U.S. District Judge David O. Carter announced Tuesday he intends to appoint a special master to investigate the Justice Department's process for compiling a list of approximately 20,000 registered voters in California alleged to be likely non-citizens. The move represents a setback for the Trump administration's attempt to quickly intervene in the state's election procedures ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

Judge Carter expressed skepticism regarding the Department of Justice's (DOJ) request for emergency action, such as a temporary restraining order, describing it as a "monumental change" to California's election administration so close to the election date. The DOJ's lawsuit seeks to compel California to segregate mail ballots cast by individuals on this list, arguing it is necessary to ensure compliance with federal law prohibiting non-citizens from voting.

During a court hearing, First Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli, a Trump appointee, argued that the administration was merely pushing for adherence to federal law. However, state officials and opposing legal advocates contended that the DOJ's litigation encroached on states' long-held authority over election administration and risked causing significant disruption to the vote tabulation process.

Judge Carter indicated he would issue a ruling governing the case's proceedings by Wednesday. He also appeared to admonish the administration over recent communications to state officials, which suggested potential prosecution if they processed ballots from the identified list of alleged non-citizens.

The DOJ's lawsuit, filed less than a week before the election, targets California's practice of automatically mailing ballots to all registered voters. The administration's concern centers on the potential for non-citizens to cast ballots, which they claim could undermine election integrity. The list of approximately 20,000 voters was reportedly compiled by cross-referencing voter rolls with state motor vehicle and social security administration data.

Legal experts and voting rights advocates have criticized the DOJ's timing and approach, arguing that such challenges should be addressed well in advance of an election. They emphasize that states have established procedures for verifying voter eligibility and that last-minute litigation can create confusion and distrust in the electoral process.

California officials have maintained that their existing processes are robust and that the DOJ's intervention is an overreach. They argue that the state has a responsibility to ensure all eligible citizens can cast their ballots and that the DOJ's actions could disenfranchise legitimate voters or improperly interfere with the state's election administration.

The appointment of a special master suggests the court intends to conduct a more thorough examination of the DOJ's evidence and methodology before making a final decision on the emergency measures sought. This process could delay any definitive resolution of the DOJ's claims, potentially leaving the status of the questioned ballots uncertain as election results are tallied.