Ninth Circuit Dismisses DOJ’s Ballot Removal Bid in California
Ninth Circuit Court dismisses DOJ’s attempt to remove 20,000 ballots from non-citizens in California.
2 min read
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) appeal to remove 20,000 ballots given to non-citizens in California. A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the lower court did not have adequate opportunity to consider the DOJ’s application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
DOJ’s Legal Challenge Overturned
The decision was issued after the DOJ bypassed the lower court and directly appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The court found that the DOJ improperly skipped over the district court judge, which led to the dismissal of the appeal. The ruling emphasized that the lower court had not had a chance to review the TRO application, making the appeal moot.
The DOJ had argued that the ballots were given to non-citizens and that California officials risked legal consequences by tabulating them. First Assistant US Attorney Bill Essayli stated that the DOJ had put California on notice, identifying over 20,000 suspected noncitizens registered to vote in the state who had already received ballots.
Legal and Political Implications
During a rare Sunday hearing, the Ninth Circuit judges expressed skepticism about the DOJ’s effort to remove the ballots shortly before the midterm elections. The court’s ruling highlights the importance of following procedural steps in legal challenges, especially those involving election integrity and voter registration.
US District Judge David Carter, a Clinton appointee, had previously scheduled a hearing on the 20,000 ballots for October 27. The DOJ’s rush to the appeals court prompted the Ninth Circuit to intervene, but the court ultimately ruled that the appeal lacked proper jurisdiction.
The decision underscores the ongoing legal and political tensions surrounding election laws and the rights of non-citizens in the voting process. It also reflects the broader debate over the role of federal oversight in state elections.
Source: The Gateway Pundit
