A federal judge late Monday denied an effort by Missouri’s Republican leaders to ban Justice Department election monitors from gaining access to polling sites in St. Louis County on Election Day.
U.S. District Judge Sarah Pitlyk said state officials were wrong in asserting that the federal government lacked the authority to enter voting locations in the county to watch for potential voting rights irregularities.
In her nine-page ruling, Pitlyk cited a legal settlement between the Justice Department and the Board of Election Commissioners for the City of St. Louis signed in January 2021 under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
That agreement, which runs through July 11, 2025, outlines remedial steps that the elections board must take to improve ballot access for disabled people and stipulates that federal authorities be allowed to monitor the progress, including inside polling locations.
Category Archives: Department of Justice
“‘There’s no white knight coming’: Federal authorities will face limits responding to 2024 election lies”
Four years ago, President Donald Trump used his bully pulpit to spread lies about the election, leading his supporters to act on their belief in mass voter fraud and eventually attack the U.S. Capitol.
With days to go before the 2024 election, Trump and his allies are running a similar playbook, priming his voters to believe the election may be “rigged.”
In addition to domestic disinformation campaigns, foreign government influence operations, overseas terrorist groups and domestic extremists are all simultaneously trying to exploit the election for their own gain, according to dozens of pages of law enforcement documents and months of reporting by NBC News.
“We’ve been describing the threat environment as everything, everywhere, all at once,” the New York Police Department’s deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism, Rebecca Weiner, said in an interview, describing the overall threat environment.
ne major difference this time is that a Democrat is in the White House, and federal authorities, including the FBI and the broader Justice Department, have spent years trying to learn from their mistakes the last time around while arresting and prosecuting more than 1,500 Trump supporters for the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. They, along with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — no longer a target of the sitting president — are already preparing to respond to attempts at election interference, both foreign and domestic.
But federal authorities also caution that their role is limited by law and by typical practice, noting that state and local officials, not the federal government, are the primary authorities on elections. The Justice Department also, by policy, has a “quiet period” leading up to Election Day when it avoids taking public actions that could be seen to have an impact on an election. And the Justice Department may be hesitant to do anything that could be construed as political given the extreme politicization of the country in 2024 and years of accusations from Republicans that it is “weaponized” against Trump.
Attorney General Merrick Garland theoretically could use his own bully pulpit to push back against conspiracy theories about mass voter fraud once the quiet period ends after Tuesday or after the election is called, a process that could extend for days, even weeks. Yet, as 2020 showed, election lies can spread so quickly online that even media outlets will have trouble reporting out the facts in a timely manner. Moreover, Trump and his allies have spent the past decade undermining public trust in the Justice Department and the FBI, diminishing the rhetorical power of those institutions.
“There’s no white knight coming,” a federal law enforcement official told NBC News, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the posture of federal authorities in the coming weeks, after Election Day….
“GOP leaders in some states move to block Justice Dept. election monitors”
The Justice Department’s ability to monitor local jurisdictions for voting rights irregularities on Election Day, already curtailed by the Supreme Court, is facing a new hurdle: opposition from Republicans who are seeking to block federal authorities from polling sites.
The U.S. government has regularly dispatched hundreds of monitors to voting locations in blue, red and swing states, aiming to protect ballot access, discourage improper partisan influence and act as a moderating force on political campaigns.
While the Justice Department has the legal right to request access to polling sites, inflamed partisanship and ideological extremism have contributed to greater resistance to such activitiesin some GOP-controlled states, legal experts said. Those states have attempted to politicize the process and cast federal monitors as partisans from the Biden administration who cannot be trusted.
“Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC awards more $1 million prizes despite DOJ warning”
Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s pro-Trump political group awarded two additional $1 million prizes to swing-state voters Thursday night, despite warnings from the Justice Department that the daily giveaways could violate election laws.
The day before, the Justice Department had sent a letter to Musk’s political group, America PAC, warning that its contest offering registered voters in swing states a chance to win $1 million for signing a petition could be illegal.
