On September 21, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who runs the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, described the department's plans for the midterm elections on a Real America's Voice program: “This is going to be the biggest DOJ election observer effort in history. And I'm so excited to be leading this effort.” She added, “I've called for, and plan to send, 1,000 to the general election jurisdictions that we're selecting.” CNN reported that the plan is for more than 1,000 monitors on Election Day, “hundreds more than the Biden administration deployed in 2024.” The department has not said which jurisdictions.
Who the monitors are drew scrutiny. During this year's primaries, CNN reported, some monitors sent to states like Arizona and Virginia were recently hired attorneys who had previously helped challenge or try to overturn Trump's 2020 loss, according to communications obtained by Democracy Forward. The department also sent David Levin to Arizona and Minnesota; CNN reported that Levin was accused in 2016 of a cyberattack on a Florida county elections website and pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors.
In Wyoming, the Laramie County elections director, Debra Lee, a Republican, said her office got no warning; emails obtained by CNN show DOJ first sent its notice to election officials in Wisconsin. Local and state officials said the DOJ attorneys demanded information about voting machines. Lee: “If anything, their presence may make voters think twice about voting at the polls on Election Day,” and, “My advice to my fellow county clerks in Wyoming and to election administrators in other 'red' states is don't think this won't happen to you.” See Wyoming's Republican Governor Asks His Attorney General to Look Into DOJ Election Monitors He Calls 'Aggressive' and 'Irregular'. CNN also reported that officials in half a dozen primary jurisdictions described the monitors as professional and “business as usual.”
DOJ spokesperson Kiersten Pels: “To imply that our team will act improperly based on nothing more than speculation would be dishonest.” Justice Department monitors have long been part of Election Day; what is new is the scale, the stated enthusiasm and the backgrounds of some of the people sent.
Separately, CNN reported that the Republican National Committee is training “special monitors” to scrutinize voting machines, recording serial numbers and photographing results tapes and reporting to party lawyers through a hotline. An RNC official on a July training call in Wisconsin: “Having you all on the ground, notifying us of issues, allows us to take direct action,” and, “And this leads to real outcomes that benefit Republicans across the state.”
Update (October 6, 2026): The NAACP sued the Justice Department on October 2 for records on the monitoring plan, in NAACP v. Dhillon, No. 1:26-cv-03461, in federal court in Washington, and filed an emergency motion on October 5 asking that its records request be processed immediately. The complaint says, “This 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,” and notes reports that one monitor stationed in Minnesota, David Michael Levin, pleaded guilty in 2016 to illegally hacking a government election website in Florida. The suit seeks records, not an order stopping the deployment. The case is before Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, Law&Crime reported.
Update (October 7, 2026): Records obtained by Democracy Forward show the Justice Department listed David Michael Levin by name among its “Department of Justice observers” for Maricopa County's July primary, as one of the people “helping with our election monitoring effort in Maricopa County,” and the county issued him an observer credential, Democracy Docket reported. Levin, a conservative attorney hired at the department this year, pleaded guilty in 2016 to two misdemeanors after accessing restricted sections of a Florida county elections website, CNN reported. Christopher J. Gardner, who worked with Trump-aligned lawyers after the 2020 election, was also on the Maricopa team. The department also confirmed it is using prosecutors as monitors: “department attorneys, including prosecutors, will serve as election monitors, as Department personnel have in many past elections,” a spokesperson told The Washington Sun, adding that monitors will not identify themselves as prosecutors. At least seven criminal prosecutors monitored Arizona's July primary, the Sun reported, citing public records.
Update (October 17, 2026): on October 16 the NAACP and three voters sued Attorney General Todd Blanche, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and the Justice Department in NAACP v. Blanche (D.D.C.), claiming voter intimidation under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and challenging the department's abandonment of its policy against overt criminal investigative steps before an election is certified. “There is no federal statute that gives Defendants the authority to turn polling places into interrogation rooms,” the complaint says. It asks the court to bar using prosecutors or agents as monitors.
Update (October 20, 2026): as early voting opened in Texas on October 19, Aaron Reitz, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, posted a video statement saying federal monitors meant “no crooked local election administrators. They have a duty to prevent illegal voting, and I'm here to make sure they do their job,” and, “If you violate federal election law, I will hunt you down and prosecute you.” Of the monitors he said, “They are not armed agents; they're lawyers.” He spoke “beside a Bible and a framed photo of President Donald Trump” and “did not identify specific election violations,” the Houston Chronicle reported.
Update (October 29, 2026): In a declaration filed October 28 in NAACP v. Dhillon, Eric Neff, acting chief of the Civil Rights Division's voting section, said the division “is not engaging any sworn law enforcement personnel who are legally authorized to effectuate an arrest to act as monitors in a 'law enforcement agent' capacity,” Bloomberg Law reported. Agents from the ATF, the DEA and the Bureau of Prisons will serve as monitors; all monitors are barred from carrying firearms. One Customs and Border Protection employee is detailed to the department, which “is not aware of any other” Homeland Security employees taking part. Bloomberg Law summarized the filing as saying no FBI or ICE employees are serving as monitors.
Neff said the section is monitoring “in a similar manner and for similar purposes as in past election cycles going back decades,” and declined to make public the polling places monitors will visit, saying the department is still identifying them and that releasing the list would undermine the effort and potentially put monitors at risk. Monitors must wear business casual clothing without federal insignia and may speak with voters outside a polling place only after they have voted, Law&Crime reported. The filing followed Judge Sparkle Sooknanan's denial of the NAACP's request for a temporary restraining order and her request that the parties try to resolve the dispute.
The declaration addresses who serves as a Justice Department monitor. As reported, it does not address whether FBI or ICE agents could appear at polling places in another capacity, such as serving a warrant, which DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in September they might (see The White House Won't Rule Out ICE at the Polls, and Denver Sues After Mullin Says Agents Could Serve Warrants There). Bloomberg Law also reported that Neff was hired into the Civil Rights Division last year “following a history of advancing debunked election conspiracy theories,” and was placed on leave in 2022 by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office after his indictment of an election software executive was dismissed.
Update (October 31, 2026): Officials in Indiana (Marion and Lake counties), Kentucky (Jefferson and Fayette counties) and Washington County, Arkansas, say the department's monitors must stay outside polling places, Newsweek reported. These are decisions under state law or by local officials, not court orders; the Washington County Election Commission voted 3-0 to deny access. An Indiana Election Division official told the Indiana Capital Chronicle, “our state law does not give federal monitors access to enter any voting location,” and the Marion County clerk said monitors would stay at least 50 feet from entrances and conduct voluntary exit interviews. Michigan has announced no such prohibition. A department spokesperson told Newsweek it has “never said that it would send federal law enforcement to the polls.”