By Naeema Saleem — SCN NEWS
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's Justice Department has taken an unusually direct role in election disputes in California and Alaska ahead of Tuesday's U.S. midterm elections, departing from longstanding practices designed to prevent federal law enforcement from appearing to favour political candidates. The department has sought to restrict the counting of thousands of mail ballots in California and challenged the certification process in a closely contested Alaska Senate race, prompting court defeats and warnings from former federal prosecutors about political interference. Attorney General Todd Blanche's department maintains that its actions are lawful efforts to enforce election rules and protect voters from fraud, while critics argue that the timing and nature of the interventions threaten public confidence in the electoral process.
The disputes have emerged as Americans prepare to elect a new Congress in contests that will determine whether Republicans retain control of both chambers during the final two years of Trump's presidency. Federal courts have rejected the Justice Department's requested interventions in California and Alaska, although the department has appealed the Alaska ruling. The cases have drawn particular scrutiny because they involve elections in which Republican candidates or political interests could benefit from the remedies sought by federal prosecutors. Former Justice Department officials say such actions risk weakening a tradition of institutional restraint that has historically guided federal investigations during active election campaigns.
In California, the Justice Department attempted to prevent election officials from counting mail ballots submitted by approximately 20,000 registered voters whom federal authorities suspect may not be U.S. citizens. Noncitizens are prohibited from voting in federal elections, but California officials disputed the department's allegations and argued that the state already maintains safeguards intended to prevent ineligible voting. State authorities also challenged the federal government's legal authority to block ballots on the basis of the information presented. The courts declined to grant the requested restrictions, leaving the affected ballots subject to California's established election procedures.
The California dispute extended beyond the civil lawsuit after federal investigators sought election records as part of a related criminal inquiry into allegations of voting by noncitizens. The Justice Department issued subpoenas to election officials, according to documents reviewed by Reuters, adding a criminal investigative dimension to the disagreement over voter eligibility. California officials maintained that the state was responsible for administering its elections under applicable federal and state laws. The department's actions raised questions about whether federal prosecutors were investigating specific potential offences or seeking broader intervention in an election process traditionally managed by state authorities.
The controversy in Alaska centred on a Senate contest between Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan and Democratic former Representative Mary Peltola. A second candidate, retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan, qualified for the ballot, creating the possibility that voters could confuse him with the incumbent senator. Trump and other Republicans alleged that the independent candidate had been recruited to divert votes from the Republican incumbent, an accusation that became the subject of state and federal investigations. Peltola denied that her campaign had participated in recruiting the candidate, while Daniel J. Sullivan denied seeking to mislead voters.
The Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit seeking to prevent certification of the Alaska Senate election if the result suggested that confusion between the similarly named candidates could have affected the outcome. The government wanted ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan to be examined before the state certified a possible defeat for the incumbent Republican senator. Trump publicly acknowledged that he had directed the department to pursue the case, bringing presidential involvement directly into a dispute over an election in which his party was seeking to retain a Senate seat. The administration argued that the intervention was necessary to protect voters from deliberate deception.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason dismissed the lawsuit on Sunday, concluding that the government had not presented a workable method for investigating voters' intentions without compromising ballot secrecy. The judge also raised concerns about the proposed changes to election procedures after voting had already begun and questioned the federal government's authority to obtain the requested remedy. The Justice Department promptly announced an appeal, maintaining that voters deserved protection against attempts to manipulate election outcomes. The ruling did not resolve every allegation surrounding the independent candidate's recruitment, but it rejected the government's attempt to intervene in the certification process through the proposed legal mechanism.
The Alaska dispute illustrates the broader constitutional questions surrounding federal involvement in state-administered elections. The U.S. Constitution assigns primary responsibility for organising federal elections to the states, subject to congressional authority and applicable federal protections. The Justice Department has an established role in enforcing voting rights, investigating election crimes and ensuring compliance with federal law. However, its intervention in disputes over ballot counting and certification can create legal and political controversy when the requested remedies appear likely to benefit a particular candidate.
The department's approach marks a significant departure from the caution traditionally exercised by federal prosecutors when considering investigations close to Election Day. For decades, Justice Department policies and professional practices have sought to prevent investigative steps from influencing voters or creating the appearance that federal law enforcement is being used for partisan purposes. Former officials say investigations involving election misconduct have generally required careful consultation with experienced career prosecutors, particularly when public action could affect an ongoing campaign. Those safeguards were intended to preserve confidence that prosecutorial decisions were based on evidence and legal standards rather than political advantage.
The Trump administration has also changed the internal structure governing election-related investigations. The Justice Department has reduced the size of its Public Integrity Section, which historically provided specialised advice on election crimes and public corruption, and suspended a requirement that federal prosecutors consult the section before pursuing certain election-corruption matters. Department officials argue that local U.S. Attorney's Offices are better positioned to assess potential violations and determine whether criminal charges are justified. Critics contend that reducing centralised oversight could make politically sensitive investigations more vulnerable to inconsistent decisions or pressure from senior officials.
