Federal Court Blocks DOJ Over California Ballots As Midterms Approach
A federal appeals court blocks the Justice Department from ordering California to segregate certain ballots as candidates make final campaign pushes nationwide.
At a glance
- A federal appeals court rejected a Justice Department request to force California to set aside ballots from alleged noncitizens.
- President Trump announced weekend campaign rallies in Iowa and Kansas as part of a late surge before the midterms.
- The Justice Department also asked an Alaska court to segregate ballots involving a third-party Senate candidate with a duplicate name.
- Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed pushed back against demands for an apology from former primary rival Representative Haley Stevens.
A federal appeals court on Friday blocked the administration from demanding that state election officials separate out certain ballots or face criminal prosecution. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the emergency request, upholding a lower court decision that found the federal demands risked disenfranchising eligible voters. The Justice Department had pressed California officials to isolate mail ballots for approximately 20,000 individuals it claimed might not hold citizenship. State election authorities countered that the federal lists were unreliable and that separating the votes would severely disrupt the election process.
The legal dispute unfolds against the backdrop of the final weekend of campaigning before the midterm elections. President Trump spent Friday rallying supporters in Florida before confirming he would reinstate weekend campaign stops in Iowa and Kansas. Both states feature closely watched Senate races. The president acknowledged the physical toll of his campaign schedule while expressing optimism about Republican prospects in the upcoming voting, despite historical trends suggesting midterm losses for sitting administrations.
In Alaska, the Justice Department pursued separate legal action, asking a federal judge to order the segregation of all ballots ranking independent Senate candidate Daniel J. Sullivan. The candidate shares a name with the Republican incumbent, Dan Sullivan. Federal prosecutors and civil attorneys argued that voter confusion could undermine the integrity of the election, pointing to recent media reports regarding the candidate's campaign origins. State officials strongly opposed the request, arguing that ballots are comingled on election day and that local laws already require long-term preservation of voting records without federal intervention.
Meanwhile, internal Democratic friction emerged in Michigan, where Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed responded to public criticism from his former primary opponent, Representative Haley Stevens. Stevens had demanded an apology over past comments regarding Israel and outside political ads ahead of a joint appearance in Detroit. El-Sayed dismissed the demands, arguing that the focus should remain on economic concerns and defeating the Republican nominee, Mike Rogers.
Elsewhere, incumbent Republican senators campaigned to protect their seats in tight races. In Maine, Senator Susan Collins emphasized her seniority and role leading the Senate Appropriations Committee during stops in rural towns. At the same time, national political analysts continued to adjust battleground ratings, adding South Carolina to the list of competitive Senate contests following new polling data that showed a tight race between Republican Senator Darlene Graham and Democratic challenger Annie Andrews.
What it means
The flurry of late-stage legal battles highlights the intense partisan focus on election administration rules just days before voters head to the polls. The Trump administration's aggressive posture in states like California and Alaska demonstrates an ongoing effort to use federal oversight and the courts to shape voting procedures and challenge outcomes before certification. For state election workers, navigating competing federal directives and strict statutory deadlines creates significant operational pressure during an already complex voting period.
At the same time, the shifting battleground map reflects the unpredictable nature of the midterm cycle. Traditional party strongholds and expected margins are being tested by local dynamics, candidate profiles, and heightened voter mobilization. Whether federal interventions in ballot handling will meaningfully sway public perception or alter vote tallies remains uncertain, but these actions underscore the high stakes surrounding control of Congress as both parties mobilize their bases for the final vote.
Background
The midterm elections determine control of the United States Congress, deciding majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Midterm cycles historically present challenges for the sitting president's party, often resulting in congressional losses. Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, play specific limited roles in monitoring election integrity and enforcing voting rights laws, though direct federal intervention in state-run ballot processing is subject to strict constitutional boundaries and judicial review.
What happens next
Voters will cast their ballots on Tuesday, following a weekend of final campaign rallies and legal filings. Courts are expected to rule on remaining expedited ballot requests before election day concludes.
Reporting from: CBS News. Spotted an error? Tell us.
- elections
- Department of Justice
- voting rights
- Congress
- campaign 2026
- United States
- Politics