The Justice Department is preparing to dispatch roughly 1,000 election monitors for the November 3 midterms, stationing federal personnel at or near polling places on a scale far larger than in previous midterm elections.
But federal credentials do not necessarily give those monitors authority to enter polling places, question voters or override state election officials.
“Apart from the three tiny jurisdictions ... where there’s a court order, DOJ monitors have no legal authority different from a member of the public,” Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and now a professor at LMU Loyola Law School, told Newsweek. “If state law allows observers, they can observe. If it doesn’t, they can’t. If it specifies conditions, they can observe under those conditions.”
Federal observers are authorized under court orders in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana; Union County, New Jersey; and Pawtucket, Rhode Island.
The distinction could become increasingly important as states prepare for the expanded federal monitoring effort and wrestle with where federal authority ends and their own begins.
...
What We Know About DOJ's Plans For 1,000 Monitors
The department plans to deploy roughly 1,000 monitors on November 3, far exceeding the 289 dispatched during the 2022 midterms and the 714 sent during the 2024 presidential election.
A DOJ spokesperson told Newsweek that there will be no monitors during early voting and that most will be DOJ personnel.
Monitors are subject to state and local laws governing polling locations.
"The Department trains every monitor on the laws that apply in their assigned jurisdiction. Monitors do not need state or local approval to monitor an election, but while they are there, they follow the same rules that apply to everyone else at the polling place," DOJ spokesperson Kiersten V. Pels told Newsweek.
DOJ has repeatedly described the purpose of its 2026 monitoring as ensuring “transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law.”
During the primary season, the department dispatched personnel to 15 jurisdictions across six states, including Laramie County, Wyoming, and Hennepin and Ramsey counties in Minnesota.
Monitors Versus Federal Observers
DOJ uses two different mechanisms to monitor elections: Justice Department attorneys and staff dispatched by the Civil Rights Division, and statutory federal observers authorized under the Voting Rights Act.
Federal observers can monitor election procedures inside polling and ballot-counting locations in jurisdictions where their presence has been authorized by a federal court or by an agreement reached in litigation. Currently, federal observers are authorized in only three jurisdictions--St. Landry Parish, Louisiana; Union County, New Jersey; and Pawtucket, Rhode Island.
The much larger pool of DOJ lawyers, staff and other federal personnel being deployed in November does not automatically acquire those statutory observers' access rights simply by being designated as election monitors.
...
What Can Monitors Actually Do?
Monitors can observe and document.
“They're neutral observers. They have no role in stepping in and helping,” Harmeet K. Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, said during an August interview with RealClearPolitics. “They can't step in and change it. All they can do is document.”
DOJ's Civil Rights Division enforces federal voting protections including the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Acts.
The department can investigate potential violations and later take legal action.
Outside jurisdictions where federal observers are authorized, DOJ staff monitors generally do not have an independent right to enter polling places over the objection of election officials acting under state law. Where monitors are not permitted inside, they may gather information outside polling places subject to applicable state and local restrictions.
"Monitors may speak with voters outside the polling place about their experience, but they identify themselves, comply with any state restrictions on distance from the polling place, and respect a voter's right to decline or remain anonymous. Monitors are not there to give advice to election officials, interrupt poll workers, or interfere with voting equipment," Pels told Newsweek.
...
Monitors are also not there to argue, she said.
"If a disagreement arises, monitors defer to election officials on site, document what happened, and report it to the Civil Rights Division, which follows up directly with the jurisdiction. The Department uses what monitors observe to give jurisdictions feedback on compliance with federal law," Pels said.
Federal personnel are subject to laws prohibiting voter intimidation. The Campaign Legal Center says federal election monitors may not “intimidate, threaten or coerce” people voting, attempting to vote or assisting someone else in doing so, and argues that DOJ staff monitors must comply with applicable state election-observer restrictions.
Minnesota and Wyoming Pushed Back
Minnesota provides one of the clearest examples this year of what can happen when local election officials reject a DOJ request. Before Minnesota's August primary, DOJ asked to send staff inside polling places in Hennepin County.
The county refused, requiring monitors to remain outside the 100-foot boundary established by Minnesota law. Local officials said DOJ had told them that its personnel would be in plain clothes and might ask people leaving polling locations to participate in voluntary interviews.
The county also published rules stating that DOJ monitors and other members of the public could not interfere with voters entering the polls, order election judges to take action or disrupt the “operations, administration, management, or activities” of a polling place.
DOJ still deployed approximately 20 personnel to Hennepin and Ramsey counties, while complying with restrictions on access to polling places. Dhillon said at the time that “Minnesota is DOJ's next stop on its nationwide effort to ensure free and fair elections.”
An even sharper dispute erupted in Wyoming.
After DOJ sent two Civil Rights Division attorneys to monitor the state's August primary, Republican Governor Mark Gordon publicly questioned their “irregular" behavior.
“It sounded like the behavior of the observers was a bit aggressive,” Gordon said during a state canvassing board meeting.
Debra Lee, the Republican clerk of Laramie County, told NBC NEWS that the operation was “a poorly managed exercise and one that showed complete disregard for our state laws and administration of our elections.”
Lee said the federal personnel requested training guides, asked how new election equipment had been acquired and “wanted to examine our tabulators.” She said she denied requests for interviews with voters.
DOJ said its Civil Rights Division attorneys were in Laramie County as part of an effort to promote transparency and compliance with federal law.
Levitt noted that most monitoring happens without incident. He called Minnesota and Wyoming two of the only recent disputes.
"In Wyoming, two overzealous monitors caused a minor kerfuffle–and in a case like that, the DOJ monitors were simply asked to leave, and left," he said. "Just like any other member of the public entitled to monitor and then causing a disturbance. Dispute over."
Fear of Voter Intimidation
The NAACP argues that the planned deployment could intimidate voters and interfere with election administration.
In an October 5 court filing, the group said the “unprecedented deployment of federal officials stands to jeopardize the election and interfere with the right of voters to participate in the election free from intimidation.”
Kristen Clarke, the group's general counsel, said in an October 5 statement that Americans deserved to know whether the Justice Department was “abusing its law enforcement powers to the detriment of voters and the election officials tasked with running our elections.”
The NAACP sued seeking records concerning DOJ's legal authority, personnel, planned deployment locations, qualifications and training. A federal court denied the group's request for a temporary restraining order on October 22.
Separately, on October 16, the NAACP, represented in part by the Advancement Project, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the deployment of federal prosecutors and other federal law enforcement personnel to polling sites, alleging the operation could intimidate voters and disrupt the election.
Lilli McGregor, executive director of communications for the Election Truth Alliance, told Newsweek that because state and local governments administer elections, the scale of the federal presence raised questions about independence.
“This risks becoming a form of voter intimidation and the lack of independence is a conflict of interest,” McGregor said. “Voters should be able to cast their ballots without fear or coercion.”
McGregor argued that because the election will determine the composition of Congress, the federal government “inherently has an interest in the outcome.”
What Should Voters Do If Something Seems Wrong?
A voter who believes someone is interfering with the operation of a polling place can alert poll workers or election officials running the site.
DOJ's Voting Section accepts reports concerning possible federal voting-rights violations. DOJ has also said questions or complaints related to its 2026 election-monitoring program can be submitted to VEM@usdoj.gov.
The Campaign Legal Center also directs voters to the nonpartisan Election Protection hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683).
Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gray R. Thomas