According to Reuters, prosecutors and federal agents have been informed that unresolved disagreements over investigative decisions may be referred to political appointees within the department. The Deputy Attorney General's Office is expected to play a greater role in resolving disputes between investigators and prosecutors, a change that former officials describe as unusual in election-related cases. The department has defended that arrangement, arguing that resolving disagreements within federal law enforcement is an appropriate responsibility of senior leadership. The disagreement reflects competing views about how the Justice Department should balance managerial authority with institutional safeguards against political influence.
Former acting Attorney General Peter Keisler, who served under Republican President George W. Bush, warned that the department's credibility depends on public confidence that prosecutors do not take sides in partisan disputes. Other former federal officials have expressed concern that the government's actions in California and Alaska could create the impression that election enforcement decisions are being shaped by political considerations. Their criticism focuses not only on whether the department possesses legal authority to investigate possible wrongdoing, but also on whether the timing and scope of its interventions are consistent with longstanding standards of prosecutorial independence. The department rejects the suggestion that its actions are intended to assist Republican candidates.
Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels defended the administration's conduct, saying federal prosecutors were enforcing the law rather than helping any political campaign. Blanche has similarly argued that election integrity requires authorities to investigate suspected wrongdoing, even when allegations arise during politically sensitive periods. The administration maintains that potential violations should not be ignored simply because an election is approaching. That position reflects a legitimate law-enforcement responsibility, although courts must still determine whether specific interventions comply with constitutional limits and established legal procedures.
The dispute has also revived debate over Trump's repeated allegations concerning election fraud. The president continues to claim that widespread fraud contributed to his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, despite the failure of numerous legal challenges and the absence of evidence establishing fraud on a scale capable of changing the result. Election audits, investigations and independent research have generally found that voter fraud is uncommon. Critics of the current Justice Department argue that federal interventions based on disputed allegations could reinforce public suspicion of election outcomes before votes are counted.
The administration's defenders reject that interpretation, arguing that allegations of illegal voting and deliberate candidate deception should be examined regardless of their political implications. They contend that refusing to investigate potential offences because an election is approaching could itself undermine confidence in the justice system. The central legal distinction is whether investigators possess evidence sufficient to justify their actions and whether the remedies they seek are authorised by law. Courts reviewing the California and Alaska cases have so far declined to approve the extraordinary measures requested by the federal government.
The controversy has unfolded alongside plans for an expanded federal election-monitoring operation. Reuters reported in October that the Justice Department was preparing to deploy approximately 1,000 monitors to polling locations, prompting concerns from Democrats and voting-rights organisations about possible intimidation. Federal election monitoring is not inherently improper and has historically been used to protect voting rights, particularly where discrimination or unlawful barriers to voting are suspected. The dispute concerns the scale, deployment and political context of the operation, as well as whether federal personnel remain within their lawful responsibilities.
State and local election officials have been preparing for possible legal challenges, misinformation and disputes over ballot handling during the midterms. Some jurisdictions have developed contingency plans for demands involving voting equipment, registration records and election documents, reflecting uncertainty about how federal authorities may respond to allegations arising during voting or counting. Officials from both major parties have emphasised that election administration depends on established procedures and clear lines of legal authority. The potential for overlapping federal and state investigations has added another layer of complexity to preparations for Election Day.
The political consequences could be substantial because control of Congress remains closely contested. Republicans currently hold narrow majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate, while Democrats are seeking gains that would allow them to challenge the administration's legislative priorities and increase congressional oversight. Senate races in states including Alaska and Michigan have attracted particular attention because their outcomes could influence the balance of power. The administration's legal actions have therefore taken place against a backdrop in which even a small number of disputed votes could become politically significant.
The distinction between investigating suspected election crimes and intervening in an election's outcome will remain central as voting concludes. Federal authorities have a responsibility to enforce laws prohibiting illegal voting, intimidation and other forms of misconduct, but allegations must be supported by evidence and pursued through lawful procedures. The courts' rejection of the California and Alaska requests demonstrates that the executive branch cannot automatically obtain extraordinary election remedies merely by asserting concerns about fraud or voter confusion. Those decisions do not prevent legitimate investigations from continuing where prosecutors have a sufficient legal basis.
The Justice Department's actions have also raised questions about the role of political appointees in decisions that could affect election results. Historically, career prosecutors and specialised units have provided institutional continuity across administrations, helping maintain consistent enforcement standards regardless of which party controls the White House. Changes to those arrangements do not automatically establish improper conduct, but they can increase scrutiny of decisions involving politically sensitive investigations. Former officials argue that the department must demonstrate through its actions that legal judgments remain independent of electoral considerations.
As Americans prepare to vote on November 3, the immediate legal position is that courts have rejected the Justice Department's requested restrictions in California and Alaska, while further proceedings remain possible. The department continues to defend its interventions as necessary election-law enforcement, and critics continue to warn that the actions could undermine confidence in the results. The broader significance of the disputes will depend on how federal authorities conduct investigations, respond to judicial rulings and handle any new allegations after polls close. For now, the cases have placed the independence of federal law enforcement and the constitutional authority of states at the centre of the final debate before the midterm elections.