The NAACP asked a federal judge in Washington on Sunday, November 1, to bar the Justice Department from using personnel from the Bureau of Prisons, the DEA, the ATF and other federal law enforcement agencies as election monitors at polling places on Tuesday.
The motion for a temporary restraining order, filed in NAACP v. Blanche before U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, asked for relief no later than 5 p.m. Eastern on Monday, November 2. Walton set a hearing for 1:30 p.m. Monday, according to Democracy Docket. The defendants are Attorney General Todd Blanche, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who runs the Civil Rights Division, and the department itself.
What the NAACP wants the judge to order
The main request is a ban on any agent, officer or employee of a Justice Department law enforcement agency serving in the monitoring program. The motion names the ATF, the Bureau of Prisons, the DEA, the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, plus any agency personnel authorized to investigate crimes or make arrests.
As a fallback, the NAACP asks for the same ban in five counties: DeKalb in Georgia, Alamance in North Carolina, Maricopa in Arizona, Miami-Dade in Florida and Harris in Texas. It also asks the judge to bar any law enforcement employee at a polling site from carrying a weapon or camera, wearing a badge or agency insignia, questioning voters, recording biometric data or running vehicle checkpoints.
The legal claim
The case rests on Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10307(b), which bars any person from intimidating, threatening or coercing anyone for voting or attempting to vote. The NAACP's supporting memorandum argues the provision has no intent requirement and covers attempts, so plaintiffs need not show that anyone was actually kept from voting.
The motion follows a sworn declaration filed October 28 by Eric Neff, the acting chief of the Civil Rights Division's Voting Section, confirming that personnel from the Bureau of Prisons, DEA and ATF will serve as monitors. As quoted in the memorandum, Neff 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." The NAACP answers that federal officers keep their arrest powers while on duty as monitors and that voters have no way to tell an agent of one agency from another.
The memorandum leans on a Justice Department Inspector General memorandum about Bureau of Prisons employees receiving credentials and badges with law enforcement markings. The government's position, as reported, is that Section 11(b)'s ban on intimidation "does not apply to the federal government" because Congress did not mean the United States to be a "person" under the statute.
Our numbers on the size of this year's program
The complaint, filed October 16, says Dhillon announced on August 17 a plan to send 1,000 department employees to polling places, and that the department has never deployed more than 600 monitors in a prior election. By our arithmetic that is 400 more people, a 67 percent increase over the previous high.
The geographic reach has grown too. The Justice Department's November 2024 announcement covered polling sites in 27 states. The complaint quotes Blanche as saying this year's monitors will go to "every state." Going from 27 states to 50 is 23 more states, an increase of about 85 percent by our count. The NAACP also notes that the department has not released a list of jurisdictions, which it did several days ahead of past elections.
On timing, the lawsuit was filed 18 days before Election Day and the emergency motion two days before it. We previously covered the plan for a record number of monitors and a separate ruling that limited DHS field operations aimed at noncitizen voters.
What happens next
A ruling, if Walton grants or denies a restraining order on Monday, would govern Election Day itself. The individual plaintiffs include the Rev. Andre Miller, a Maricopa County pastor whose church serves as a polling place and who says he already feels intimidated by the plan, and Nicholas Little, a former Navy lieutenant. A preliminary injunction fight, if the case continues, would cover the canvass and certification period that follows.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
