Why Department of Justice Election Monitoring Must Build Trust — Not Fear

By: Michael McNulty, Issue One Policy Director

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) announcement that it will deploy staff to observe elections in California and New Jersey has raised many questions and concerns across the political spectrum. These reactions underscore how important it is that any federal involvement in elections builds, rather than undermines, public trust.

When done credibly, election monitoring reassures voters that their will is reflected in the outcome. Having led and advised international monitoring missions for years, as well helping launch global principles for election observation, I’ve seen firsthand how election monitoring strengthens democracy. It deters irregularities, enhances transparency, and provides evidence-based recommendations for improving how elections are run. Put simply, when done right, election monitoring doesn’t interfere with the election process; it strengthens it.

But I’ve also seen the opposite. In places such as Russia, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, governments have weaponized election monitoring into a partisan tool. They deploy government-affiliated monitors to intimidate voters in opposition strongholds, restrict access to the vote, or to validate unfair outcomes.

Election monitoring is powerful because it helps shape public trust. That’s why it’s so crucial to do it the right way. That same principle applies here at home. The DOJ has a long, bipartisan history of monitoring elections. Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the department’s Civil Rights Division has deployed federal observers to ensure voting rights laws were being followed. For decades, these monitors have worked quietly under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

This changed with the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which ended the preclearance system requiring certain states to get federal approval before changing voting laws. Today, the DOJ may still deploy observers, but only under a federal court order or with the consent of state and local officials. In recent years, the department has continued sending election monitors to ensure voters’ rights are protected.

So, in one sense, this is nothing new. But this time could be very different.

Unlike past deployments, this year the Justice Department is deploying monitors to a special ballot initiative in California and to state and local elections in New Jersey, neither of which have federal contests on the ballot. That alone makes the move unusual. Critics across the political spectrum have questioned whether the move is politically motivated.

---

---

Part of the concern stems from how much the Justice Department itself has changed. The DOJ’s approach to civil rights — and voting rights in particular — has changed significantly this year. Since taking office in January, President Trump has appointed officials with a history of backing debunked claims of widespread election fraud. The Civil Rights Division’s priorities have shifted away from enforcing voting rights protections toward emphasizing election integrity investigations and voter fraud claims. At the same time, the DOJ has seen a wave of career attorney departures and has dropped and withdrawn from multiple voting rights cases.

Adding to these concerns is that Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Civil Rights Division, has been tasked with leading the election monitoring deployment. Dhillon has a history of defending restrictive voting laws and spreading conspiracy theories about the 2020 elections.

More broadly, this all comes at a time when the Justice Department’s independence is under severe strain. The administration has pressured states to share sensitive voter information and allow federal access to election systems. President Trump has also repeatedly pressed the DOJ to investigate his political rivals. This follows a pattern of the president testing the boundaries of executive involvement in elections. In March 2025, he issued an executive order directing sweeping changes to how elections are run.

This has raised fundamental questions about the executive branch’s authority in elections. The Constitution gives states and Congress, not the executive branch, the authority to determine how elections are run. With this in mind, Justice Department monitors may enter polling places only with state cooperation or a court order enforcing the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Recent history shows that this boundary matters. In 2024, Texas, Missouri, and Florida all objected to federal monitors entering polling locations, arguing that their state laws did not authorize it.

The delicate balance between state authority and federal protection of voting rights has decades of precedent. When the DOJ acts within that framework, it reinforces trust in elections. When it steps outside it, it risks eroding the very trust it aims to build.

Against this backdrop, skepticism about the Justice Department’s new election monitoring effort is understandable. There are serious concerns that the focus of this monitoring could shift away from preventing voter intimidation toward restricting voting rights and investigating debunked claims of widespread fraud. If that happens, the DOJ’s election monitors could inadvertently chill voter participation rather than protect it. Government-run election monitoring must never become a political weapon. If monitors appear to serve partisan goals or are used to intimidate certain voters, the damage to voters’ trust could be lasting.

These concerns could be eased with strong transparency measures. So far, the DOJ has only stated that the monitors aim to “promote transparency and an open flow of communication between poll observers and election monitors” at polling places. Voters and local officials deserve more explanation about why these jurisdictions in California and New Jersey have been selected, what the monitors will specifically observe, and the overall objective. Without more clarity, suspicion and fear could fill the gap.

There is still time for the Justice Department to get this right. To maintain credibility and public confidence, it should:

1. Be clear and transparent about the monitoring effort’s legal basis and specific objectives before Election Day.

2. Coordinate closely with state and local election officials, and respect their authority and laws.

3. Limit deployments to circumstances where there is a documented risk to voting rights.

Free elections mean every eligible voter can cast a ballot without interference, fear, or intimidation. Fair elections mean every voter is treated equally under the law, every candidate competes on an even playing field, and officials apply the rules impartially and without political interference.

The Justice Department’s decision to deploy election monitors has the potential to strengthen free and fair elections, but only if it operates with transparency, accountability, impartiality, and cooperation. At Issue One, we believe democracy thrives on trust, not fear. The test for the Justice Department this year is simple: Will its actions build that trust — or erode it?

---