Federal courts reject 20,000 suspect ballots claim in California

Federal courts have ruled against the Trump administration in almost every case involving attempts to control state elections during the 2026 midterm cycle. The Department of Justice sought to intervene in ballot counting and scrutinize specific contests, but lower courts largely blocked these moves before Election Day. One federal judge described the administration's approach as a campaign to intimidate and coerce state and local officials responsible for administering the vote.

The administration alleged that 20,000 suspect ballots were present in California. A lower court barred federal intervention in the counting of those ballots. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the administration's appeal of that ruling. The New York Times characterized the high court's decision as an extraordinary rebuke. Another judge wrote that if the executive branch could discount votes based on unproven allegations, the democracy would be in danger.

John E. Jones III, a former federal judge and the current president of Dickinson College, stated that courts are reluctant to become involved after voting has begun. He noted that the high volume of early voting, both in person and by mail, means the election is already well underway. Jones pointed to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, which grants states the power to regulate elections. He observed that this section does not assign a specific role to the executive branch in that process.

Jones referenced the Purcell Principle, a Supreme Court precedent that advises federal courts to avoid entering election controversies too close to the date of the election. He argued that the Department of Justice has moved away from its traditional mission. In 2016, the FBI Director revealed an investigation into a presidential candidate's emails near the election date, which was viewed as a breach of protocol. Jones said that such actions are now common.

On Election Day, the Justice Department sent target letters to numerous individuals involved in the Alaska Senate race controversy. The department also dispatched approximately 1,000 election watchers to polling places. Jones called these numbers unprecedented. He stated that the department is acceding to the wishes of the president even when there is no sound legal basis to proceed. He described the leadership's actions as unprofessional and a strain on the department's credibility.

Jones said that government lawyers are failing to meet professional standards in front of federal judges. He noted that some lawyers are being intentionally disingenuous during direct questioning. This forces judges to connect dots and issue orders that expressly state their areas of concern. Jones compared this dynamic to spoon-feeding lawyers, a practice that judges generally dislike because they expect a higher degree of professionalism from those litigating in federal courts.

The former judge said he does not know if the situation will lead to impeachment, given that Democrats hold a majority in the House. However, he predicted intensive investigations into who ordered specific actions and when. He expected that people would be subpoenaed and asked questions under oath that might be difficult to answer. He concluded that the current state of affairs involves minor league players being elevated into government litigator roles, which he described as a bad look.