A federal judge quietly closed the book on the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against California earlier this week, ending a legal battle that sought to force the state to set aside more than 20,000 ballots.
According to Democracy Docket coverage, the DOJ sought a voluntary dismissal after pursuing the matter fiercely up to the Supreme Court and facing defeat at every single stage. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter obliged with a simple one-page order.
The sudden closure arrived amid post-election developments in Mississippi and Alaska, drawing little national attention outside a handful of outlets. Only two weeks prior, the prospect of federal prosecution hanging over election officials casting and counting ballots created severe tension across the Golden State and nationwide.
In his dismissal order, Judge Carter offered a final assessment of what had been at stake in the litigation. Democracy Docket said that the legal action had aimed to interfere with an active vote, generating instability and doubt among participants and personnel administering the election.
“The right to vote is sacred. So, too, is trust in our democracy,” Carter wrote.
These words echo the sentiments expressed six years prior by conservative Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas when he rejected the Trump campaign’s challenge to the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania. Bibas wrote that free and fair elections form the lifeblood of democracy, noting that charges of unfairness require specific allegations and concrete proof.
The parallels between November 2020 and the current legal cases remain striking. In both instances, Donald Trump’s party lost hotly contested elections, and both situations involved litigation instigated to alter outcomes that the courts ultimately rejected.
Significant differences, however, separate the two events. The 2020 Pennsylvania challenge was litigated by Rudy Giuliani on behalf of a campaign facing defeat, whereas the California case originated directly from the Department of Justice as part of a premeditated attack on election administration.
While the Pennsylvania litigation sought to discard lawful votes, the California action went further by pairing court filings with threats to investigate and prosecute state and local election officials.
While the dismissal of the 2020 Pennsylvania lawsuits received widespread national coverage as a triumph for democratic norms, the conclusion of the California DOJ case this week barely registered in mainstream media.
