Judge Blocks Trump DOJ Threats Against Election Workers
WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ordered Donald Trump’s Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security to stop threatening election workers with prosecution for counting lawful ballots, cutting off an extraordinary federal pressure campaign only days before the November 3 midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson issued a temporary restraining order Friday night after unions representing election workers and civil-rights groups accused the administration of trying to frighten state and local officials into changing voting procedures. The order remains in force through November 16, with another hearing scheduled for November 13.
Thompson barred federal officials from demanding that states purge registered voters, refuse specified ballots, segregate ballots or halt processing solely because the administration alleges a voter is ineligible. She also prohibited threats of criminal prosecution against workers who follow state and federal election law.
“One of the hallmarks of a fair election is the freedom to exercise the right to vote free from threat, fear, or intimidation,” Thompson wrote.
The ruling confronts a campaign that moved beyond Donald Trump’s familiar rhetoric about election fraud. The Justice Department pressed states for voter-registration data, circulated lists of supposed noncitizens and warned officials that they could face prosecution if they rejected federal demands. In California, the administration sought to isolate mail ballots linked to roughly 20,000 people it claimed might be ineligible.
The government produced allegations, not proof that those registered voters had cast illegal ballots. Its demands would have forced local workers to choose between obeying election law and protecting themselves from federal prosecutors. Thompson found that the administration likely violated the Voting Rights Act’s ban on intimidating people who help others vote and exceeded its constitutional authority over elections.
The order reaches deeper than a simple instruction to stop sending threatening letters. Thompson required the administration to disclose pending search-warrant applications, grand-jury subpoenas and other demands for election materials tied to its lists. That provision recognizes the coercive force of a federal investigation even before anyone files charges.
Another federal judge, David Carter, rejected the Justice Department’s effort earlier this week to make California segregate the same ballots. He warned that the demand would wreak havoc on an election already underway, chill voters and risk disenfranchising citizens. An appeals court declined the administration’s emergency request on Friday.
The timing makes the conflict national. More than 3.7 million Californians had already voted when the earlier case reached court. Across the country, officials are processing early and mail ballots while House and Senate control hangs on closely contested races. A last-minute purge or ballot quarantine could change who gets counted before affected voters have any realistic chance to respond.
Trump has spent years converting false fraud claims into a political weapon. His administration now tried to give that weapon the authority of prosecutors, subpoenas and federal agencies. The court’s order draws a line: election workers do not commit crimes by counting ballots according to law, even when the White House dislikes the voters involved.
That principle should not depend on judicial rescue at the final hour. Elections require public rules, transparent evidence and equal treatment. They cannot survive if the executive branch can invent suspicion, name a class of voters and threaten the workers assigned to count them.
The temporary order does not end the confrontation. It expires after the election, and the administration can continue litigating its claims. But for the decisive days ahead, Thompson has stripped federal intimidation from the ballot-counting room. The workers who administer the vote now have a court order affirming that following the law is not a crime.
Comments