DOJ Election Push Raises Fears of Voter Intimidation

The Justice Department is seeking to decertify Alaska’s Senate results if Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan loses narrowly, escalating federal pressure on election officials just days before the Nov. 3 midterm election. Its revised lawsuit alleges Democrats tried to confuse voters by placing a candidate with Sullivan’s name on the ballot; Alaska’s election office has taken steps to reduce confusion, and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in June that Dan J. Sullivan Jr. could compete.

Federal Power at the Polls

U.S. Navy veteran Nicholas Little, a volunteer poll watcher in Harris County, Texas, said he feared a “confrontation” if he witnessed a Justice Department monitor interfering with voters and called police. “This is a dangerous precedent the federal government is setting,” he said. “I stay up at night wondering if I will wake up to freedom and democracy, or chains and martial law.”

The Justice Department issued 40 subpoenas and document-preservation requests as part of its revised Alaska complaint, Reuters reported. A New York Times report alleged members of Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign helped recruit retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan Jr. as a spoiler candidate. Peltola’s campaign denied involvement, and the source article says recruiting candidates to split an opponent’s vote is generally legal and used by both parties in Alaska.

The lawsuit has drawn criticism because voter intent can’t be determined from the final tally alone. Justin Levitt, a former Department of Justice official under President Joe Biden, told the Associated Press: “I don't know what they're putting out subpoenas to investigate because I don't know what federal violations are implicated that DOJ would have jurisdiction over.” He added: “Sure makes it seem like the point of the investigation is to become the story.”

The federal election push extends beyond Alaska. USA Today reported that the Justice Department planned to send about 1,000 officials to polling places in every state, but hadn’t provided a full list of locations. A department spokeswoman said the counties would be disclosed after the election. The department says monitors will ensure only citizens vote.

Hani Mirza, an attorney representing Advancement Project, said the use of monitors, including criminal prosecutors, raised concerns. “If you have prosecutors or other law enforcement there... that could be used as a form of investigation. It could be used to target voters and election workers and other officials.” The NAACP sued to stop this year’s monitoring, arguing the department lacked authority to enforce state and county voting rules, including citizenship verification.

When Monitoring Becomes Pressure

The NAACP lawsuit says the department has “twisted the Poll Monitoring Program into a tool to pursue baseless allegations of widespread voter fraud.” It argues that the focus on alleged fraud, the first-time use of criminal prosecutors and the scale of deployment could intimidate voters concerned about surveillance, investigation or prosecution for voting.

Experiences cited in the reporting give those fears a concrete setting. During Texas’s May primary cycle, armed ICE agents entered a polling-site parking lot to detain someone in view of voters and left after a local sheriff asked them to. In June, armed ICE agents visited an active polling site in Ventura, California, where local officials said masked agents in vests created an intimidating atmosphere. ICE agents also entered a polling place in Syracuse, New York, and told an election worker they were investigating social-media posts criticizing ICE that the worker had made five months earlier.

A September University of California San Diego poll found fewer than 50% of voters thought elections would be “free and fair.” Forty percent considered it likely federal immigration officers would appear at polling centers, with expectations varying substantially among racial groups. An NPR/PBS News/Marist survey, by contrast, found a majority trusted their own state and local officials to run a fair election.

Local officials have also questioned the federal role. Adams County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder Josh Zygielbaum said his county had never had complaints, charges or investigations that justified Justice Department monitoring. He said it felt “almost as if they're coming here to scrutinize the voter,” and feared officials might be trying to create a criminal case against him or his office.

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon described monitors at an earlier primary as “irregular” and “a bit aggressive.” Laramie County Clerk Debra Lee said federal observers had agreed to wear county-issued identification and stay at least 100 feet from polls if they wished to interview voters. Justice Department spokeswoman Kiersten Pels said monitors would follow laws and wouldn’t identify themselves as prosecutors.

Campaign Theater, Election Doubt

Trump canceled an in-person rally scheduled for Saturday at Salina Regional Airport and the White House said he would instead hold more than 20 tele-rallies before Election Day. A GOP source said demand for an appearance had been “huge” and “insane,” while Republicans were adjusting to “maximize his reach and communicate with as many voters as possible.”

The campaign schedule is running alongside a wider dispute over the rules and legitimacy of voting. HuffPost reported Trump had cast doubt on elections at least 440 times in his second term, while Justice Department actions involving election officials had mostly failed in court. Trump suggested declaring a national emergency over voter fraud and seizing ballots or voting machines; state election officials insisted that wouldn’t happen.

Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said the administration appeared to be “throwing spaghetti at the wall just to see what might stick.” Even unsuccessful efforts, she warned, could feed doubt about elections. Trump said on Oct. 27 that he would respect results “if they're honest elections.” In Adams County, Zygielbaum said, “Whoever wins in the end is whoever wins in the end. I'm on the ballot again this year, and if I lose, that's the will of the people. That's how it's supposed to be. Just because you lost doesn't mean the other side cheated.”