Musk’s group announced Saturday that it would use a lottery to award $1 million each day until the Nov. 5 electionto a registered voter who signs a petition to support free speech and the right to bear arms. Only voters registered in seven swing states — Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina — are eligible for the prizes. Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump, whom Musk supports, remain locked in tight races in all those battleground states, polls show…
According to America PAC’s website, it had awarded a winner of a $1 million prize each day since Saturday but did not announce a winner on its websiteWednesday, the day the Justice Department letter was first reported by the 24 Sight newsletter. Two winners were announced Thursday night.
“Justice Department Announces Four Cases Brought by Election Threats Task Force”
The Justice Department’s Election Threats Task Force (ETTF) announced developments this week in four cases involving interstate transmissions of threats to election personnel and other victims.
Teak Brockbank, 45, of Cortez, Colorado, pleaded guilty today to threatening a Colorado election official and making other threats to an Arizona election official, a Colorado state judge, and federal law enforcement agents between September 2021 and July 2024.
Brian Jerry Ogstad, 60, of Cullman, Alabama, was sentenced on Monday to 30 months in prison for sending messages threatening violence to election workers with Maricopa County Elections in Phoenix from Aug. 2-4, 2022, during and immediately following the Arizona primary elections.
Richard Glenn Kantwill, 61, of Tampa, Florida, was charged on Monday for allegedly sending a threat on Feb. 9 to an election official in addition to already pending charges for threats made to three other victims based on their political commentary in 2019 and 2020.
John Pollard, 62, of Philadelphia, was charged on Monday for allegedly threatening on Sept. 6 to kill a representative of a Pennsylvania state political party who was recruiting official poll watchers.
“After news of DOJ warning, Elon Musk’s super PAC didn’t announce ‘daily’ lottery winner on Wednesday”
Elon Musk’s super PAC didn’t announce a winner for its “daily” $1 million giveaway to registered swing state voters on Wednesday, the same day news broke that the Justice Department warned Musk’s group that its sweepstakes might be illegal.
The pro-Trump group, America PAC, had publicly named a winner every day since Saturday, when Musk announced that he would award $1 million every day to people who sign his petition. The petition is in support of the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution, but importantly, only registered voters in the battleground states can sign the petition and are therefore eligible for the money.
CNN reported Wednesday afternoon that the Justice Department had sent a warning letter to the super PAC, notifying it that the lottery might violate federal law against offering incentives such as cash or prizes to induce voter registration, people briefed on the matter told CNN.
“SCOOP: DOJ sends Musk PAC warning letter”
The Justice Department’s head of election crimes sent a warning letter to Elon Musk’s America PAC Monday, alerting it that it was a crime to knowingly offer anything of value to register to vote or vote, a person familiar with the warning letter told 24sight News.
Robert Heberle, the head of the Justice Department’s election crimes branch, wrote in the brief warning letter to America PAC lawyer Chris Gober, that offering anything of value to influence voting was in violation of U.S. law barring payments to sway votes.
The warning letter did not specify any immediate legal action, according to the person familiar with the DOJ warning to Musk, but it did spell out the penalties for breaking U.S. voting laws, including possible imprisonment of up to five years.
“Preliminary Injunction Entered in Justice Department Suit to Stop Alabama’s Systematic Removal of Voters from Registration Rolls”
“Justice Department Sues Virginia for Violating Federal Law’s Prohibition on Systematic Efforts to Remove Voters Within 90 Days of an Election”
DOJ has been busy:
The Quiet Period is an important protection for voters, because systematic removal programs may be error-ridden, cause voter confusion and remove eligible voters days or weeks before Election Day who may be unable to correct the State’s errors in time to vote or may be dissuaded from voting at all. States may remove names from official lists of voters in various ways and for various reasons, but they may not carry-on this kind of systematic removal program so close to a federal election.
Jack Goldsmith: “Jack Smith Owes Us an Explanation”
The special counsel Jack Smith’s two prosecutions against Mr. Trump — for election resistance and for misappropriating and mishandling classified documents — are the first against a former president. They are also the first by an executive branch whose top officials — once Joe Biden and now Kamala Harris — have been running for president against the target of the administration’s prosecution. It is much more vital in this context than ever before for the executive branch to take scrupulous care to assure the public that the prosecutions are conducted in compliance with pertinent rules.
