The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from the United States government regarding California's vote-by-mail procedures. The case, United States v. State of California, No. 26-7070, involved allegations that California's election officials were allowing noncitizens to vote by mailing ballots without verifying citizenship status. The court's decision affects the ongoing debate over election integrity and the rights of voters in California.
The dispute began when the U.S. government claimed that California officials had mailed ballots to individuals identified as 'likely' noncitizens. The government argued that this practice violated federal law, which prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The case reached the Ninth Circuit after the U.S. sought an emergency injunction to stop the counting of ballots from these individuals.
The parties involved in the case include the United States government as the plaintiff and the State of California, along with Los Angeles County officials, as defendants. The U.S. government alleged that California's election officials failed to take adequate steps to verify the citizenship of voters on their rolls, despite being informed of the potential issue months in advance. The case escalated when the U.S. filed a lawsuit on October 15, 2026, after California mailed ballots to all registered voters on October 1, 2026.
According to the court's opinion, the U.S. government had previously obtained a list of individuals it believed were noncitizens from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security. The government requested that California officials work with them to confirm the citizenship status of these individuals before allowing them to vote. However, California officials expressed skepticism about the validity of the list and proceeded with mailing ballots as required by state law.
In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit stated that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the U.S. government had not given the lower court sufficient time to consider its request for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The court noted, 'the United States failed to allow the district court adequate opportunity to consider its application for a Temporary Restraining Order.' As a result, the court granted the County's motion to dismiss the appeal and denied the U.S. government's emergency motion for relief as moot.
The ruling emphasized the importance of procedural adherence in legal proceedings. The court pointed out that the U.S. government had waited too long to file for emergency relief and had not acted with the urgency required in such cases. The opinion highlighted that the U.S. had initially requested a ruling on its TRO by November 3, 2026, which was after the ballots had already been mailed and counted.
This decision has significant implications for the future of voting procedures in California and potentially across the nation. It underscores the tension between state and federal authority over election laws. The ruling also raises questions about the effectiveness of the U.S. government's efforts to ensure election integrity and the challenges it faces in coordinating with state officials.
Going forward, this ruling means that California's vote-by-mail system will remain in place without immediate changes. The dismissal of the appeal does not set a legal precedent but does highlight the complexities involved in federal and state interactions regarding election laws. The U.S. government may still pursue other legal avenues or adjust its approach to address concerns about noncitizen voting.
As for next steps, the U.S. government could potentially appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any plans for further action. The legal landscape surrounding voting rights and election integrity continues to evolve, and this case is likely to contribute to ongoing discussions about how best to manage these critical issues.
