Republican States Push Back Against DOJ Election Monitors on Election Day

In a move challenging federal oversight, some Republican-led states have declared they will block the Justice Department’s election monitors from entering polling sites on Election Day. Officials in Florida and Texas have stated they won’t allow federal monitors inside polling places, while Missouri has escalated matters by filing a lawsuit to prevent federal observers from accessing voting sites.

The Justice Department’s recent announcement to deploy monitors in 86 jurisdictions across 27 states marks a significant effort to uphold federal voting laws. Despite resistance from some states, the Department remains committed to protecting voters’ rights—a practice upheld under both Democratic and Republican administrations to reinforce election integrity.

What Are Election Monitors?

Election monitors are attorneys from the Justice Department, often affiliated with the Civil Rights Division, tasked with observing polling places to ensure compliance with federal voting rights. While they lack law enforcement power, these attorneys help enforce laws such as the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voter intimidation, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which mandates accessible voting options for people with disabilities.

Where Will Monitors Be Deployed?

The Justice Department plans to send monitors to several high-profile locations, including Maricopa County, Arizona, and Fulton County, Georgia, as part of efforts to ensure fair and accessible voting. Monitors will also be deployed in areas such as Detroit, Milwaukee, Queens, and other locations across Ohio, Rhode Island, and Alaska. These monitors are tasked with identifying potential violations of federal voting laws, helping to instill confidence in the election process.

Missouri’s Legal Challenge

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft has led legal opposition, claiming that state law limits who may be present at polling locations, explicitly excluding federal officials. Ashcroft argues that federal involvement constitutes “illegal interference” in Missouri’s election process. Missouri’s lawsuit also emphasizes past disputes: in 2022, the Justice Department planned to monitor polling sites in Cole County but withdrew after Missouri officials pointed to restrictive state laws.

Missouri’s stance contrasts with a 2021 settlement between the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners and the Justice Department. This agreement focused on improving access for voters with disabilities and required St. Louis to cooperate with federal monitoring efforts through 2025, demonstrating a cooperative approach to ensuring fair elections.

Texas and Florida’s Stance

Texas and Florida have taken similar positions, with Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson and Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd sending formal letters to the DOJ. Both officials argue that state laws specify who can enter polling locations, explicitly excluding federal observers. Nelson and Byrd have expressed confidence in their states’ internal monitoring measures to maintain election integrity.

Texas officials underscored the state’s commitment to secure voting. Nelson stated, “Justice Department monitors are not permitted inside polling places where ballots are being cast.” Florida has also pledged to deploy state monitors in jurisdictions of concern, seeking to prevent any external interference.

A Close Race Heightens Tensions

With the presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump tightly contested, both parties are bracing for potential legal challenges. Traditionally seen as a bipartisan safeguard, federal oversight has now become a contentious issue. As Election Day approaches, the possibility of a legal showdown over election monitoring and federal intervention could shape the election’s outcome.

Whether the Justice Department will alter its monitoring plans remains uncertain. However, any reduction in federal monitoring could affect election fairness. This ongoing dispute underscores a broader debate on states’ rights versus federal authority in election matters. As voters head to the polls, the tension between ensuring secure, accessible elections and respecting state sovereignty is likely to remain a critical issue in U.S. electoral politics.