks the end of a long campaign season. For the officials responsible for counting their ballots, it’s just the beginning. In the days and weeks ahead, they’ll tally votes, verify results, and prepare to certify the election — all while navigating an added layer of legal uncertainty this year.
The Trump administration made a last-minute push on Monday to set aside mail ballots from roughly 20,000 California voters over questions about their citizenship, but the Supreme Court turned it down. The justices didn’t explain their decision, and none publicly dissented. Back in September, the court also rejected Trump’s push to restrict mail ballots nationwide. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is sending election monitors across the country, drawing scrutiny over who’s being deployed and what role they’ll play.
So what does all of this mean for your vote? We spoke with Jill Habig, founder and CEO of Public Rights Project, which represents Los Angeles County in the California case, about the stakes of that fight, how election officials are preparing, and why waiting for results doesn’t mean something has gone wrong.
Katie Couric Media: Before we get to the Supreme Court, what was the Justice Department trying to require California election officials to do?
Jill Habig: The Justice Department is trying to force Los Angeles County, our client at Public Rights Project, and the state of California to set aside the ballots of more than 20,000 potential voters based on an opaque process that DOJ has gone through to determine that these folks might be noncitizen voters.
Just to be clear, this is making up a new rule that doesn't exist in the law. The federal government, especially the executive branch, doesn't have any role in running elections. State and local officials run elections under the Constitution. Congress can set new rules for elections, but this is a made-up rule from the Trump administration that they want to be the law, but is not the law.
The Justice Department identified roughly 20,000 people on California’s voter rolls as “likely” noncitizens. What did Los Angeles County find when it reviewed that list?
[LA County] pulled a 200-person sample to review, and many of those people weren’t even registered to vote. For some, there was no evidence they had ever been registered; others certainly weren’t active in this cycle. However, for a number of other folks on that list, there was at least initial evidence that they were born in the United States and therefore almost certainly U.S. citizens.
DOJ has refused to provide any real detail about how they generated this list. They say they purchased California’s public voter file, which doesn’t have Social Security numbers or the more detailed information you would need to do a real person-to-person match.
They refused to detail exactly what methodology they used. They have not disclosed any error rate or data validation.
In their court filings, the lawyers keep distancing themselves from this list. They keep saying, “We believe,” “we’ve been told,” “these are likely,” “they may be.” They’re not saying these are verified noncitizens. I think that really shows the challenges with this list.
The administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene (which it declined to do). What would setting aside those ballots actually require?
There are nearly six million voters in LA County alone. County election officials have already sent out 5.9 million ballots, to be exact, to every voter here. They run dozens of polling sites and vote centers. They have hardware and software they’ve been testing and prepping for months to validate each ballot and protect each voter's privacy so no one can know who you voted for.
So it wouldn't be easy to sort through six million ballots coming in from polling places and drop boxes across the county and manually determine which of those ballots might match voters on their list. And that’s part of the problem with the list in the first place.
What was interesting in an earlier stage of the case was that one of the judges in the Ninth Circuit, Gabriel Sanchez, said during the hearing, “I’m willing to bet there are a lot of Gabriel Sanchezes in LA County. How do you know you have the right one?”
And that’s why courts have continually said the much bigger risk in this case is actually disenfranchising eligible Americans. That risk is much bigger than the small potential of noncitizen voters, particularly given how badly designed their list is. If any noncitizens actually do vote, they can be prosecuted. That is a crime under both state and federal law.
If the Supreme Court declines to take up the appeal, is the legal battle over?
If we prevail and the Supreme Court refuses to take up this appeal, we'd file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety in the district court.
We’re arguing that the executive branch has no power over our elections. That’s a power reserved to state and local officials, and it simply doesn’t have a legal claim, and the court should dismiss the case.
Why should people outside California be paying attention?
The federal government’s strategy in this election is to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. They are trying any number of interference efforts, and they don’t expect many of them to work. But in the meantime, each of those efforts can create chaos and instill fear in voters and election officials.
They have threatened election officials, saying they could prosecute them for counting ballots from alleged noncitizen voters. To continue the metaphor, the spaghetti doesn’t have to stick to make a mess. Election officials have to deal with the fallout and still do their jobs of trying to run a free and fair election.
What are you hearing from election officials about how they’re preparing?
We’re working with more than 200 election officials across the country, as well as a number of mayors, who have spent months preparing to run this election and respond to potential legal challenges. Election officials across the country are ready. They have prepared for every scenario.
These folks are stewards of our democracy. They’re your neighbors, your community members. They see their job as making sure every eligible voter in their jurisdiction can vote and that they can count every eligible ballot.
Federal election monitoring has happened before. What’s different this time?
The Department of Justice has always sent monitors. Usually, it’s voting rights attorneys from the Department of Justice. This year, they’re sending out a number of folks from a whole variety of different agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. These are not the trained voting rights experts who typically serve as election monitors.
But I think the bigger difference isn't the monitors themselves; it is what the administration is doing on top of that: threatening election officials and voters. The effort to threaten to criminally prosecute election officials just for doing their jobs is not something that a normal federal government or administration does.
What should voters understand about why counting ballots can take time?
Each state has its own rules for collecting and counting ballots. In some states, election officials are prohibited from starting to count ballots until Election Day. If a state has many mail-in ballots and officials can’t start processing them until then, it will take longer to get through them. In a place like California, we have a ton of mail-in voters. Voters can send in their ballots as late as Election Day, as long as they’re postmarked that day, and those ballots need time to arrive and be counted.
The exact timeframe depends on state law and how voters vote. Election officials follow a detailed process, with many double-checks, to ensure the count is accurate and every ballot is processed.
What would you tell a voter who’s worried their ballot won’t be counted?
Part of this administration's effort to sow chaos and disruption in the election is to convince people that it’s not worth it to vote in the first place. And the best thing voters can do is make their voices heard and exercise their rights.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
