DOJ’s Pre-Midterm Ballot Seizure Threats Spark Senate Demand for Non-Interference Pledge

Key points

• Senators Padilla, Durbin, and Whitehouse sent a letter to AG Blanche demanding a written commitment that DOJ will not seize election materials before certification.
• The demand coincides with a DOJ lawsuit filed against California to prevent the counting of 20,000+ ballots, which the department claims belong to noncitizens.
• Critics note that DOJ has removed its Election Crimes Manual from the web and suspended the requirement for prosecutors to consult the Public Integrity Section before opening election cases.
• FBI Director Kash Patel previously testified under oath that the FBI would not seize ballots, but senators argue his commitment is contingent on the Attorney General’s authority.
• The DOJ has not responded to earlier inquiries from Senator Slotkin regarding potential armed federal presence at polling places or seizure of election materials.

Background

This escalation follows a series of recent conflicts between the DOJ and the judiciary, including a federal judge’s ruling blocking the president from firing court-appointed U.S. attorneys and a DOJ misconduct complaint against Minnesota judges. Additionally, federal agents recently searched the home of Rep. Ilhan Omar 22 days before the midterms, violating the department’s informal 60-day rule against public action in political cases near elections.

How outlets are covering it

The Guardian frames the current events as a systematic test of separation of powers, highlighting the DOJ’s shift from avoiding the appearance of interference to actively engaging in partisan political activity. Democracy Docket emphasizes the legal and procedural anomalies, such as the unexplained removal of the Election Crimes Manual and the suspension of consultation protocols, arguing these create uncertainty and potential for unlawful interference. The Sierra Sun Times focuses on the constitutional argument, stating that any DOJ action spoiling an election would be a severe constitutional violation, and highlights Senator Padilla’s role in securing an initial commitment from the FBI director, which is now being challenged by the broader DOJ stance.

Why it matters

The integrity of the 2026 midterm elections is at risk as the DOJ deploys legal and investigative tools that historically were reserved for post-election disputes. If the department seizes ballots or interferes with counting before certification, it could invalidate results and undermine public trust in the democratic process. The lack of a clear, public commitment from the Attorney General leaves voters and election officials in a state of uncertainty regarding the safety of their votes.

What to watch

The Senate expects a written response from Attorney General Blanche by October 29, 2026. The DOJ must decide whether to reaffirm its non-interference policy or proceed with its current litigation strategy against California. Legal challenges to the DOJ’s actions may emerge if ballots are seized or if the department fails to provide the requested assurances regarding its election policies.