GOP States Move to Block DOJ Election Monitors in Polling Places

Yesterday at 4:11 pm

655 posts

GOP States Move to Block DOJ Election Monitors in Polling Places \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Republican-led states, including Missouri, Texas, and Florida, are resisting the Justice Department’s long-standing practice of deploying election monitors to polling places. Missouri has filed a lawsuit to restrict federal monitors from entering polling sites, arguing it infringes on state laws. The Justice Department, which deploys monitors to uphold federal voting rights laws, plans to send officials to 86 jurisdictions across 27 states to ensure compliance.

Republican-Led States Challenge DOJ Election Monitoring Quick Looks

Federal Blockage: Missouri files suit, and Florida and Texas restrict DOJ election monitors.
DOJ’s Plan: DOJ to monitor voting rights compliance in 86 jurisdictions across 27 states.
Monitoring Purpose: DOJ monitors enforce laws protecting voter rights and access.
State Concerns: States argue DOJ presence infringes on local election regulations.
Historical Context: DOJ has sent monitors for decades under both parties to ensure fair voting practices.

Deep Look

In a contentious move, several Republican-led states are challenging the Justice Department’s long-standing practice of deploying election monitors to observe polling places, arguing it infringes on state autonomy over election processes. On Monday, Missouri filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block DOJ monitors from entering polling locations, asserting that such a federal presence violates state laws governing election observers. Meanwhile, officials in Texas and Florida have stated they will not allow federal election monitors into polling stations, defying federal election oversight aimed at ensuring voter protection.

The Justice Department recently announced its plans to send monitors to polling locations in 86 jurisdictions across 27 states on Election Day. The department has been deploying these monitors, primarily lawyers from the Civil Rights Division and U.S. attorneys’ offices, for decades. Their role is to oversee compliance with federal voting laws, ensuring that polling practices align with statutes protecting voters against discrimination, intimidation, and accessibility issues. The DOJ declined to comment on the Missouri lawsuit and other states’ moves to restrict access.

Missouri’s Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft argues that state law “clearly and specifically limits who may be in polling places,” asserting that federal monitors are not among the permitted categories. In Missouri’s lawsuit, Ashcroft contends that the federal presence would “illegally interfere in Missouri’s elections.” Missouri’s law allows certain individuals, such as voters, poll workers, election judges, and minor children accompanying voters, to be in polling places but excludes federal officials. Ashcroft accuses the DOJ of “trying to go through the back door” by attempting to work directly with local election officials to secure access.

The Justice Department had previously intended to deploy monitors in Missouri’s Cole County during the 2022 elections, but after Ashcroft presented state law to federal officials, the DOJ withdrew. Ashcroft claims the department’s current efforts represent a renewed attempt to circumvent state authority. Messages seeking comment from the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners were left unreturned on Monday. Notably, the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners reached a settlement in 2021 with the DOJ, addressing accessibility issues for voters with disabilities at polling locations. The settlement included terms mandating that the board “cooperate fully” with DOJ monitoring efforts, specifically allowing Election Day access for federal monitors to verify ADA compliance.

Other states echo Missouri’s stance. In a letter to the Justice Department on Friday, Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson asserted that “Texas law is clear” in prohibiting DOJ monitors from entering polling places or central ballot-counting stations. She emphasized that Texas has robust procedures in place to ensure election integrity and that the state will handle its own monitoring. Nelson stated, “Texas has a robust process to ensure eligible voters participate in a free and fair election.”

Similarly, Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd informed the DOJ that Florida law limits access within polling sites, and DOJ officials are not included among those allowed inside. He assured that state-level monitors would oversee Florida’s polling sites in the jurisdictions the DOJ planned to visit, ensuring compliance with the voting process. Byrd asserted, “There will be no interference with the voting process.”

The Justice Department’s election monitoring, which has taken place for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations, is part of its mission to uphold the Voting Rights Act and other federal statutes that protect voters from intimidation and discrimination. These monitors are tasked with observing voting conditions, addressing issues such as access for disabled voters under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and identifying any potential violations that may hinder the voting process. However, in states like Missouri, Texas, and Florida, Republican officials argue that the federal presence infringes on state-managed election systems, potentially creating conflicts over jurisdictional authority on Election Day.

Among the key battleground locations receiving federal election monitors are Maricopa County, Arizona, and Fulton County, Georgia—both of which were focal points of election conspiracy theories in the 2020 presidential race. Other areas where monitors are planned include Detroit, Michigan; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Queens, New York. The DOJ’s list also includes Portage County, Ohio, where a sheriff faced backlash over a social media post suggesting addresses of those with Harris campaign signs should be recorded so that, if Kamala Harris won, immigrants could be placed in those homes.

In Missouri, the legal clash over election monitors underscores the state’s assertion of authority over election operations. Secretary Ashcroft has publicly defended his decision to limit federal involvement, citing the state’s authority to regulate who may be inside polling places and emphasizing the local nature of Missouri elections. St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners previously faced accessibility issues, prompting the 2021 DOJ settlement agreement aimed at improving polling site access for voters with disabilities.

This move by GOP-led states reflects a growing tension between state and federal oversight in elections, particularly as concerns about election integrity and interference remain heightened. The DOJ monitors typically ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws voter intimidation and discrimination based on race, color, or language, and the ADA, which mandates that polling sites provide equal access to voters with disabilities. The presence of federal monitors has traditionally been seen as a safeguard for voters, particularly in areas with a history of voting access concerns.

As the presidential race between Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and Republican nominee Donald Trump remains neck-and-neck, the Justice Department’s monitoring plans underscore federal efforts to ensure secure and lawful voting practices. Both campaigns have geared up for potential legal disputes over ballot counts and voting processes, making the role of election monitors increasingly pivotal. Missouri’s legal challenge to federal oversight may have implications beyond this election, setting potential precedents for how state and federal jurisdictions intersect in managing and monitoring elections in the future.

The Justice Department is expected to proceed with its monitoring efforts in other jurisdictions, with monitors set to be present on Election Day in a range of critical swing states, including Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan. The outcome of Missouri’s lawsuit and similar objections from Texas and Florida could shape the landscape of federal election oversight, particularly in states where state governments assert that they alone have authority over election protocols within polling places.