Several Republican-led states, including Florida and Missouri, have taken a firm stance against the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) requests to deploy federal election monitors inside polling locations during the 2022 elections. These states argue that such actions could be interpreted as federal voter intimidation, raising concerns about federal interference in state election processes. While some states have echoed this sentiment, others have shown a willingness to review such requests on a case-by-case basis.
Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis and Missouri officials rejected the DOJ’s request, citing state statutes that specify who may enter polling places. DeSantis emphasized that the involvement of DOJ personnel could undermine confidence in the election and be counterproductive. Similarly, Missouri authorities suggested that the DOJ should engage with state election officials rather than directly monitoring polling sites.
Republican governors and officials from Alabama, Arkansas, Montana, South Dakota, and Mississippi have reiterated their opposition to DOJ election monitors entering polling locations. They argue that state laws provide clear guidelines on who can observe elections, and federal intervention is unnecessary and potentially disruptive to the electoral process.
On the other hand, some states have indicated a more flexible approach. Officials from Idaho, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and West Virginia have stated that they would consider DOJ requests on a case-by-case basis, depending on state election codes and regulations.
Notably, New Hampshire’s secretary of state emphasized that public areas in polling places are open to election monitors, including those from federal agencies like the DOJ. This stance reflects a balance between ensuring transparency in elections while also accommodating federal oversight when necessary.
Overall, Republican-led states are wary of federal intrusion in their election processes, emphasizing the importance of upholding state laws and regulations governing polling locations. This divide highlights ongoing debates about the extent of federal oversight in state elections and the need to strike a balance between safeguarding election integrity and preventing voter intimidation or interference.
