DOJ's CA Noncitizen Voting Case Moves From Trump-Appointed Judge to Fierce Critic of Trump and DOJ

California wanted a different judge for the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking to stop suspected noncitizens’ ballots from being counted — and on Wednesday afternoon, it got one. The case had been assigned to Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge John W. Holcomb 

 

 on Tuesday evening, but just hours later it was reassigned to Judge David O. Carter,

 

 who had already accused DOJ of concealing its motives and threatening American democracy in his January 2026 order dismissing a lawsuit in which the DOJ sought to compel the state to produce its voter rolls.

Carter took over the case pursuant to the Central District of California's General Order No. 26-11, Section II.J.1.b, which allows a judge in a prior related case to consent to the newer case being transferred to their calendar if certain conditions are met. In the earlier suit, USA vs. Weber, DOJ sought to have California compelled to provide its voter rolls to the federal government. In a scathing order, Carter unceremoniously tossed it, ruling that the voter rolls were "election materials" the state didn't need to provide to the feds; essentially, it is a records production case. The current case contains one claim: as-applied federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause, based on the prohibition against noncitizen voting in 18 U.S.C. § 611, and seeks citizenship verification before certain ballots are counted.

Given the differences in the questions of law and fact at issue in the two cases and Carter's documented animus toward the DOJ, evidenced by his characterization of DOJ's motives in bringing the first suit and conclusion that it was part of the DOJ and Trump administration "chipp[ing] away at democracy" in the order dismissing the prior case, it's reasonable to conclude that the claimed overlap between the two cases and appropriateness of Carter presiding over this one should be scrutinized.

So, how did we get here?

Parties to suits filed in the Central District of CA are required to file a Notice of Related Case "whenever a previously filed civil case and a later-filed civil case":

1. arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event;
2. call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact;
3. or for other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.

On October 15, the day the suit was filed, DOJ identified Wagner v. Weber, a voter-list maintenance lawsuit assigned to Judge Mark C. Scarsi, the judge who oversaw the California tax evasion case against Hunter Biden, as related. California opposed DOJ’s designation and submitted its own, pointing instead to Carter’s earlier United States v. Weber case.

Under the district’s assignment procedures, the judge handling the older case reviews and approves or denies a proposed related-case transfer. In this instance, there are two prior cases, but only one judge has filed paperwork to either decline or accept a transfer. It could well be that Scarsi and Carter met and determined that Carter's prior case was related to the newly-filed case, but as of this time we don't have any indication one way or the other.

Comparing the two cases reveals significant differences:

• Different operative facts: The earlier litigation arose from DOJ’s 2025 demands for unredacted voter records and California’s refusal to produce them. The October complaint concerns a subsequent federal investigation identifying more than 20,000 suspected noncitizen registrants, notice to California officials, and those officials’ handling of ballots in the 2026 election
• Different questions of law: DOJ previously sought records under the Civil Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20703; the National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i); and the Help America Vote Act. The new complaint asserts as-applied preemption under the Supremacy Clause: California’s conduct allegedly conflicts with the federal prohibition against noncitizen voting in 18 U.S.C. § 611.
• Different remedies and evidentiary issues: The earlier case sought production of records. The new case seeks declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing tabulation of specified mail ballots until citizenship is verified. It requires evaluation of the federal identification process, the evidence concerning those registrants, and the requirements for an injunction.

That transferring the case would be in the interest of judicial efficiency is also a questionable conclusion, since Carter's ruling in the prior case was based only on the initial pleadings and briefs and not a full discovery and trial process.

While the reassignment is arguably possibly appropriate under the local rules, reasonable people can question whether Carter’s broad conclusions about DOJ’s intentions will carry into his assessment of the new evidence, and whether it's proper for him to be hearing the case.

Fortunately, DOJ has procedural options. The general order provides seven days for a party to object. California served its notice opposing DOJ's designation and proposing their own related case on Thursday, October 15, so it seems that the objection period runs through Thursday, October 22 — not Wednesday. DOJ can challenge the designation and ask the court to revisit the transfer. It can also seek Carter’s recusal, citing his language and the appearance of prejudgment.

Carter has set the hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order for Tuesday, October 27.

Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are obstructing President Trump's agenda and ignoring the will of the people.

Credit: redstate.com