With Election Day hours away, judges are rejecting federal efforts to set aside ballots, intimidate election workers and interfere with state elections. Keep calm and vote. (Then bring a friend!)
It’s Election Week, and U.S. democracy is on the line. (Take two deep breaths!)
Millions of Americans have already voted, millions more will head to the polls Tuesday. (Voters: Whatever your age, gender or political affiliation, check out Ms.’ 2026 midterm voting guide for everything you need to cast your ballot; and the know-your-rights guide for what to do if you encounter long lines, voter intimidation or other problems at the polls.)
Meanwhile, courts across the country are confronting an extraordinary series of eleventh-hour demands from the Trump administration.
In California, the Justice Department wants election officials to set aside ballots associated with more than 20,000 registered voters whose citizenship it questioned. In Alaska, it tried to prevent the state from certifying its U.S. Senate election under certain circumstances if the Republican incumbent loses. Across the country, federal officials have pressured election administrators over voter eligibility and warned of possible criminal prosecution.
But judges across the political spectrum are pushing back, in unusually forceful opinions.
California: ‘Our Democracy Is in Danger’
One of the most consequential legal fights is unfolding in California, where the Trump administration is seeking to prevent the counting of ballots associated with more than 20,000 registered voters it suspects are noncitizens.
On Oct. 28, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter rejected the Justice Department’s request, questioning the reliability of the government’s evidence and warning that its demands could disenfranchise eligible voters.
Carter began his opinion by tracing the long struggle for voting rights, including the generations of women and Black Americans who fought for the franchise. He also warned that naturalized citizens are especially vulnerable to being wrongly flagged as noncitizens by the government’s database-matching system.
“Those most at risk of being disenfranchised are naturalized citizens.”
Former federal prosecutor and writer Joyce Vance, in an analysis of Carter’s ruling, described the government’s approach as using “a whisper of suspicion to deprive people of their voting rights.”
Carter’s conclusion was even more striking:
“If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger.”
On Friday, Oct. 30, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s emergency request. The 2-1 majority included Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee. The judges warned that there was no feasible way to isolate the disputed ballots “without potentially catastrophic effects on the entire system.”
On Monday, Nov. 2, the administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene, leaving the legal dispute unresolved just hours before Election Day.
Another California Judge Orders DOJ to Stop Threatening Election Workers
In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson issued an emergency order Friday prohibiting the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security from threatening, intimidating or coercing election workers into removing registered voters, withholding ballots or refusing to count legally cast votes.
Thompson’s order opens with an unequivocal statement:
“One of the hallmarks of a fair election is the freedom to exercise the right to vote free from threat, fear, or intimidation.”
The judge found that federal officials had likely violated the Voting Rights Act and exceeded their authority over state-administered elections.
The ruling followed a lawsuit brought by labor unions and civil rights organizations, including the Service Employees International Union, NAACP and League of United Latin American Citizens.
Norm Eisen, co-founder of Democracy Defenders Fund, which helped bring the case, celebrated the ruling. In an Oct. 31 essay for The Contrarian, co-written with Jess Craven, Eisen emphasized the constitutional limits of presidential authority:
“The president has absolutely no role to play in running or overseeing American elections.”
The administration has appealed Thompson’s temporary order, which is scheduled to remain in effect until Nov. 16.
Women-Led Unions Win Protections Against DHS Voter Investigations
Another significant court victory came in a lawsuit involving the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United, which challenged DHS efforts to investigate people suspected of voting illegally—including through visits by armed federal agents.
On Oct. 21, a federal judge restricted certain election-related DHS operations in nine states: California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.
On Oct. 30, the Ninth Circuit refused to suspend those protections, recognizing the potential chilling effect of such operations on eligible voters.
The case underscores how women-led labor organizations are helping defend voting rights and how government investigations relying on questionable citizenship data can threaten naturalized citizens’ participation in elections.
DOJ’s Pressure Campaign Reaches Beyond Washington
Following a court order from Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., the administration disclosed that federal agencies had contacted election officials in five states about allegedly ineligible voters: California, Washington, Nevada, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Separately, DOJ sent letters to election officials in all 50 states warning of possible criminal penalties for failing to preserve election records, despite existing federal requirements to maintain those records for 22 months.
Boasberg ordered the government to disclose its communications after voting-rights attorney Marc Elias and Democratic organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s actions. The judge has also been considering whether to impose broader restrictions.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, has been among the legal advocates challenging the administration’s broader election-related actions, including a lawsuit seeking to prevent armed federal agents from interfering at polling places in Virginia.
“Voters should be able to cast their ballots without fear of being confronted by armed federal agents,” Perryman said.
Alaska: A Judge Refuses to Hold Up Election Results
In Alaska, the administration attempted something even more unusual: blocking certification of the state’s U.S. Senate election if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan loses.
On Sunday, Nov. 1, U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the federal government lacked standing and that its proposed investigation would jeopardize voters’ right to a secret ballot.
Gleason wrote that the federal government had offered “no workable plan as to how it proposes to segregate ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan on Election Day.”
The Justice Department appealed the dismissal the same day.
What Voters Need to Know Before Election Day
Despite the legal battles, Tuesday, Nov. 3, is Election Day, and the last possible day to vote. These lawsuits have not suspended voting nationwide.
If you experience intimidation, have problems with your registration or are denied a regular ballot, the nonpartisan Election Protection coalition can help at 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683).
The stakes extend far beyond Tuesday’s election, raising fundamental questions about voting rights, the disenfranchisement of naturalized citizens and the future of American democracy. For generations, women and marginalized communities fought not just for the right to cast a ballot, but for the right to have that ballot counted. The courts’ rulings underscore how consequential that distinction remains.
As Perryman and Lisa Gilbert wrote in a Nov. 2 essay for Just Security: “The Constitution can’t defend itself, but the people can defend the Constitution.”
