Judge limits DHS election operations in nine states, for now

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted a preliminary injunction on October 21 restricting specified Department of Homeland Security election-related field operations in nine states. But as of 5:03 p.m. Central on October 22, the restrictions were not yet in effect: the order was stayed until 5 p.m. Pacific on October 23.

The bond deadline was separate from the end of the stay. Plaintiffs had to post a $100 bond by 5 p.m. Pacific on October 22, file it with the Clerk’s Office and deposit it into the court registry. At the October 22 snapshot, it was 3:03 p.m. Pacific, so the deadline had not passed. The order says it will be dissolved if the bond is not posted. If the bond is posted and the court does not change the order, the restrictions are scheduled to remain in effect until 8 p.m. November 3, when polling places close, or as otherwise directed by the court.

What the injunction restricts i

The order applies in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. It binds the named defendants and their officers, agents, employees, attorneys and people acting in concert with them.

It bars covered officials from conducting election-related field operations or interviews in those states that involve, or are likely to involve, people they know, suspect, or reasonably should know or suspect are U.S. citizens. A separate provision restricts field operations based wholly on specified records in the federal TECS system, generated through a voter-eligibility matching policy, when they concern people covered by the order.

This is not a blanket ban on federal investigations into suspected noncitizen voting. The restrictions apply to specified field activity, in the nine states, under the conditions set out in the order.

The court’s preliminary findings i

The judge found that the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United had associational standing for a Voting Rights Act claim about intimidation affecting voter assistance and mobilization. The order says the unions presented substantial evidence that the challenged conduct interfered with those efforts. It recounts declarations from at least four U.S.-citizen union members who feared being wrongly targeted, including members who stopped participating in election-related activity.

The order describes 48.2 million records from independent sources and 50.6 million Justice Department records. Those are record totals, not a confirmed count of unique people, and the judge did not find that every record was inaccurate. The order recounts the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ acknowledgment that similar names, incomplete records, outdated citizenship information and clerical mistakes can cause errors. It also describes instructions calling for at least 40 reviews, with no more than 12 minutes for each review.

The administration argued that federal officials could investigate unlawful voting, that imperfect data could still be used and that the intimidation allegations were too vague. The judge found that San Francisco, Santa Clara County and Voto Latino had not established standing for the preliminary relief they sought. The injunction is preliminary, not a final decision on the legality of the Unlawful Voter Initiative or all claims in the case. The judge heard the preliminary-injunction motion on October 19.