On this score, Mr. Smith has failed. The brief he recently filed sought to show that the election prosecution can continue despite the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. It laid out the government’s case against Mr. Trump with what many media reports described as bombshell new details about his wrongdoing. The filing is in clear tension with the Justice Department’s 60-day rule, which the department inspector general has described as a “longstanding department practice of delaying overt investigative steps or disclosures that could impact an election” within 60 days of it. However, the rule is unwritten and, as the inspector general made clear, has an uncertain scope.
The Justice Department does not believe it is violating this or any other rule. It expressed no concern about Judge Tanya Chutkan’s proposal to set the brief deadline close to the election or to reveal the information publicly in her discretion. (She made clear that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had not shown that her court is “bound by or has jurisdiction to enforce Department of Justice policy.”) Perhaps the department thinks the new disclosures are marginal and won’t affect the election or that the rule does not apply to litigation steps in previously indicted cases, even if they would affect the election.
But the department has not publicly justified its actions in the election prosecution, and its failure to do so in this highest-of-stakes context is a mistake….
“Justice Department Sues Alabama for Violating Federal Law’s Prohibition on Systematic Efforts to Remove Voters Within 90 Days of an Election”
On Aug. 13, the Secretary of State announced the launch of a “process to remove noncitizens registered to vote in Alabama.” This was 84 days before the Nov. 5 general election. The Justice Department’s review found that both native-born and naturalized U.S. citizens have received letters stating that their voter record has been made inactive and that they have been placed on a path for removal from Alabama’s statewide voter registration list. The letter directs recipients who are in fact U.S. citizens and eligible to vote to complete and submit an attached State of Alabama Voter Registration Form. In turn, that form instructs that people may not register to vote in the 14 days before an election. This systematic voter removal program, which the State is conducting within 90 days of the upcoming federal election, violates the Quiet Period Provision.
The Justice Department seeks injunctive relief that would restore the ability of impacted eligible voters to vote unimpeded on Election Day and would prohibit future Quiet Period violations. The department also seeks remedial mailings to educate eligible voters concerning the restoration of their rights and adequate training of local officials and poll workers to address confusion and distrust among eligible voters accused of being noncitizens.
“As President, Trump Demanded Investigations of Foes. He Often Got Them.”
It was the spring of 2018 and President Donald J. Trump, faced with an accelerating inquiry into his campaign’s ties to Russia, was furious that the Justice Department was reluctant to strike back at those he saw as his enemies.
In an Oval Office meeting, Mr. Trump told startled aides that if Attorney General Jeff Sessions would not order the department to go after Hillary Clinton and James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, Mr. Trump would prosecute them himself.
Recognizing the extraordinary dangers of a president seeking not just to weaponize the criminal justice system for political ends but trying as well to assume personal control over who should be investigated and charged, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, sought to stall.
“How about I do this?” Mr. McGahn told Mr. Trump, according to an account verified by witnesses. “I’m going to write you a memo explaining to you what the law is and how it works, and I’ll give that memo to you and you can decide what you want to do.”
The episode marked the start of a more aggressive effort by Mr. Trump to deploy his power against his perceived enemies despite warnings not to do so by top aides. And a look back at the cases of 10 individuals brings a pattern into clearer focus: After Mr. Trump made repeated public or private demands for them to be targeted by the government, they faced federal pressure of one kind or another.
The broad outlines of those episodes have been previously reported. But a closer examination reveals the degree of concern and pushback against Mr. Trump’s demands inside the White House.
And it highlights how closely his expressed desires to go after people who had drawn his ire were sometimes followed by the Justice Department, F.B.I. or other agencies. Even without his direct order, his indirect influence could serve his ends and leave those in his sights facing expensive, time-consuming legal proceedings or other high-stress inquiries.
