The Justice Department escalated its legal battle over California's voter rolls on Sunday, urging a federal judge to sanction a civil rights coalition that challenged the government's claim that more than 20,000 noncitizens are registered to vote in the state. In a court filing, DOJ attorneys argued that an analysis by the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) went beyond the scope of a court order that permitted the group to review the federal data.
The department's filing came after CHIRLA, in partnership with UCLA's Voting Rights Project, released a report asserting that roughly 40% of the names flagged as noncitizens did not actually appear on California's voter rolls. The DOJ contends that such analysis was irrelevant to the legal question of whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue, and accused the group of political grandstanding.
Judge's Order and Alleged Violations
U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, had allowed CHIRLA access to the government's list of 20,000 alleged noncitizens under strict conditions: the names were not to be disclosed, and the data was to be used solely for the group's legal challenge against the Trump administration's demands. The DOJ now claims CHIRLA violated that order by using the data to produce a public report, and has asked Boasberg to refer the matter for possible criminal contempt proceedings.
The filing states: "The report's political grandstanding about alleged inaccuracies that purportedly impact California voters generally, or comparisons between the government's list and the full 'California voter file,' has no relevance to whether the particular plaintiffs in this case have standing."
CHIRLA and the Voting Rights Project have denied any wrongdoing. Alberto Lammers, a spokesperson for the Voting Rights Project, told The Associated Press that "counsel and their experts fully complied with the Court's orders."
Injunction Blocks DOJ Demand
On Monday, Boasberg granted a preliminary injunction blocking the DOJ from forcing California election officials to segregate the names of the alleged noncitizens from the voter rolls. In his ruling, Boasberg wrote that the lists contained errors and that the ongoing review by officials "created a concrete risk to their ability to vote," according to a statement from the Voting Rights Project.
CHIRLA's executive director, Angelica Salas, welcomed the decision, saying, "The court has seen the evidence and found that both our organization and our members are being harmed by this unconstitutional attack on the right to vote." She added that the injunction provides "needed breathing room" for voters, volunteers, and election officials ahead of Election Day.
Supreme Court Appeal
The Trump administration swiftly appealed to the Supreme Court, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer arguing that separating the names from the rolls "is a routine remedy when the lawfulness of ballots is questioned." The administration's demand is part of a broader effort to address alleged noncitizen voting, a practice that is illegal in federal elections.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, expressed confidence in the state's position, saying he had "strong reason" to believe his office would prevail again. The case highlights the ongoing tension between federal election enforcement and state control over voter rolls, a flashpoint in the broader debate over election integrity. As the legal fight continues, election officials in California are bracing for potential disruptions, and voters are being urged to check their registration status. Similar disputes have emerged in other states, and the outcome could set a precedent for how such challenges are handled nationwide.
