Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The Federal Election Integrity Office asks the Court to require the California Ballot Administration Office to set aside, temporarily, ballots associated with registrants on a federal list while citizenship is checked. The plaintiff says counting first could make it impossible to separate a ballot later if it is determined to be improper. The defendant asks that ordinary processing continue. 2. The parties have had an opportunity to explain their positions and respond to the central evidentiary gaps. The record contains the parties’ submissions and a federal list summary. It does not contain the processing notice described by the defendant. No monetary amount is claimed or supported. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the plaintiff has shown a sufficient factual basis for temporarily setting aside ballots. The plaintiff bears the burden under Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof. Rule 2 favors reliable records over unsupported accounts, and Rule 8 makes clear that suspicion is not proof. 4. The second issue is whether the proposed safeguard is proportionate and workable in light of the claimed risk and the asserted processing delay. Rule 6 requires a remedy matched to the harm. Rule 47 recognizes that agency discretion has limits, but the record must support the relevant decision and remedy. Submissions of the parties 5. The plaintiff relies on a federal list summary that flags more than 20,000 registrants for possible citizenship review. The plaintiff does not contend that every flagged person is ineligible or has submitted a mail ballot. It argues that counting before verification could make later correction impossible and asks to set aside only ballots associated with listed registrants, temporarily. 6. The defendant disputes that the list is reliable or current enough to justify a pause and says separate review would delay processing. The defendant refers to a ballot-processing notice warning of delay, but that notice is not included in the record. The defendant asks that ordinary processing continue. Its submissions do not explain how ordinary processing would address the asserted risk of later separation. Evidence and findings 7. The federal list summary is presented as an exhibit and is available in the record. It supports the limited finding that more than 20,000 registrants were flagged for possible citizenship review. Its stated contents do not identify how many flagged registrants have mail ballots, establish that any flagged person is ineligible, or show that a ballot cannot be separated after counting. The state disputes the summary’s currency and reliability. The summary’s limited description does not resolve that dispute, and it cannot be treated as proof of ineligibility. 8. The plaintiff’s repeated statements about the risk of counting first are arguments, not independent evidence that the risk will occur or that later separation is impossible. The plaintiff expressly acknowledges that the record cannot quantify affected ballots or verification time and does not identify a smaller group from the evidence. Those acknowledgments are consistent across the plaintiff’s submissions, but consistency does not supply the missing factual support. 9. The defendant’s statements support that it asserts a notice warned of delay. Because the notice itself is absent, the Court cannot determine its wording, basis, or the likely length and extent of delay. The defendant’s further submission contains broad assertions about credibility and speculation but supplies no additional record evidence. The Court therefore gives the delay assertion limited weight. Reasons 10. On the first issue, the plaintiff has not met its burden. The list summary establishes that a substantial number of registrants were flagged for review, but a flag for review is not proof that a person is ineligible. Nor does the summary connect the flagged registrants to any number of mail ballots. Under Rules 1 and 8, the Court cannot infer ineligibility or a ballot-related risk merely from the existence of a review flag. 11. The plaintiff’s concern about timing is understandable: if a ballot cannot be separated after counting, a later correction could be difficult. But the record does not establish that counting would make separation impossible, how many ballots might be affected, or why the ordinary process could not preserve the ability to address any later finding. The Court does not require the plaintiff to prove that an improper ballot has already been counted; it does require specific support for the requested intervention. The plaintiff’s stated concern, without evidence supporting its likelihood or scale, is insufficient. Issue basis-for-pause is therefore not proven. 12. On the second issue, the plaintiff’s proposed remedy is narrower than a general halt: it would apply only to ballots associated with listed registrants and would be temporary. That limitation weighs in the plaintiff’s favor under Rule 6. But the record does not identify the ballots to be held, quantify the affected group, or show how long verification would take. The proposed safeguard’s practical scope and duration are consequently uncertain. 13. The defendant’s delay argument is also incompletely supported because the notice is not in evidence. The Court does not find that a particular delay will occur or that the defendant has established the consequences of one. Nor does the defendant explain how ordinary processing would address the plaintiff’s separation concern. Those shortcomings do not shift the plaintiff’s burden or establish that the requested pause is justified. On the record as a whole, the remedy’s proportionality and workability have not been demonstrated. Issue delay-and-remedy is not proven. 14. The Court decides only whether the requested temporary safeguard is supported on this record. It does not decide the citizenship of any registrant, the ultimate reliability of the underlying list, or whether any ballot is improper. The record provides no basis to award money or other relief beyond the requested pause. Final order 15. The plaintiff’s request to require the California Ballot Administration Office to set aside ballots associated with registrants flagged for citizenship review is DENIED. The defendant’s request that ordinary processing continue is granted to that extent. No finding is made that any flagged registrant is ineligible or that any ballot is improper. No monetary award is entered.