Eastern District of California denies ballot hold tied to 20,000 flagged registrations

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied a federal enforcement official’s request to temporarily separate and delay counting ballots associated with approximately 20,000 registrations flagged for citizenship checks. The court found that Nathan Bellamy had not supplied reliable evidence supporting the blanket hold.

The court also declined to turn state election official Elena Duarte’s offer of targeted review and preservation of ballot records into a binding order. Her proposal lacked a sufficiently specific timetable and operating terms. Judgment was entered for Duarte on the requested relief.

The decisive gap was between identifying registrations for investigation and proving a basis to delay the associated ballots. Bellamy supplied neither the notice itself nor the registration list, flagging criteria or individual examples of underlying records. His repeated assertions that notice had been sent did not independently establish its contents, delivery or the reliability of the flags.

Because Bellamy sought the hold, he had to support it with specific evidence. The state’s inability to establish that every flag was wrong did not transfer that burden to Duarte. The court made no finding that any registrant was ineligible, but equally made no finding that the flags were inaccurate.

The scope of the requested remedy mattered too. Bellamy had not explained why a blanket delay was necessary rather than a response tied to documented cases. Yet the narrower alternative was not sufficiently developed for a mandatory order: the state’s review remained incomplete, its referenced sample was not attached, and its response supplied no detailed schedule.

Duarte’s signed response established her objections and offer—not that the list was unreliable or that review had been completed. Presenting the same response repeatedly did not provide additional corroboration.

Bellamy characterized the requested hold as a temporary safeguard, not a declaration of guilt or ineligibility. He relied on his assertion that an October 19 notice had identified registrations needing citizenship verification and sought review within 48 hours, with associated ballots kept separate in the meantime.

Duarte argued that a federal flag did not establish a voter’s current ineligibility. She offered immediate review of specifically documented cases and preservation of related ballot records, while acknowledging that the state had not reviewed every entry and that its small sample was not attached. She sought denial of the blanket hold or a safeguard confined to documented cases.

The dispute arose from Bellamy’s asserted October 19, 2026 notice to California officials. The approximately 20,000 figure referred to flagged registrations, not an established count of ballots cast by ineligible voters.

The judgment resolves the request on the evidence presented, not the citizenship status of those listed. It leaves Duarte free to carry out her offered review and preservation measures, but imposes no separate obligation or timetable for doing so.