Trumpove trditve o glasovanju ne-državljanov niso verodostojne, pravi zvezni sodnik v ostri odločitvi

A federal judge in California issued a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration’s efforts to halt the counting of ballots from alleged noncitizens, ruling that the government’s claims lacked credibility and violated constitutional principles regarding state control over elections. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, appointed by Bill Clinton, rejected a temporary restraining order requested by the Justice Department on Wednesday. The decision came after the department demanded that California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan segregate ballots from approximately 20,000 individuals identified as "likely noncitizens." Carter stated that granting such a last-minute request would allow either political party to create chaos for its own purposes, potentially stripping over 20,000 registered Californians of their right to vote. The dispute began in July when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) informed Weber that a preliminary review suggested up to 190,832 noncitizens might be registered to vote in California. By October, the administration had revised this figure down by nearly 90 percent. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin initially claimed that over 250,000 potential noncitizens were illegally registered across California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. These figures echoed long-standing assertions by President Donald Trump, who has frequently cited massive numbers of illegal votes to suggest he lost previous elections due to fraud. In a speech prior to Mullin’s announcement, Trump claimed DHS had identified approximately 278,000 noncitizens registered for federal elections. However, subsequent reviews undermined these initial estimates. In Nevada, DHS Secretary Mullin originally claimed 15,903 noncitizens were registered. When a specific list was provided to state officials, the number dropped to 185, a 99 percent reduction. Ultimately, all 185 individuals on that list were confirmed to be U.S. citizens. This pattern of error cast doubt on the reliability of the data used in other states. In California, the Justice Department gave Weber and Logan 48 hours to verify the citizenship status of those on its list or face litigation. They refused, citing legal prohibitions against acting on unverified data. Logan noted that the department failed to explain its methodology, risking the disenfranchisement of lawful citizens. The court record indicated that DHS purchased a voter file reflecting California rolls as of August 2025, enhanced the data using third-party analytics, and matched records against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service files to find immigration numbers that might correspond to voters. Carter criticized this process as rife with uncertainty and errors. Similar conflicts emerged in Washington state. Secretary of State Steve Hobbs responded to a letter from federal prosecutors Neil Floyd and Pete Serrano, who demanded that ballots from 400 alleged noncitizens be held pending verification. Hobbs declared the list unreliable, noting that a preliminary investigation revealed many individuals on the roster were actually U.S. citizens. He described the identified citizens as merely the tip of the iceberg of those who would be wrongfully disenfranchised. Hobbs further pointed out that the list contained duplicates and lacked essential fields such as voter identification numbers or addresses, suggesting it was created in a rushed manner. Hobbs warned that refusing to count ballots from registered voters based on an unverified list would be both irresponsible and illegal. Without individualized proof of ineligibility, election officials could not lawfully reject valid ballots. More than 1.3 million mail ballots had already been returned in Washington as of Wednesday, with voting having begun in mid-October ahead of the November 3 general election. Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter sent similar demands to California officials earlier in the month. The Justice Department’s lawsuit in California followed the refusal of state officials to comply with the initial deadline. Judge Carter emphasized that constitutional rights and the integrity of the democracy were at stake. He ruled that individuals meeting California’s voter registration requirements must not be deprived of their core rights due to unfounded allegations stemming from flawed procedures. The judge highlighted that the federal government had never previously sought to coerce state and local governments into abandoning their established electoral processes on the eve of an election. The administration’s strategy relied on broad, high-level estimates that proved inaccurate upon detailed scrutiny. While federal officials maintained that the lists targeted ineligible voters, state authorities consistently found that the majority of flagged individuals were citizens or had inactive registrations. The lack of transparency regarding data collection methods remained a central point of contention. Both California and Washington officials argued that the burden of proof lay with the federal government to demonstrate ineligibility on an individual basis, rather than relying on bulk data matching that produced high rates of false positives. The judicial rejection in California sets a precedent challenging the executive branch’s ability to intervene in state election administration during critical periods.