Judge presses DOJ lawyer to tell him why hundreds more poll monitors are needed, gets same answer over and over again

Attorneys for the NAACP got an emergency opportunity to air their voter intimidation claims on the eve of the midterm elections, but the judge in the case did not appear convinced that he can — or should — restrain the Trump administration.

Attorneys Max Meyers, Anthony Ashton and John Powers introduced themselves at the top of the hearing, which began shortly after 1:40 p.m. on Monday — a matter of hours after Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton ordered the proceeding.

Calling a temporary restraining order (TRO) a "narrow remedy," the lawyers urged the George W. Bush-appointed judge to preserve the status quo, claiming the government set off "alarm bells" by confirming federal law enforcement agents would monitor the polls.

While acknowledging that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division has had a monitoring program for decades and in that sense is not "new," the plaintiffs say the Trump administration's "drastic shift in the policy" must be enjoined on an emergency basis because it is intimidating voters and election workers.

On Sunday, the NAACP cited a government declaration as proof that the deployment of election monitors will include federal agents from the DOJ, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

The NAACP said the administration seems to have "arbitrarily" decided to expand the number of monitors by several hundred to "for the first time" include federal law enforcement officials.

During the hearing, the plaintiffs' attorneys said the increase from roughly 600 monitors in 2024 to around 900 in 2026 has only been supported by the government's claimed "need" for those monitors.

Early on, Walton asked the NAACP about a declaration that Eric Neff, acting chief of the DOJ Civil Rights Division's voting section, made in another lawsuit.

In that declaration, Neff said that law enforcement monitors have been trained and would not have firearms or be able to make arrests.

"If those limitations are in fact in place, and these monitors have, as the government represents, been trained as to how they are to conduct their monitoring consistent with what is permissible, then why would the fact that they happen to be law enforcement officials make them any different than any other monitor?" Walton asked.

The NAACP conceded that the DOJ's monitoring program has existed for decades but said that this unexplained expansion of it represents the "intimidation of, and resulting interference with, the Plaintiffs' exercise of the right to vote in person during upcoming election."

Kathryn Barragan of the Federal Programs Branch of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division argued on behalf of the government, saying that Trump administration monitors are "prohibited from intruding or interfering in any way with anyone voting" and "trained to follow all rules of state and the jurisdictions which they're assigned."

"It's my understanding from information that I have received from people who are familiar with the monitoring process that those who have been monitors in the past have not been law enforcement officials," Walton said. "They have been from other components of the DOJ. Is that wrong?"

"I believe that is correct, Your Honor," Barragan replied, but added the "caveat" that "in the past there were criminal prosecutors who may have served as polling monitors."

"If that is correct, why has it been decided that law enforcement officials this time around should be used as monitors?" Walton followed up.

Barragan conceded that this "would be an expansion for the first time for this upcoming election."

"Any reason why that expansion has now been included by this administration?" Walton asked again, not getting an answer beyond "to meet the need to cover all 50 states."

"I hate to interrupt, but so I don't lose my train of thought. Why was it felt that that expansion was needed in order to have, I guess you're saying, sufficient resources to do the monitoring?" the judge wondered.

The DOJ attorney would only say the expansion was done to meet a "need."

"In terms of the details of why it was expanded, we'd be happy to provide supplemental briefing to Your Honor. But my understanding is it was expanded in order to meet the need to have monitors," she said, also not explaining how the "determination" was made "as to which locations will be subject to a monitor."

"So you're not able to say whether there are particular locations that may be perceived as having a political leaning — that those are not going to be locations that are going to be targeted?" Walton asked again.

"I don't have that information for you at this hearing, but again, we would be happy to provide it," Barragan said. "I don't know the details of who was assigned to which particular polling location."

The judge, mindful of the looming election, said "I need to make a ruling today" and directed the DOJ to file those supplemental documents so he can rule before he leaves the courthouse on Monday.

"That would be helpful," the judge said, hoping that "in our country" that monitors aren't "being sent to any particular locations because of the perceived political lean."

Barragan stated that the DOJ's poll monitoring program is "long-standing" and that the law enforcement monitors amount to a "modest expansion of that program to include other DOJ personnel."

"They will not be effectuating arrests at polling places, and we have taken reasonable steps to ensure that that will not be the case," she said.

The judge indicated that even though he might find the NAACP and its members have standing, it may be that his "concerns" may not "rise to the level of […] being able to conclude" that they showed irreparable harm to win a TRO.

"I will need from you those supplemental declarations, which I think are critical in my assessment as to how I should rule. And I want to make this ruling as expeditiously as possible," he said.

In the DOJ's supplemental filing, the government said it "has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure such sworn law enforcement officers are excluded from the group volunteer election monitors for the upcoming election" and repeated that "more DOJ components were needed to reach the necessary volunteer numbers."