Federal election interference efforts by Donald Trump and his allies ahead of the midterm elections have escalated concerns over potential attempts to delay the certification of results. While experts emphasize that the US constitution grants states the sole authority to run elections and leaves the president no formal power over voting, voting rights lawyers and democracy groups remain vigilant following the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Federal Lawsuits Target California and Alaska Ballots
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit in California asking a judge to order the state to sequester ballots after delivering a USB drive to Los Angeles County officials on October 13 containing a list of 20,000 alleged noncitizens. California officials refused the demand, citing cybersecurity concerns and faulty methodology. US District Judge David O. Carter ruled against the Justice Department, though the government is appealing that decision. A similar demand was made in Washington state on October 26 regarding 400 voters, which Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs rejected as inaccurate.
NEW from ORANGEBURG, N.Y. —Speaker Mike Johnson told me “of course” he’ll swear in lawmakers on Jan. 3.“We’ll have a peaceful transfer of power.” Comes as Dems are worrying about a scenario where GOP doesn’t seat Dem members. And follows the letter from Bacon + Gottheimer. pic.twitter.com/zaNz2TSmBV
In Alaska, the Justice Department took the step of asking a federal court before election day to block certification if incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan loses his hotly contested race against Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit points to the 1993 National Voter Registration Act to argue for stopping certification pending an investigation into votes cast for a separate candidate named Dan J. Sullivan, who was permitted to stay on the ballot by the Alaska Supreme Court. Election law scholars note that the legal argument relies on broad preamble language and is expected to fail in court, but could provide a pretext for local officials to delay certifying a Democratic victory.
Legal Scrutiny and Post-Election Chaos Risks
Experts remain divided on the ultimate impact of these legal maneuvers. Ned Foley, a professor at the Ohio State University and an expert on disputed elections, places the probability of impactful nightmare scenarios at under 50%, stating that a “blue tsunami” or a decisive blowout would make mischief difficult to get traction, though he warned that weird things still warrant attention. Danielle Lang, a voting rights attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, noted that the federal government is simply not in charge of election administration levers and cannot force itself into them.
Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department and White House official, dismissed the administration’s legal complaints as press releases masquerading as lawsuits. Meanwhile, Ben Berwick of the nonprofit Protect Democracy warned that even if courts dismiss post-election challenges, such efforts could still create chaos, confusion, and delay during the period before the new Congress convenes on January 3, 2027.
Frequently Asked Questions About Election Certification Challenges
What authority does the federal government have over state election administration?
The US constitution gives the states, not the federal government, the authority to run elections, and grants the president no power over voting procedures or ballot administration, according to legal experts.
What specific legal argument did the Justice Department use in Alaska?
The Justice Department pointed to broad language in the preamble of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that mentions protecting the integrity of the electoral process to ask a federal judge to block certification pending an investigation.
Related reading