Chabria: California votes. Trump's Justice Department panics

Read the original at Los Angeles Times ↗
Cite

Chabria, A. (2026, October 26). Chabria: California votes. Trump's Justice Department panics. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-10-26/california-processes-ballots-trumps-justice-department-panics

Dated from the outlet's own feed. Check the original for its byline.

Los Angeles Times · collected 2026-10-26 · by Anita Chabria

Quick Summary

California's voting process has come under scrutiny from the Trump administration’s Justice Department, which recently requested an emergency hearing at the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit over concerns that election officials are prematurely counting ballots. Despite California law mandating timely ballot processing and the public availability of ballot counts online, DOJ lawyers claimed ignorance of these procedures until very recently. During Sunday's hearing, two judges questioned the legitimacy of the Justice Department’s claims under existing laws. The article criticizes the Trump administration for attempting to exploit legal processes to support baseless election conspiracy theories.
Written by AI on 2026-10-29, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

On October 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter expressed skepticism about the Trump administration's request for a temporary restraining order to block California from counting approximately 20,000 ballots from voters suspected of being non-citizens. The Justice Department had compiled this list and demanded that California set aside these ballots until voter status could be verified. Judge Carter indicated he would appoint a special master to investigate the DOJ's process for compiling the suspect voter list, dealing a significant setback to the Trump administration's efforts to intervene in the election just days before it occurs.

The judge's skepticism stems from concerns over disenfranchising eligible voters and disrupting California’s ongoing elections. Legal advocates opposing the DOJ lawsuit argued that such intervention violates constitutional principles granting states control over their electoral processes. Despite this, First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli maintained that the request was merely to enforce federal law barring non-citizens from voting.

Judge Carter delayed his ruling until Wednesday and suggested there would be no immediate action taken, thereby preventing any last-minute changes to the election process in California.

Written for “California Voting Case Setbacks Trump Administration” on 2026-10-29, grounded in this article and the 10 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted verbatim and was checked against the article text before being stored, so you can find it in the original.
Reading Leans strongly left (beta estimate) Confidence high 1 quote(s) discarded as not found in the article
Leaning: leans strongly left for article 107457 (high confidence, 2 verified quotes) · logged 2026-10-29

Story

📰 California Voting Case Setbacks Trump Administration
Politics · 11 article(s) covering the same event. Compare every outlet's account →

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans strongly left and hedges 18% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Al Jazeera
⚖️ Leans left further right than this Hedges 2 of 23 claims Outlet record 60/100
The Independent
⚖️ Leans left further right than this Hedges 5 of 23 claims Outlet record 59/100
The Guardian
⚖️ Leans left further right than this Hedges 1 of 4 claims Outlet record 67/100
The Straits Times
⚖️ Leans left further right than this Hedges 2 of 22 claims Outlet record 68/100
Al Jazeera
⚖️ Leans left further right than this Hedges 7 of 34 claims Outlet record 60/100
Toronto Star
Hedges 4 of 27 claims Outlet record 64/100
Times of India
⚖️ Leans strongly left Hedges 6 of 35 claims Outlet record 59/100
CBS News
⚖️ Centre further right than this Hedges 1 of 2 claims Outlet record 66/100
Los Angeles Times
⚖️ Leans left further right than this Hedges 6 of 48 claims Outlet record 95/100
ABC News (US)
⚖️ Leans left further right than this Hedges 3 of 12 claims Outlet record 70/100
“While both articles discuss legal actions taken by the Trump administration and California voting, they describe different stages of the proceedings: Article A mentions arguments in an appeals court, while Article B refers to a district judge's decision on appointing a special master.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
55
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
18%
10 of 55 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans strongly left
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
95/100
Los Angeles Times's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
11
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-10-29 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Los Angeles Times · 248 article(s) · 0 correction(s) detected
No corrections detected for this publisher. That may mean careful reporting, or simply that nothing has been checked.

Who wrote this

Anita Chabria
4 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Who could have possibly known?
🔮 - MAGA diehards may holler and stomp about how much they hate pedophiles, but they hate Democrats more.
🔮 The settlement might not give the entertainment industry all it hoped for but it was “a fight worth fighting,” said George Hay, a professor at Cornell Law School and a former attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, because it sought to answer that question in favor of consumers, and showed that states like California can and will step up to fill a dangerous void. David Ellison is threatening to pull Paramount out of Hollywood if the state continues its lawsuit against his merger.
🔮 Within a few short months, he will be termed out of office and return to being a regular citizen, if not an average one.
Also by Anita Chabria
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.

Topics

California DOJ Democrats L.A. U.S.

Subjects

California GPE · 8× Trump PERSON · 7× DOJ ORG · 5× Democrats NORP · 2× L.A. GPE · 2× Los Angeles GPE · 2× U.S. GPE · 2× Californians NORP · 1× Justice Department ORG · 1× U.S. Department of Justice ORG · 1×

Narrative

I’m not saying the cases are related, or that the judge should or does matter, but the Trump DOJ’s argument in California is basically that its list of 20,000 is really solid, reliable information. If the D.C. federal judge rules first that the government information gathering is potentially both an overreach and sloppy, it makes it that much harder for another judge, or the appellate court for that matter, to rule that the list is so critical that they must step in.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-10-29
🔮 Who could have possibly known?
2026-10-29 · Los Angeles Times
Chabria: California votes. Trump's Justice Department panics · assertive framing

Claims (55 extracted, 10 hedged)

