Blanche won't rule out blocking vote certification, as DOJ rushes 9th Circuit on California ballots

Ten days before Americans vote, the Justice Department is fighting in two federal courts to shape who casts a ballot that counts, and the attorney general has left open whether his department might intervene in the certification of results if it doesn't like what it sees.

Attorney General Todd Blanche made the remarks Thursday while boarding a plane in Virginia. Asked whether there was any scenario in which the DOJ might try to stop a state from certifying its election results, Blanche told reporters: "It is not DOJ's intention to, and it's never our intention to, improperly interfere with elections or the state confirmation process or certification process" but added that he was not going to say there were no circumstances under which the department would act. "Yes, of course there are scenarios that we could all come up with hypothetically, some doomsday scenario, for example," Blanche said.

The remarks landed instantly on Capitol Hill. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Senate Democrats "have been preparing for this for months and will be ready for whatever" the Trump administration tries. "As Trump and his cronies attempt to steal this election, we are fighting them at every turn," Schumer posted on X. "Our elections must always belong to the voters, not Donald Trump."

The legal picture behind those words is already moving fast.

The California fight at the 9th Circuit

The Justice Department last week sued California and Los Angeles County, seeking to prevent officials from counting more than 20,000 mail-in ballots associated with people the government believes are likely noncitizens. When U.S. District Judge David Carter did not act on the department's self-imposed deadline, the 9th Circuit ordered California to respond by noon Saturday to the Trump administration's emergency request. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the order late Friday after the DOJ filed an emergency request earlier in the day seeking a ruling by Saturday.

The lawsuit was filed on October 15, two days after the DOJ provided election officials with a list of purported "likely noncitizen" voters, many of whom live in Los Angeles County. When local officials declined the federal push to have those names removed from voting rolls, the DOJ alleged the state was "knowingly" facilitating "unlawful voting."

California responded and urged dismissal of the lawsuit by noting that the 2026 midterm election was already "well underway." The state began mailing ballots weeks before the litigation started. At least 18 counties across the state have received similar letters, given a 48-hour deadline to provide identifying information corresponding with ballots the federal government believes were sent to noncitizens illegally registered to vote.

California's secretary of state pushed back directly. Shirley Logan sent an email to the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials on Friday, saying the latest DOJ letter includes a "posture of intimidation and threats leveled against local election officials just twelve days before the election."

Data shows illegal voting by people who aren't U.S. citizens is incredibly rare, difficult to prove and has not been shown to change the outcome of races. The DOJ's own filings acknowledge the tension: the department says it does not seek to remove voters from the rolls but "simply wants to work with State and County officials to segregate the ballots of suspected non-citizens to ensure that only eligible votes are counted."

Door-to-door and nine states

The courtroom fight is only part of the federal footprint. Starting in August, the Department of Homeland Security deployed Homeland Security Investigations agents for "field investigations" in at least nine states to probe questions of voter eligibility. Armed federal agents spent days leading up to the midterms going door to door asking people their immigration and voter registration status.

The scope of charges filed so far sits in sharp contrast to the scale of the operation. Just 156 people have been charged with voting-fraud related offenses since the beginning of the Trump administration. There are 227 million registered voters in the U.S. The administration claims the universe of potential offenders is far larger. DHS has alleged that as many as 250,000 noncitizens may be illegally registered to vote, although election experts have disputed the accuracy of the figure.

Career agents were blunt about the novelty of the operation. Eric Balliet, a former Homeland Security Investigations agent, said: "In my 23 years with HSI, I never engaged in or was aware of any incident or initiative that sent Special Agents to private residences to verify the eligibility of voters."

As part of one California roundup, dozens of federal agents descended on the residence of a 72-year-old man from Belize, who was taken from his home in his pajamas and arrested on charges he allegedly voted illegally in the past four elections.

A federal judge in California had already moved to limit parts of the door-knocking. A federal judge ruled late Wednesday that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security violated the Voting Rights Act by sending agents door-to-door and demanding information about immigration status and whether people had voted in recent elections. The injunction, issued by District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, was scheduled to take effect Friday afternoon, October 23, and remain in place through the midterm elections, unless the Trump administration successfully appeals.

What the Constitution actually says

Constitutional law is not ambiguous on the underlying question. The DOJ's role in elections is limited under the Constitution and federal law, allowing it primarily to safeguard civil rights and prosecute people who violate election law. Federal law does not specifically authorize the department to challenge ballots or delay a state's certification of election results. Under the Constitution and federal law, U.S. elections are run by state and local officials rather than the federal government.

Election law specialists said Blanche's words went further than any recent predecessor. Max Flugrath, communications director for the voting rights group Fair Fight Action, said Blanche's comments Thursday were unprecedented. "I don't know of another U.S. attorney general who has publicly entertained using the DOJ to block state election certification," Flugrath said. Lauren Miller Karalunas, senior counsel for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice, was direct: "The state certification process is just that, a state process. There is no role for the federal government to play that's not inherently improper."

Blanche, who was previously President Donald Trump's personal attorney before taking over as attorney general in April, tried to contain the political blowback. "What we're trying to do is guarantee to the American people that the only people that are voting are people that are eligible to vote," Blanche said. He denied any plan to obstruct the count. "I'm not trying to not have an election certified. Of course not," Blanche said.

The broader midterm backdrop

Blanche said earlier this month the DOJ plans to send 1,000 election monitors to polling places in every state on Election Day. During a Fox News interview, Blanche went on to accuse Democrats of "fearmongering" by claiming the DOJ is trying to intimidate voters.

Republicans are fighting for their House majority. GOP campaign operatives have been forced to abandon some opportunities to flip seats, focusing instead on protecting incumbents in traditionally red turf. The Supreme Court question looms, too. Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican who headed the GOP's campaign arm in the Senate during the last election, told Fox News Digital he alerted the White House that voters need to hear a louder warning from the president about the implications for the high court if Democrats win. "If we have a vacancy, Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, who knows, we could not, President Trump could not move through a Supreme Court justice," Daines said.

The 9th Circuit has given California until noon Saturday to respond to the emergency ballot request. A district court hearing on the underlying lawsuit is scheduled for Tuesday, one week before Election Day.

What to Watch

• 9th Circuit ruling: Whether the appeals court orders California counties to sequester or set aside the roughly 20,000 disputed mail-in ballots before Tuesday's lower-court hearing is the immediate legal tripwire. A ruling could come as early as Saturday afternoon.
• U.S. District Judge David Carter: The Clinton appointee in the underlying California case has a hearing set for Tuesday, October 28. His eventual injunction ruling could either validate or gut the DOJ's entire pre-election ballot strategy.
• Voting Rights Act injunction: The order by District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín blocking DHS door-to-door operations through Election Day will face an immediate Trump administration appeal. Watch whether the 9th Circuit lifts or narrows it before November 3.
• Congress: House Democrats are expected to call for emergency hearings on Blanche's "doomsday" remarks. Whether House Judiciary Committee Republicans convene any corresponding oversight in the final days before the vote is an open question.
• Other states: DOJ sent similar compliance letters to at least 18 California counties. Watch for similar federal pressure campaigns in other swing states, particularly Arizona and Nevada, in the days ahead.

Sources: NBC News | The Hill | Fox News | CBS News | CNN | Law & Crime | Common Dreams / Brennan Center | Press Democrat | Truthout