US Appeals Court Rejects Bid to Block 20,000 California Ballots

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 26, sends the dispute back to a federal district court for further consideration.

Dispute over voter eligibility

The Justice Department had questioned the eligibility of approximately 20,000 voters, arguing that some could be non-U.S. citizens. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

The administration asked the court to require California officials to set aside the disputed ballots while their eligibility was examined.

California officials challenged the reliability of the government's information, arguing that the voter list could contain inaccurate records and identify eligible American citizens.

Appeals court declines emergency intervention

In a 2–1 decision, the Ninth Circuit declined to intervene before the district court had properly considered the request.

The majority questioned the government's decision to seek emergency action so close to the election, noting that the administration had not given the lower court sufficient time to address the issue.

The ruling did not resolve the underlying dispute over voter eligibility. Instead, it allowed the legal proceedings to continue in the lower court.

Election authority and voting rights

The case raises important questions about the division of responsibilities between federal authorities and state governments in administering elections.

While federal law establishes requirements for voting in federal elections, states are responsible for conducting and managing their election systems.

Civil rights advocates have raised concerns that removing ballots based on uncertain voter information could prevent eligible citizens from having their votes counted.

What happens next?

The dispute returned to the federal district court, where a hearing was scheduled for October 27. Further proceedings could determine whether any additional restrictions are legally justified.

The case is part of a wider series of legal challenges concerning federal oversight of state election procedures ahead of the November 3, 2026, elections.

The final outcome could have implications for how voter eligibility disputes are handled and how far federal authorities can intervene in state-administered elections.

The appeals court's decision was procedural, not a final determination that every disputed ballot was valid.