California votes. asserted
California → vote → ?
Click here to listen to this article - - Trump’s lawyers begged the appeals court to take their flimsy case away from the judge who had already promised to rule on their requests on Tuesday. asserted
who → click → Tuesday
- The judges did not seem impressed by the arguments, questioning more than once if they even had jurisdiction. asserted
they → seem → jurisdiction
My fellow Californians, let us begin with an intelligence test. asserted
us → let → test
Our great state has been voting since early October. asserted
state → vote → October
Folks have been mailing in their ballots, dropping them off at collection sites and even showing up at in-person centers. asserted
Folks → mail → centers
So raise your hand if you know — or even just assume — elections officials have been doing something with those ballots as they arrive, other than just throwing them in a pile. asserted
they → raise → pile
On Sunday, the lawyers for the DOJ managed to get a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to convene a rare emergency hearing because, OMG, people are actually voting and California is processing ballots! asserted
California → manage → ballots
Who could have possibly known? uncertain
Who → know → ?
Even though it’s literally law that counties count ballots in a timely manner; even though it’s happened in every other election; even though the daily tallies of how many ballots are received are posted online by the secretary of State; even though there are live camera feeds of ballots being processed in Los Angeles — somehow the U.S. government didn’t know this normal election procedure was happening, it claimed. asserted
it → ’ → Angeles
Two judges questioned the Justice Department’s lawyer about how the Trump administration’s position squared with the law. It wasn’t until late Friday, when DOJ lawyers read a filing by California DOJ lawyers laying out that L.A. is, like, actually opening mail-in ballots, that the U.S. DOJ realized that ballots are being opened. asserted
ballots → question → ballots
That seemed “absurd on its face,” argued California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Samuel P. Siegel. asserted
Siegel → seem → face
Armed with this previously unknowable information, Trump’s lawyers were begging the appeals court to take their flimsy, constitutionally questionable case away from the judge who had already promised to rule on their requests on Tuesday and immediately give them an injunction to further their election conspiracy claims. uncertain
who → arm → claims
Most folks are aware of the background of this drama, but here’s the quick recap. asserted
recap → ’ → drama
President Trump for years has falsely but incessantly claimed that Democrats are colluding with undocumented people to help them sneak into the country in exchange for illegally voting in mass numbers for Democrats. asserted
them → claim → Democrats
This is not happening, but the president is obsessed with this conspiracy, so much so that he is weaponizing the Department of Justice to attack states, California in particular, in a bid to prove his delusions correct, and perhaps as a bonus, undermine democracy. asserted
delusions → happen → democracy
A few months ago, the DOJ came to the state of California and claimed it had a list of 190,000 people it believed were illegally registered to vote. asserted
it → come → people
That list has since dropped to 20,000. asserted
list → drop → 20,000
But with all the investigative power of the government hard at work on this, only 28 people in California have been indicted by the feds during this no-holds-barred effort, and it looks as though not all of those cases will hold up. asserted
all → indict → cases
Undeterred, Trump lawyers tried to get a California judge to order the state (and Los Angeles) to set aside ballots that it claims to have doubts about. uncertain
it → try → doubts
They asked the judge in that case for a temporary restraining order forcing L.A. County to do that, and the judge agreed to rule on that request early next week, in an already-expedited fashion. asserted
judge → ask → fashion
But then the Trump lawyers learned about all that ballot processing and demanded the judge instead rule by Saturday afternoon — though the reasoning here seems iffy. asserted
reasoning → learn → afternoon
When the federal judge assigned to the case didn’t rule by Saturday, an absurd ask that didn’t even allow enough time for lawyers to file briefs, the feds ran to the 9th Circuit, claiming that failing to rule on Saturday was a de facto denial of their request. asserted
failing → assign → request
Basically, it seems the Trump lawyers were arguing two things. asserted
lawyers → seem → things
First, that once ballots are counted, they can’t be uncounted, and if there are illegal ballots, that hurts all voters. asserted
that → count → voters
But again, there is no evidence this is happening in any widespread fashion, and the lists of potential vote scofflaws compiled by the government have been shown to be error-ridden. asserted
lists → be → government
They may also involve the use of a mysterious non-government “third party” to gather the information that not even the Trump lawyers could identify Sunday. uncertain
lawyers → involve → that
DOJ lawyers also claimed they had just learned that once a ballot is taken out of the envelope, there was no way to reconnect that ballot to the voter who cast it — because our votes are anonymous. asserted
votes → claim → it
Therefore, the 20,000 ballots had to be grabbed before they were separated from the documents inside. asserted
they → have → documents
The lawyers did not explain why they needed to know how a person voted to confirm they illegally voted. asserted
they → explain → ?
The envelopes are retained by county elections officials, but apparently the Trump lawyers feel it’s critical to tie them to particular votes. asserted
it → retain → votes
Federal prosecutors announced voter fraud charges against 28 Californians. asserted
prosecutors → announce → Californians
State Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the small number shows “there is no widespread voter fraud.” asserted
number → say → ?
But here’s the thing — there are simply not enough illegal voters to sway a Los Angeles election, or a California one for that matter. asserted
thing → ’ → matter
We have a system to ferrets out problematic ballots right now, and a separate criminal system that can hold illegal voters accountable. asserted
voters → have → ballots
Two weeks before an election isn’t a time to demand ballots be withheld — unless you’re trying to undermine trust. asserted
you → demand → trust
The appellate judges did not seem impressed by the federal laywers’ arguments, questioning more than once if the 9th Circuit even had jurisdiction since states are in charge of elections, not the federal government. asserted
states → seem → government
You know, the one the don’t-tread-on-me types love that reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States. asserted
powers → know → States
We should expect a ruling sooner rather than later, but the real question remains, why the emergency? asserted
question → expect → ruling
The DOJ is involved in another voting lawsuit in Washington, D.C., where the plaintiffs, led by the UCLA Voting Rights Project, have asked for a restraining order of their own stopping the government from creating national lists of who it thinks should vote, and using janky, secretive information gathering to do it. asserted
it → involve → it
…and 15 more, not listed.
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support