Millions of Americans will soon head to the polls to cast ballots in local and statewide political races, in the first general election of President Donald Trump’s second term in the White House.
Democrats in Washington and throughout the country have expressed optimism that growing anti-Trump sentiment will buoy their party’s prospects — hopeful that Tuesday’s contests will represent a major step towards their ultimate goal of retaking power in Congress in 2026, and the White House in 2028.
But for some voters, the current administration’s actions might be especially top-of-mind: Trump administration officials are poised to be positioned outside some polling places “monitoring” elections.
Last month, the Department of Justice announced it would send federal election monitors to five counties in California and one in New Jersey to “ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law.” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement that the monitors were necessary to “ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”
Democratic officials in those states quickly decried the move.
Sending election monitors is “highly inappropriate, and DOJ has not even attempted to identify a legitimate basis for its actions,” New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin told Scripps News in a statement.
“The Constitution gives states, not the federal government, the primary responsibility for running elections,” he continued, noting that he was speaking in his capacity as the head of the state’s Voter Protection Initiative and not on behalf of any individual county board of elections. “We are committed to ensuring that every eligible voter is able to cast their ballot and make their voices heard, and we are considering all of our options to prevent any effort to intimidate voters or interfere with our elections."
“This is not a federal election. The US DOJ has no business or basis to interfere with this election. This is solely about whether California amends our state constitution,” echoed Brandon Richards, a spokesman for California Governor Gavin Newsom. “This administration has made no secret of its goal to undermine free and fair elections. Deploying these federal forces appears to be an intimidation tactic meant for one thing: suppress the vote."
What are election monitors and what can they legally do?
According to the U.S. Constitution, individual states have the power to determine the “time, places and manner” in which elections are conducted.
But that doesn’t mean there’s no role for the federal government. The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ has the power to enforce a number of laws guaranteeing the right to vote, and both Republican and Democratic administrations have previously sent monitors to observe elections.
In 2024, for example, the Biden administration dispatched election monitors to 27 states, and his DOJ monitored elections in 24 states in 2022. In 2020, towards the end of Trump’s first term in office, his administration’s DOJ sent monitors to 18 states.
According to Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the left-leaning legal nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice, those monitors typically take a “passive” role.
“They take notes, and those notes might be used later in enforcement of the voting federal voting laws,” Morales-Doyle told Scripps News in an interview. “But they're not sort of a noticeable presence, especially in light of the fact that there are a lot of other different kinds of poll washers at polling places in the United States, depending on what state you're in.”
DOJ monitors are limited to overseeing compliance with federal anti-discrimination law, specifically the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Importantly, they’re not “law enforcement officers” in the traditional sense – and in fact it’s typically illegal for armed federal agents to show up at polling places. Election monitors are prevented from talking to voters or poll workers, can't access to voting machines or ballots and often can’t even enter polling places without explicit permission from local officials.
The timing the election coupled with the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to reshape the federal workforce are also likely to impact election monitors’ presence this year.
“We're in the middle of a government shutdown. The voting section of the Department of Justice has been decimated and has very few people working for it these days. So I don't actually know how many people are going to be out there doing monitoring,” Morales-Doyle noted. “Most people are going to vote at a polling place where I imagine there's not going to be a monitor. Even if there are monitors, so long as they function the way they have in the past and the way that they're authorized to function, people probably won’t even notice their presence.”
What’s different this time around?
While DOJ election monitors aren’t new, the manner in which the Trump administration is deploying them – and the many false claims about voter fraud that Trump and his senior officials have previously espoused – is raising concerns for some experts and elected officials.
Because Tuesday’s elections in New Jersey and California focus solely on state and local matters and not federal issues, it’s unusual for federal monitors to participate, experts say. Similarly, the Justice Department’s claim that the monitors will ensure “ballot security” has raised alarm bells, since that falls outside the statutory authority granted to DOJ election monitors who typically only focus on anti-discrimination laws.
Moreover, the DOJ’s announcement about the monitors came specifically in response to requests from the New Jersey and California Republican Parties, who warned of mass voter fraud – despite ample evidence fraud is exceedingly rare.
