All-Out Assault On Voting Process By Trump Administration Raises Concerns About Orderly Voting at Midterms
As efforts by the Trump administration to disrupt the upcoming Midterm elections become more apparent, concerned Americans are beginning to identify and prepare for some of the threatened measures.
The array of threats fall into several categories, including voter intimidation and suppression, interference with electoral processes, and measures to call results into question. One major concern is voter intimidation throughsurveillance and the presence of armed government agents at polling places. The administration’s efforts at removing people of color from the country have given rise to widespread anxiety among these communities. Media outlets continue to report the detention and deportation of people, including citizens and those with an indisputable legal right to be here, leading many people of color to limit travel outside their homes to essential trips only. Voting is not in that category in many peoples’ minds.
One recent report also raised the possibility that surveillance by government agents, including use of drones or identity-revealing cameras, may deter voters in districts and regions where immigration enforcement has been intensified. While drones used by private citizens are becoming more common, they are often startling, if not threatening. People seeking to vote who find themselves under drone surveillance may well be deterred, for many reasons.
Armed forces officers questioned by members of Congress recently have been non-committal about whether they would refuse to assign armed troops to be present at polling places, notwithstanding that such use of the military is illegal. Many voters, especially people of color and others less secure in their communities, would find the presence of armed soldiers in uniform between them and their polling place enough to discourage them from participating in the elections.
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullins has also announced a new policy allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to enter polling places to serve warrants or conduct law enforcement activity. Deploying armed officers to a polling place is a felony under U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. § 592, which has been in force since the U.S. Civil War, except when a military enemy of the United States is present. The “military enemy” in question now appears to be everyday American citizens seeking to vote. But just the knowledge that such activities by ICE will be occurring may discourage many voters.
An additional disruption tactic emerged in Wyoming, where Trump, without notice, sent two federal employees who appeared at a polling place as “monitors” in a recent election. The action angered the state’s governor, previously a strong Trump supporter, who said Wyoming citizens don’t want the federal government “taking away our guns or our votes.” Despite this, some advisers are even urging Trump to declare martial law.
Another avenue of attack beyond intimidation has been a wide array of attempted measures to make the act of voting and providing ballots to election officials for counting more difficult. Such measures include reducing the number of polling places (in one Kentucky county 92 traditional voting places have been eliminated), as well as changing voting locations without adequate notice to the public.
In addition to relocating and/or closing polling locations, local officials sympathetic to the administration have simply reduced the hours when the polls are open, a measure certain to reduce voter participation. Legislation making it a crime to provide drinking water and other supports to voters waiting in long lines to vote has also reportedly been passed in Georgia.
Efforts to make mail-in voting difficult or illegal have thus far been thwarted by the courts, a reasonable action in light of the fact that in recent elections as many as 30% of voters have used mail-in ballots to exercise their franchise. Efforts to close off this means of voting have continued despite the courts’ actions.
In the category of interference with the routine mechanics of elections, recent news items report that in Texas the voting registration applications for some 170,000 persons were put aside and not processed. Local officials are reported to be rushing to complete processing the applications, now that this neglect of duty has been revealed. The Midterm elections are in many places expected to be close, including in Texas, and the disenfranchisement of so many voters would certainly have an impact on results. It remains an open question which party would be helped by cutting the size of the electorate; but it is widely believed that the current administration would be aided if fewer people voted.
The Trump-supported effort to redraw congressional districts to make Republican victories more likely, explicitly blessed by a Trump-sympathetic Supreme Court, has had the side benefit (for Republicans) of changing polling sites in affected districts so that many voters will likely have to find a new site to vote at in November.
Other examples of potential interference include the seizure of ballots by FBI agents and election materials in Fulton County, Georgia. And the sheriff of Riverside County, California, was just compelled by a court order to return some 650,000 ballots to his county’s election officials. If such seizures occurred during the election it would obviously make it impossible for officials to complete tallies and determine winners.
Trump has also said he regrets not seizing voting machines used in the 2020 election. More than two hundred bomb threats were received by election officials in 2024. And some election officials are anticipating how to respond should a federal subpoena arrive.
Even if efforts to suppress voting or derail routine practices are not widespread, the goal of changing the outcomes may still be reached through challenging results. Often all that is needed to force audits or recounts is a plausible claim that the process was flawed. The inevitable delays caused by remedial actions may further undermine public confidence in outcomes, and provoke efforts to block certification of successful candidates.
Countermeasures against this smorgasbord of interference and disruption are being developed, including volunteering to serve as poll monitors and observers for non-governmental organizations like the League of Women Voters and other fair elections groups. These groups often provide training in election law and best practices to preventdisenfranchisement and other illegal acts and misconduct at voting sites. Beyond these actions, fair election supporters can prepare to take legal measures against illegal and unjustifiable intrusions and demands, for example by drafting pleadings addressing the tactics the administration may use, leaving party names blank.
With the filings drafted in advance, the names of parties can be inserted on short notice and legal actions filed swiftly to seek emergency court action if necessary. This kind of preparatory action could also include locating potential plaintiffs with standing, as well as witnesses.
In most parts of the country, government agencies conducting elections rely heavily on local residents, whether volunteer, or paid, to manage and oversee the actual voting spaces. Persons offering to fill such positions are likely to be welcomed. In addition to questioning any perceived abnormal or irregular changes or additions to voting procedures, citizens wishing to support voter participation and fairness in elections can offer to fill these roles and, once in place, can speak up against improper procedures or decision-making should it occur.
Those interested in joining voting efforts in time for the Midterm elections can find local opportunities here. Support the election of democratic candidates who are working to advance the rights of workers by making a donation to the Stand Up For Workers PAC here.
Written By Paul Merry, SU4W Board Member
