California Governor Clashes With Justice Department Over Election Monitoring
A decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to deploy federal monitors for the upcoming November election in California has ignited a sharp political battle, with Governor Gavin Newsom accusing the department of attempting to intimidate voters and undermine the electoral process. The move, which also affects New Jersey, has drawn pushback from critics who contend that federal observation is a long-standing and routine practice intended to ensure compliance with voting laws.
The controversy escalated when Governor Newsom issued a pointed rebuke of the DOJ’s plan. “Donald Trump’s puppet DOJ has no business screwing around with next month’s election,” he stated in a post on Friday. “Sending the feds into California polling places is a deliberate attempt to scare off voters and undermine a fair election. We will not back down. Californians decide our future — no one else.”
His office reiterated this position, emphasizing the nature of the upcoming vote. “This is not a federal election,” Newsom’s press office posted on X. “The US DOJ has no business or basis to interfere with this election. This is solely about whether California amends our state constitution. This administration has made no secret of its goal to undermine free and fair elections. Deploying these federal forces appears to be an intimidation tactic meant for one thing: suppress the vote.”
Critics Defend Monitoring as Standard Procedure
The governor’s heated rhetoric was quickly challenged by several figures, including an official from the Justice Department. Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, dismissed Newsom’s concerns as unfounded. “Lol calm down bro,” Dhillon wrote on X. “The @TheJusticeDept under Democrat administrations has sent in federal election observers for decades, and not once did we hear that this was voter intimidation from states such as California. Do you really want to go there? Isn’t transparency a good thing?”
Other critics also questioned the governor’s motives. Dr. Houman Hemmati posted on X, “Hey @GavinNewsom WHY would any legitimate voter be “scared off” by having federal election observers? Most people think legitimate voters would be more likely to vote because they’d trust the process. But clearly you’re afraid of something. I wonder what that is…”
Chad Bianco, the Sheriff of Riverside County and a Republican candidate for governor aiming to succeed the term-limited Newsom, also weighed in. “Gavin sure seems worried about people seeing how he’s handling elections,” Bianco commented.
GOP Requests Prompted Federal Action
The deployment of federal observers was not a unilateral decision by the DOJ but came in response to formal requests from the Republican parties in both California and New Jersey. In California, the request is tied to a significant ballot measure that seeks to redraw the state’s congressional map, a move seen as a Democratic effort to counter Republican-led redistricting in states like Texas.
In a letter to Assistant Attorney General Dhillon, California GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin outlined the party’s concerns. “In recent elections, we have received reports of irregularities in these counties that we fear will undermine either the willingness of voters to participate in the election or their confidence in the announced results of the election,” Rankin wrote.
A similar request came from the New Jersey GOP regarding the state’s gubernatorial election, with a specific focus on Passaic County. The county, which is heavily Latino, has historically favored Democrats but voted for Donald Trump in 2024. The state GOP alleged a “long and sordid history” of vote-by-mail fraud in the area.
Historical Precedent and Official Responses
Historical data shows that the deployment of federal election monitors is not a new phenomenon. The DOJ sent monitors to California twice during the Biden administration, for the 2022 and 2024 general elections. Furthermore, the Biden Justice Department also dispatched election resources to several non-federal elections, including municipal elections in Alaska in October 2023 and off-year general elections in New Jersey and Mississippi in 2023.
Despite this history, Democratic officials have pushed back. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin described the DOJ’s decision as “highly inappropriate,” adding that the department “has not even attempted to identify a legitimate basis for its actions.”
In California, Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan sought to reassure the public, stating that election observers are a standard practice nationwide. He emphasized that the county, home to 5.8 million registered voters, continuously updates and verifies its voter records. “Voters can have confidence their ballot is handled securely and counted accurately,” he said.
The role of these monitors is often misunderstood. They are not law enforcement officers or federal agents but are lawyers employed by the Justice Department, primarily from the civil rights division and U.S. attorney’s offices. For decades, their task has been to observe polling places to ensure compliance with federal statutes like the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voter intimidation, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which mandates accessible voting opportunities.
Interestingly, resistance to federal monitoring is not exclusive to one party. During the 2024 election, multiple Republican-led states resisted efforts by the Biden administration to send federal resources to monitor their elections, arguing their own state-level measures were sufficient.
