Judge warns 'hell to pay' if DOJ misstated role of poll monitors

Madlin Mekelburg, Bloomberg News on Nov 2, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said he is “struggling” with whether to grant an eleventh-hour bid by the NAACP to block the Justice Department from deploying personnel from federal law enforcement agencies to serve as poll monitors during the midterm election on Tuesday.

Walton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said during a hearing Monday in Washington that he was not sure that the civil rights group had sufficiently demonstrated that the presence of such employees among the nearly 1,000 poll monitors the department is dispatching nationwide would amount to voter intimidation in violation of federal law.

DOJ attorney Kathryn Barragan said during the hearing that those employees will not be present at polls in a law enforcement capacity and they will not wear uniforms or other identifying insignia. She said the department is working to ensure that none of the law enforcement employees participating as monitors are “sworn officers,” or have the authority to make arrests.

Walton stressed the importance of that distinction and said he hoped that Barragan “would not misrepresent the reality of who these monitors are going to be.”

If she did, Walton said, “there’s going to be hell to pay for that.”

The department said in a filing that any employees acting as monitors would be prohibited from having any firearms with them, like all poll monitors.

Walton stressed that he has concerns based on “the history of things that have been taking place under the current administration.”

“I do have concerns,” he said. “But those concerns, I don’t know if they rise to the level of me being able to conclude that the plaintiffs have made that high burden of showing the potential of irreparable harm if an injunction isn’t granted.”

Beyond election monitors, which are routinely deployed by the Justice Department, President Donald Trump has been pursuing extraordinary legal tactics to assert greater federal control over U.S. elections, testing the boundaries of Washington’s power over how Americans vote as his Republican Party seeks to keep its majority in Congress. The administration has heavily focused on identifying people attempting to vote illegally.

The DOJ said in a court filing before the hearing that employees from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Drug Enforcement Administration will be serving as monitors.

The DOJ’s plan to send monitors from law enforcement agencies to polling locations has sparked fierce pushback from voting rights groups and Democrats, who have voiced concerns that the presence of federal agents near voting precincts could suppress turnout or trigger clashes with local election officials.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in an interview with Bloomberg News in August that the role of the monitors is to observe and follow up with any investigations, not to intervene. She said that the DOJ monitors have the same status as any other election monitor under state law, adding that the goal was to help instill confidence in the election process.

Federal election monitors are typically attorneys and staff from the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. They are charged with monitoring compliance with federal law. Previous administrations have directed monitors to look for issues like accessibility for people with disabilities.

Barragan told Walton on Wednesday that the department had approximately 900 employees set to serve as monitors, a significant increase from the 2024 election, when the department had 600 monitors.

Walton asked how the DOJ was determining where to dispatch monitors, expressing concern that it might be politically motivated. Barragan said she did not have an answer to his question.

Walton said he hoped it was not the case that monitors are “being sent to any particular locations because of the perceived political leanings of those locations.”

The case is National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Blanche, 1:26-cv-03626, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC).

_____

(With assistance from Jimmy Jenkins.)

_____