The United States Justice Department has broken with longstanding tradition by directly intervening in election disputes ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections, raising concerns about the possible use of federal law enforcement powers to favour a political party.
The department, under President Donald Trump, has taken legal actions in California and Alaska, seeking to influence election-related processes before votes are counted and results certified.
In California, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit seeking to set aside mail-in ballots from about 20,000 voters it alleges are likely non-US citizens and therefore ineligible to vote.
The department has also demanded records as part of a related criminal investigation.
California authorities, however, maintain that measures are in place to prevent noncitizens from voting and argue that the federal government lacks the authority to block the ballots.
In Alaska, the department launched an intensified criminal investigation into whether a Senate candidate sharing the name of Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan entered the race to confuse voters.
It also sought to prevent the certification of the election if Sullivan narrowly loses.
However, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit on Sunday, ruling that the state could not conduct an investigation while maintaining ballot secrecy.
The department has appealed the decision.
Both lawsuits have been rejected by courts, but the cases have highlighted the Justice Department’s readiness to intervene in election disputes before the completion of the voting process.
Critics fear the actions could provide a basis for Trump to challenge the midterm results, which will determine control of Congress and several governorships.
“It appears that the administration wants the department to have an impact that was previously prohibited,” said Mark Blumberg, who previously led the DOJ’s election response to civil rights threats and has since founded the Rule of Law Project.
US Attorney General Todd Blanche has defended the department’s actions, saying they are lawful and intended to protect electoral integrity.
Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels also said, “The Department isn’t helping any campaign. It’s enforcing the law.”
The US Constitution gives states the responsibility of administering elections.
Trump, a Republican, has repeatedly accused Democratic-led states of failing to prevent noncitizens from voting, although widespread voter fraud claims surrounding his 2020 election defeat have been disproved.
Independent studies and state audits have consistently found voter fraud to be rare.
During Trump’s first term, Justice Department officials resisted pressure to participate in efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
More than 60 lawsuits filed by groups aligned with the president challenging the outcome were unsuccessful.
“The right-wing fringe outside groups are not going to have to do that this year because the DOJ is clearly standing ready and willing to do it,” said Lis Frost, a voting rights lawyer with Elias Law Group, which frequently represents Democrats in court.
Traditionally, the Justice Department has exercised caution in election-related investigations, particularly because federal involvement could create uncertainty or be exploited by political candidates. Its Public Integrity Section, staffed by career election-law experts, has often advised investigators to wait until election results are certified before taking action.
However, the Trump administration has reduced the size of the unit and suspended a requirement for federal prosecutors to consult it on election-corruption investigations.
Officials say local US Attorney’s Offices are better positioned to determine whether charges are warranted.
According to three people familiar with internal discussions, unresolved election-related disputes are now expected to be decided by Trump’s political appointees, with the Deputy Attorney General’s Office mediating disagreements between investigators and prosecutors.
Pels defended the arrangement, saying, “resolving disputes that can’t be resolved in the field is exactly the role that office exists to play.”
Former acting Attorney General Peter Keisler, who served under Republican President George W. Bush, criticised the department’s approach, saying, “For the department to be trusted in its law enforcement decisions it has to ensure that people understand it does not take sides in political partisan disputes. And this has not only the appearance but the evident reality of taking sides.”
