The Supreme Court of the United States has dismissed the emergency request filed by the federal Government of Donald Trump, which sought to compel the state of California to set aside and temporarily leave uncounted close to 20,000 mail-in ballots from voters flagged by the Administration as possible "non-citizens," ahead of the midterm elections being held this Tuesday in the country.
Through a brief order made public this Monday, the High Court confirms that the precautionary measure proposed by the Executive's lawyers has been rejected. This ruling allows California electoral authorities to proceed with the ordinary count of these ballots in the 'midterms'.
The Trump Administration had asked the Supreme Court that same day to act urgently to halt the counting of these votes. The petition, filed by Solicitor General John Sauer, called for a "modest" precautionary measure to segregate these ballots from those considered valid until the citizenship of the voters is verified. In the filing sent to the High Court, the Government argues that federal law expressly prohibits the voting of foreigners and warns that the counting of these votes would cause "irreparable harm" to the integrity of the electoral process by diluting legitimate votes.
This legal strategy directly conflicts with previous rulings from the lower courts. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and federal judge David O. Carter —who had already rejected the restraining order last October 29— denied the Executive's claim, considering that the system used by Washington to cross-check immigration data is "plagued by uncertainties and errors" and could deprive American citizens with full rights of the right to vote.
In addition, these courts have stressed that imposing on local authorities a new mechanism for segregating ballots on the eve of the elections would amount to an unconstitutional intrusion into California's powers, with the risk of altering the count when barely hours remain before the electoral event.
In his appeal before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General argues that the federal Government has full authority and jurisdiction to enforce its own electoral rules over state regulations, invoking the Supremacy Clause.
The submission sent to the High Court maintains that the provisional separation of the challenged votes is an ordinary practice even provided for in California electoral regulations, and insists that the intention is not to annul votes, but to allow the time necessary to clarify their legality without altering the final results.