Federal District Judge David O. Carter has made headlines once again with a ruling that raises eyebrows regarding election integrity. This Clinton-appointed judge, who suggested that former President Trump “likely committed crimes” during the 2020 election challenges, has now halted efforts by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure compliance with voter registration standards in California.
On Thursday, Judge Carter dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and the state itself, effectively protecting the state’s voter rolls from federal examination. His ruling favored all motions to dismiss the case, asserting that the DOJ’s actions were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Furthermore, he accused the DOJ of attempting to “usurp the authority over elections,” a strong statement that suggests deep concern about federal overreach.
The DOJ initiated its lawsuit with a straightforward goal: to obtain access to unredacted voting records to scrutinize California’s compliance with federal election laws. Their request for information, including names and voting histories, aimed to tackle potential issues surrounding ineligible voting. But Judge Carter’s decision slammed the door on this crucial transparency, labeling the government’s requests as “unprecedented and illegal.”
Carter’s opinion went further, portraying the DOJ’s effort to verify voter eligibility as a scheme to undermine the voting rights of American citizens. He accused the DOJ of seeking an unreasonable amount of personal data related to voters in California and argued that their strategy was designed to centralize the personal information of all Americans. In his order, he stated unequivocally, “The DOJ cannot go beyond the boundaries provided by Congress and use these legislative tools in a manner that wholly disregards the separation of powers.”
This ruling highlights a serious ideological divide regarding state versus federal authority over elections. Carter emphasized that the management of elections is fundamentally a state responsibility. He referenced the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the principle that states should have control over the “times, places, and manner of holding elections.” Such control, he argued, fosters local trust; voters recognize their neighbors in polling places and trust that their state officials—elected by them—will keep their personal information safeguarded.
Moreover, Judge Carter expressed concern that the DOJ’s request could deter various groups from participating in elections, particularly those from political minorities and working-class immigrants. The fear of how their data might be utilized could lead individuals to refrain from registering or voting altogether. This chilling effect is seen as contrary to the essence of democratic engagement and the principles that civil rights activists fought for.
Carter’s ruling marks a noteworthy instance of judicial activism, particularly given his previous rulings related to Trump and the January 6 committee subpoenas. By blocking the DOJ’s request, Judge Carter sent a clear message against what he perceives as federal encroachment into state rights concerning election management. The ongoing tension between federal oversight and state autonomy in elections continues to be a contentious issue, with profound implications not just for California, but for the entire nation.
"*" indicates required fields