The story of that period has a powerful resonance today as Mr. Trump, angered in part by the two federal and two state-level indictments of him since leaving office, threatens to carry out a campaign of retribution if he returns to the White House. He has signaled that a second Trump administration would be stocked not with people who served as guardrails during his first term, but with carefully vetted loyalists who would eagerly carry out his wishes….
“Justice Department Issues New Guidance on Federal Law Regarding Voter Registration”
The Justice Department announced today that it has published a new guidance addressing limits on when and how jurisdictions may remove voters from their voter lists. The guidance document reflects the department’s commitment to ensuring that every eligible voter can exercise their right to vote free of discrimination or voter intimidation.
“Ensuring that every eligible voter is able to vote and have that vote counted is a critical aspect of sustaining a robust democracy, and it is a top priority for the Justice Department,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “As we approach Election Day, it is important that states adhere to all aspects of federal law that safeguard the rights of eligible voters to remain on the active voter lists and to vote free from discrimination and intimidation.”
In its guidance, the department reminds states that efforts to ensure accurate and current voting rolls must be accomplished in compliance with federal law and in a nondiscriminatory manner. Specifically, the department explains important limits imposed by federal law on the rules and procedures states may adopt regarding their voter registration lists. For example, list maintenance efforts must be uniform and nondiscriminatory, and a program to systematically remove ineligible voters must not be done within 90 days of a federal election. There also are specific rules about how to remove registered voters because they have moved. Importantly, these federal protections apply whether the process is initiated by the state or is responsive to third-party submissions.
The department also released a fact sheet as a resource for jurisdictions and provides information on certain civil provisions of federal law that protect the right to vote….
“Latino Civil Rights Group Demands Inquiry Into Texas Voter Fraud Raids”
A Latino civil rights group is asking the Department of Justice to open an investigation into a series of raids conducted on Latino voting activists and political operatives as part of a sprawling voter fraud inquiry by the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton.
The League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the nation’s oldest Latino civil rights organizations, said that many of those targeted were Democratic leaders and election volunteers, and that some were older residents. Gabriel Rosales, the director of the group’s Texas chapter, said that officers conducting the raids took cellphones, computers and documents. He called the raids “alarming” and said they were an effort to suppress Latino voters.
In a statement last week, Mr. Paxton, a Republican, described the raids, carried out in counties near San Antonio and South Texas, as part of an “ongoing election integrity investigation” that began two years ago to look into allegations of election fraud and vote harvesting. His office has said that it will not comment on the investigation because it is still underway.
That investigation is part of a unit, the election integrity unit, which was created as Republican-led states sought to crack down on supposed voter crime after former President Donald J. Trump began making false claims of fraud in the wake of the 2020 election. Experts have found that voter fraud remains rare.
Republican district attorneys and state attorneys general have been promoting aggressive prosecutions in voter fraud cases, sometimes making felony cases out of instances that might have been labeled mistakes in the past.
On Tuesday, Mr. Rosales said, officers raided the home of Cecilia Castellano, a Democrat running against Don McLaughlin, the former mayor of Uvalde, for a state House seat, taking her cellphone.
Ms. Castellano described her experience as “very frightening” and said she still did not know why she was targeted. “This is all political,” she said.
Last week, officers also broke down a door to raid the home of Manuel Medina, a consultant for Ms. Castellano’s campaign and the chair of the Tejano Democrats, a group that advocates Hispanic representation in the Democratic Party.
“I have been contacted by elderly residents who are confused and frightened, wondering why they have been singled out,” Mr. Rosales said. “It’s pure intimidation.”
One of those residents was Lidia Martinez, an 87-year-old retired educator in San Antonio. She said she heard a knock on her door right before 6 a.m. on Tuesday. She thought that maybe a neighbor needed milk and eggs, she said, and she fastened her sleeping gown and opened the door.
Nine officers, seven of them men, some with guns in their holsters, then pushed open the door and marched past a living room wall decorated with crucifixes, she said.
“I got scared,” she recalled in an interview on Sunday, speaking in both English and Spanish. “They told me, ‘We have a warrant to search your house.’ I said, ‘Why?’ I felt harassed.”…