Federal Judges Reject Texas and Missouri's Bid to Block DOJ Election Monitors
In a pivotal decision, judges in Texas and Missouri dismissed requests from Republican-led states to prevent the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) from dispatching legal personnel to oversee Election Day activities. The DOJ plans to send monitors to ensure adherence to federal voting rights laws across 27 jurisdictions, a standard procedure during national elections. Despite the states’ efforts to restrict federal involvement, federal judges cited insufficient grounds to grant the restraining orders.
Texas Court Ruling and Federal Oversight
In Texas, Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled on Tuesday, instructing the DOJ to clarify that no “observers” would be stationed at polling locations but refrained from issuing the restraining order Texas sought. Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, reasoned, “The Court cannot issue a temporary restraining order without further clarification on the distinction between ‘monitoring’ and ‘observing’ on the eve of a consequential election.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that federal monitors would infringe on the state’s constitutional right to administer “free and fair elections.” Texas’s lawsuit further claimed that the state’s laws delineate which individuals may be present in voting locations, excluding federal authorities from the list.
Related: The US Justice Dept sues Virginia for violating federal election law
Missouri's Challenge and Court Response
Similarly, District Judge Sarah Pitlyk in Missouri denied the state’s request for a temporary restraining order, noting that the alleged harms were “speculative.” Missouri’s lawsuit alleged that the DOJ’s sudden plan to deploy poll monitors aimed to “displace state election authorities” by placing monitors at polling locations in St. Louis. DOJ representatives confirmed that only two federal monitors would oversee one polling location in St. Louis. This particular site had previously reached a settlement with the DOJ in January 2021 to address concerns about architectural barriers and accessibility for voters with disabilities. The settlement permitted DOJ oversight on Election Day to ensure compliance with accessibility improvements.
Legal Background and Federal Oversight Rationale
The DOJ’s authority to monitor polling locations on Election Day stems from various federal voting rights laws designed to protect voter access and integrity. These laws include provisions for ensuring voting accessibility for individuals with disabilities and absentee voting options for U.S. citizens and military personnel abroad. While Texas and Missouri are not classified as “battleground states,” the DOJ is deploying monitors to other pivotal regions, including battleground counties in seven key states, as well as selected counties in Texas, Massachusetts, Alaska, South Dakota, and New Jersey. The monitoring of these areas reflects the DOJ’s commitment to upholding federal election laws nationwide, regardless of the states’ political affiliations.
Political Context and Future Implications
The DOJ has not commented on the lawsuits filed by Texas and Missouri. However, the matter arises amid ongoing election integrity debates. Former President Donald Trump, currently running against Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, continues to assert unproven claims that the 2020 election was compromised by widespread fraud. He has encouraged supporters to observe polling sites for any perceived irregularities. DOJ monitors are expected to provide oversight, particularly in battleground regions where the election outcome could hinge on small margins.
The DOJ’s monitoring role not only addresses potential accessibility and compliance issues but also aims to reassure voters of a fair and lawful process on Election Day. This latest challenge by Texas and Missouri underscores the tension between state sovereignty and federal oversight in election administration. As Election Day approaches, the role of DOJ personnel in ensuring adherence to federal voting rights statutes will remain a critical aspect of the U.S. electoral landscape.
You Might Like: California Election Law
