Fate of California’s Vote-by-Mail System Tied to Landmark SCOTUS Case
The fate of California’s controversial vote-by-mail election system may be hanging in the balance as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a case originating in Illinois that could upend how congressional representation is calculated—and with it, how mail-in voting policies are justified nationwide. At the heart of the legal battle is the question of whether non-citizens should be counted when states redraw their legislative districts. If the Court rules against such inclusion, states like California could see major implications for their electoral frameworks.
The case, brought by Judicial Watch and former Republican U.S. House candidate Laura Pollastrini, challenges the State of Illinois’ practice of counting non-citizens in legislative redistricting. They argue that such practices violate the principle of equal protection by inflating representation in districts with large numbers of non-citizens at the expense of citizen-heavy areas. The outcome could directly affect California, where expansive vote-by-mail laws have coincided with the inclusion of non-citizens in census-based district maps.
California’s vote-by-mail infrastructure, first expanded during the pandemic, has since become a permanent fixture under Assembly Bill 37. Every registered voter in California now automatically receives a mail-in ballot, regardless of request. Conservatives have consistently raised concerns about ballot security, chain of custody, and verification standards. If the Supreme Court sides with Pollastrini, it may create legal grounds to challenge the very basis of how mail-in voting districts are drawn—and whom they serve.
Legal experts aligned with the plaintiffs argue that counting non-citizens for redistricting is a form of dilution of citizen votes, leading to unequal political power. “This is a straightforward constitutional issue,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “One person, one vote cannot mean one citizen’s vote counts less because of inflated representation from non-citizen populations.” Fitton added that the ramifications could be nationwide but are particularly urgent in states like California and New York, where non-citizen populations are high.
While the Supreme Court previously addressed this issue in 2016’s Evenwel v. Abbott, it sidestepped a definitive ruling on whether states must use citizen-only data or if they merely may use total population counts. The Illinois case now seeks to force clarity on that matter. A ruling that states must base redistricting on citizen population could open the floodgates for litigation against states that have crafted laws, like mail-in voting expansions, based on inflated legislative authority.
Critics of California’s vote-by-mail system have long argued that it benefits from artificially bolstered representation due to the inclusion of non-citizens in population counts. Conservative election watchdogs argue that this skews legislative priorities, allocates more resources to areas with lower citizen turnout, and increases opportunities for electoral manipulation under the guise of accessibility.
Supporters of the current system, however, argue that vote-by-mail ensures greater voter participation and fairness. Yet voter integrity advocates remain skeptical, pointing to repeated findings of irregularities, including duplicate ballots, mismatched signatures, and ballots sent to outdated addresses. “The question isn’t just about who votes, but who’s even supposed to be represented,” one California GOP official commented anonymously. “You can’t have fair elections if you’re miscounting the very foundation of democratic representation.”
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case during its next term, and a decision could arrive in 2025. If the Court rules that only citizens should count for districting purposes, state legislatures across the country may need to revise their redistricting maps. This, in turn, could influence how election infrastructure—especially systems like universal vote-by-mail—is justified legally and constitutionally.
According to the Northern California Record, experts suggest that states relying on bloated redistricting models may have to unwind voting practices derived from them. “If a legislative majority was created based on faulty representation, then every law they passed could be challenged for lacking proper authority,” one attorney speculated.
Eric Thompson, a California resident and Christian political commentator, voiced concerns that this SCOTUS case could expose deeper systemic issues. “For years, conservatives have warned that California’s mail-in voting system is being propped up by a distorted political foundation,” he said. “If non-citizen headcounts are what gave progressive legislators the ability to force these changes through, then the whole framework is suspect.”
Opponents of the status quo argue that the consequences go beyond politics. Misrepresentation based on inflated population counts could alter funding formulas, school district boundaries, and even emergency response planning. For conservative critics, this isn’t just about election integrity—it’s about honest governance.
As the Court prepares to weigh in, many on the right are hopeful that this will mark a turning point. A favorable ruling could serve as a judicial rebuke to states like California that have leaned heavily into mail-in voting systems without fully securing their democratic legitimacy.
For now, California’s vote-by-mail system remains intact, but its legal underpinnings may be more vulnerable than previously believed. The Illinois case has offered conservatives a long-awaited legal path to challenge practices they argue have eroded trust in the electoral system. If the Supreme Court agrees, California could face a seismic shift not just in how it votes, but in how it is governed.