"Fraud is a serious concern, if there's some reason to think that there's fraud, and law enforcement should stop fraud in our elections,” Morales-Doyle noted. “But that's not actually the role of the Department of Justice in a state election. And at least in California, I think any allegations of fraud, as far as I can tell, have no basis.”
Newsom has described the DOJ’s announcement as a “bridge too far,” suggesting Trump and his officials “do not believe in free and fair elections.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, also a Democrat, has said his state will send its own monitors to oversee the DOJ officials and ensure they don’t overstep their authorities.
“They’re not going to be allowed to interfere in ways that the law prohibits,” Bonta told reporters last month. “We cannot be naive. The Republican Party asked for the U.S. DOJ to come in.”
Carly Jones, a spokesperson for Rep. Mikie Sherill – the Democratic nominee for New Jersey governor – said Sherill “fully supports the prosecution of bad actors who violate our election laws,” but added that, “we cannot allow Trump and his election deniers to support some ‘stop the steal’ strategy for [Republican gubernatorial nominee] Jack Ciattarelli when he loses.”
Election experts and public officeholders are especially concerned Trump might use the DOJ monitors as a pretext to claim election outcomes are “rigged” after the fact.
Democratic elected officials have also questioned why the counties where monitors are being sent – Kern, Riverside, Fresno, Orange and Los Angeles in California, and Passaic in New Jersey – represent some of the largest and most diverse in their respective states, home to especially large Latino populations who’ve borne the brunt of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda.
“Donald Trump and the Republican Party continue spreading lies to undermine trust, both here and across the nation,” Rep. Norma Torres, a Democrat who represents parts of Los Angeles and San Bernadino counties, said in a recent statement. “Their goal is clear: to sow distrust, suppress votes, and silence Californians, especially Latino communities in Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire. DOJ’s actions are an attack on our democracy, and I will not stand by while Californians’ right to vote is threatened.”
Other elected officials have raised concerns about the specific individuals dispatched to conduct the monitoring. Whereas DOJ election monitoring has historically been conducted by career officials in the DOJ’s civil rights division, monitoring duties in at least one California county appears likely be handled by political appointees including Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Gates, according to a letter from local election authorities obtained by Scripps News. Gates comments frequently on partisan politics – including anissue before the very California voters he’ll likely be observing.
To the extent GOP officials have responded to such critiques, they’ve mostly argued that Democrats have nothing to worry about if they’re not engaging in bad behavior.
“[I]f there's nothing to hide or wrong, why the concern in having the DOJ observe the elections departments?” the California GOP wrote on X.
“lol calm down bro,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the DOJ’s civil rights division, said on X in response to Newsom’s criticisms. The DOJ “under Democrat administrations has sent in federal election observers for decades, and not once did we hear that this was voter intimidation from states such as California. Do you really want to go there? Isn’t transparency a good thing?”
Asked about Democrats’ criticisms, a DOJ official told Scripps News it’s “not unusual for DOJ to send federal election monitors for non-federal elections,” pointing to previous examples when the Biden administration did as much – such as during Alaska’s municipal elections in 2023 and several other local races that year.
How to vote safely
For voters participating in Tuesday’s elections in California, New Jersey or elsewhere, experts say it’s important not to let concerns about election monitors or political influence change their voting plans.
“Voters should hear loud and clear that they should go vote as they always do,” Morales-Doyle said. “They should turn out and vote with confidence.”
Many states, including California and New Jersey, allow voting by mail – something experts said was a good option for those worried about showing up to the polls in person.
If voters do experience or witness any sort of voter intimidation activities, they should immediately talk to the poll workers at their local polling place, and if they want, report their concerns to their state voting hotlines. Voters in all states can call 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683) or 888-VE-Y-VOTA (888-839-8682) to speak with nonpartisan experts who can answer questions or provide assistance about the voting process.
“Take [your] freedom to vote seriously and to take the importance of participating in our democracy seriously, and don't let any of this noise scare you away from doing so,” Morales-Doyle said. “That is the way to make sure that we continue to have the strong and resilient democracy that we have.”
