Trump Administration’s Pre-Election Legal and Physical Interference Efforts Face Judicial Rejection

Key points

• The Justice Department sued Alaska to block certification of the US Senate race, citing a disputed ballot for a candidate named Dan J. Sullivan, but legal experts call the case weak.
• The administration demanded California and Washington state sequester ballots for alleged noncitizens, but federal judges rejected these moves, noting the lists were inaccurate and violated state control.
• Trump has refused to rule out deploying ICE or troops to polling places, though federal law prohibits armed officers at polls; Democrats are deploying monitors to counter potential intimidation.
• The SAVE Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, failed in the Senate, and the administration’s use of the SAVE database to flag voters was blocked by courts due to privacy and accuracy concerns.
• Election experts emphasize that while the administration’s tactics create an 'atmosphere of fear,' the decentralized nature of US elections and robust legal frameworks make successful subversion unlikely.

Background

This election is widely viewed as a referendum on President Trump’s performance, with his approval rating in the low 30s. Previous attempts to pass the SAVE Act and expand the SAVE database for voter verification faced significant legal and political resistance. The administration’s current tactics echo past efforts to challenge election results, such as the 2020 Georgia ballot seizure, which was based on unfounded fraud claims.

How outlets are covering it

The Guardian and The Christian Science Monitor highlight the administration’s aggressive legal maneuvers, such as the Alaska lawsuit and California ballot sequestration demands, while noting judicial rejections. France 24 emphasizes the broader context of voter suppression efforts, including the SAVE Act and mail-in voting restrictions, and notes the 'atmosphere of fear' created by these actions. Democracy Docket, a Democratic-led outlet, frames the administration’s actions as a 'full-frontal assault' on democracy, urging vigilance and highlighting the administration’s low approval ratings as a motive for subversion. All sources agree that while the administration’s tactics are concerning, they are unlikely to succeed due to legal barriers and state sovereignty.

Why it matters

The outcome of the midterms will determine the balance of power in Congress, affecting the administration’s ability to pass legislation and conduct oversight. If the administration’s interference efforts succeed, they could delay certification and create chaos in seating new members, potentially affecting the stability of the new Congress. However, the widespread legal resistance and high voter engagement suggest that the administration’s efforts are unlikely to alter the outcome, reinforcing the resilience of US democratic institutions.

What to watch

The administration is expected to continue its legal challenges and rhetoric, potentially appealing court rulings. Democrats are preparing to deploy poll monitors and file legal briefs to counter any post-election challenges. The outcome of the Alaska Senate race and the certification process will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for future disputes. Early voting data suggests high voter engagement, which may mitigate the impact of the administration’s interference efforts.