The Department of Justice is set to deploy federal election observers in California and New Jersey next month, as requested by Republican parties in these states, which are gearing up for off-year elections.

On Friday, the DOJ revealed plans to oversee voting at polling locations in Passaic County, New Jersey, alongside five counties in California: Los Angeles, Orange, Kern, Riverside, and Fresno. This initiative aims to ensure that election proceedings are transparent, ballots are secure, and federal laws are adhered to, according to the department’s statement.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi emphasized the importance of transparency in maintaining public confidence in the electoral process, stating, “This Department of Justice is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” in a message to The Associated Press.

While the Justice Department routinely engages in election monitoring, its focus on California and New Jersey is noteworthy given the high-stakes elections taking place on November 4. New Jersey is electing a new governor, attracting significant party investment, and California is conducting a special election aimed at revising its congressional boundaries in response to Republican gerrymandering efforts elsewhere, ahead of the 2026 midterms.

This move by the DOJ aligns with the GOP’s ongoing emphasis on election integrity, a stance that gained momentum following former President Donald Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election and his unsubstantiated claims of mail-in voting fraud. Democrats, on the other hand, are apprehensive that the current administration might resort to similar baseless fraud claims to sway the upcoming midterms.

The announcement followed letters from the Republican parties in both states seeking DOJ intervention, a decision that has drawn criticism from some prominent Democrats within those states.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin called the move “highly inappropriate” and said the DOJ “has not even attempted to identify a legitimate basis for its actions.”

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, said in a statement that “No amount of election interference by the California Republican Party is going to silence the voices of California voters.”

California’s House districts at stake

The letter from the California GOP, sent Monday and obtained by the AP, asked Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, to provide monitors to observe the election in the five counties.

“In recent elections, we have received reports of irregularities in these counties that we fear will undermine either the willingness of voters to participate in the election or their confidence in the announced results of the election,” wrote GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin.

The state is set to vote Nov. 4 on a redistricting proposition that would dramatically redraw California’s congressional lines to add as many as five additional Democratic seats to its U.S. House delegation.

Each of the counties named, they alleged, has experienced recent voting issues, such as sending incorrect or duplicate ballots to voters. They also take issue with how Los Angeles and Orange counties maintain their voter rolls.

California is one of at least eight states the Justice Department has sued as part of a wide-ranging request for detailed voter roll information involving at least half the states. The department has not said why it wants the data.

Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page said he welcomes anyone who wants to watch the county’s election operations and said it’s common to have local, state, federal and even international observers. He described Orange County’s elections as “accessible, accurate, fair, secure, and transparent.”

Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan said election observers are standard practice across the country and that the county, with 5.8 million registered voters, is continuously updating and verifying its voter records.

“Voters can have confidence their ballot is handled securely and counted accurately,” he said.

Most Californians vote using mail ballots returned through the postal service, drop boxes or at local voting centers, which typically leaves polling places relatively quiet on Election Day. But in pursuit of accuracy and counting every vote, the nation’s most populous state has gained a reputation for tallies that can drag on for weeks – and sometimes longer.

In 2024, it took until early December to declare Democrat Adam Gray the winner in his Central Valley district, the final congressional race to be decided in the nation last year.

Election observers are nothing new

Local election offices and polling places around the country already have observers from both political parties to ensure rules are followed. The DOJ also has a long history of sending observers to jurisdictions that have histories of voting rights violations to ensure compliance with federal civil rights laws.

Last year, when the Biden administration was still in power, some Republican-led states said they would not allow federal monitors to access voting locations on Election Day.

Trump has for years railed against mail voting as part of his repeated false claims that former President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 was rigged. He alleges it is riddled with fraud, even though numerous studies have found no evidence of widespread fraud in U.S. elections.

Earlier this year, Trump pledged to ban vote-by-mail across the country, something he has no power to do under the U.S. Constitution.

The DOJ’s effort will be overseen by Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division, which will deploy personnel in coordination with U.S. attorney’s offices and work closely with state and local officials, the department said

The department also is soliciting further requests for monitoring in other jurisdictions.

David Becker, a former DOJ attorney who has served as an election monitor and trained them, said the work is typically done by department lawyers who are prohibited from interfering at polling places.

But Becker, now executive director of the Center for Election Integrity & Research, said local jurisdictions normally agree to the monitors’ presence.

If the administration tried to send monitors without a clear legal rationale to a place where local officials didn’t want them, “That could result in chaos,” he said.