In North Carolina, a recent legal action has placed focus on the state’s voter registration records, while in other states like Arizona and Wisconsin, warning letters have been sent to election officials regarding potential administrative breaches. In addition, a request has been made for electoral data from the 2020 elections in Colorado.
These measures, initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice’s voting section, seem to emphasize the technicalities of electoral processes. However, when paired with the exits of seasoned attorneys and the withdrawal from certain voting rights battles, they signify a profound shift. Traditionally, the division has been dedicated to ensuring voting access. Yet, recent efforts align with the voices of conservative critics who’ve echoed concerns on election security, stirred by persistent untrue narratives about U.S. elections. Observers in the election and voting rights spheres warn that the choices of specific states—whether they are key battlegrounds in presidential contests or led by Democratic administrations—might hint at a broader role for the department in future electoral events.
David Becker, once an attorney with the Justice Department and current leader of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, likens this strategic alteration to focusing on minor infractions while neglecting significant breaches of federal laws. “This would be akin to prioritizing jaywalking over serious crimes,” he noted.
A Justice Department spokesperson opted against commenting further or addressing whether these measures are being echoed elsewhere.
The department is amidst reconstructive changes. Conservative forces have long advocated for reformations within the Justice Department relating to staffing and objectives. These desires were cemented by former President Donald Trump, who has incorrectly attributed his 2020 loss to rampant electoral malfeasance. Earlier, he ordered extensive changes to election procedures—despite such power residing with state governments and Congress, as per the Constitution.
President Trump, in the aftermath of his electoral victory last November, appointed pivotal allies within the Justice Department, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, who shared his claims about the 2020 election being compromised. Despite various state examinations upholding Democrat Joe Biden’s victory, countless lawsuits against Trump and his cohorts floundered, and even the then-Attorney General conceded there was no evidence of substantial fraud.
Justin Levitt, once deputy assistant attorney general within the civil rights realm of the department, commented that most of these recent actions seem justified, addressing issues flagged by conservative voices. With the sole exception of the Colorado inquiry—which he deemed excessive—these are what one would expect under a conservative directive.
“This administration has prioritized grievance, even perceived grievance without factual basis,” observed Levitt. “It’s troubling, yet unsurprising that the civil rights division follows this path.”
The department has drawn attention in Colorado by requesting the state secretary to furnish documentation tied to last year’s presidential election, citing a legal obligation to retain such records for 22 months. Amidst this, a complaint alleged discrepancies in adherence to voter registration laws by Colorado’s Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s office, prompting the Justice Department’s interest.
Griswold described the department’s demands as a “fishing expedition,” asserting, “They can ask for all the data they like, but it won’t substantiate anything.”
North Carolina has become a focal point for Republican strategies; their legal action against state election officials argues non-compliance in securing voter records with requisite identification like driver’s licenses. Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General, emphasized maintaining accurate voter lists as crucial for fair and transparent elections.
In Wisconsin, the Justice Department expressed dissatisfaction with the state election commission, criticizing its alleged deficiency in complaint processes. Given the commission’s bipartisan makeup, state Republicans are advancing legislation to broaden the scope for appealing its decisions—a move endorsed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.
Lucas Vebber of the institute affirmed the importance of transparent election procedures. Conversely, Democrat Lee Snodgrass questioned the motives behind these actions, suggesting they propagate doubt about electoral integrity to decry unfavorable results.
Lastly, in Arizona, federal attorneys highlighted issues in voter registration processes, calling for state-led evaluations of non-citizen identifications. This request was met with a reminder from Secretary of State Adrian Fontes about existing requirements for votership proof.
Similarly, Oregon faces federal scrutiny in an ongoing Judicial Watch case. Allegations suggest the state hasn’t properly maintained voter lists or upheld transparency regulations, prompting concern from former Justice Department attorney John Powers about the alignment of these actions with a broader voting rights retreat by the department.
As midterm elections loom, Powers expressed apprehensions about the potential impact of the Justice Department’s current trajectory on public faith in elections, stating, “I’d be dishonest if I said the future didn’t worry me.”