The Justice Department has told a federal court that none of its election monitors on November 3 will come from the FBI or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "There will be no Federal Bureau of Investigation or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, much less agents, serving as monitors," Eric Neff, acting chief of the Civil Rights Division's Voting Section, said in a sworn declaration filed Wednesday. Employees of the Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Drug Enforcement Administration will serve, along with one Customs and Border Protection employee on loan to the department, and all are barred from carrying firearms and from doing anything while monitoring beyond normal monitoring work. Neff's declaration covers only the department's monitoring program on November 3; it does not address whether federal agents could appear at polling places for other reasons, which separate lawsuits are contesting.
In Arizona's July primary, the department dispatched an FBI special agent on loan to the U.S. attorney's office there as one of its monitors, Democracy Docket reported from records obtained by Democracy Forward, a legal group whose board is chaired by Democracy Docket's founder, Marc Elias; a department statement to Democracy Docket said every monitor's role is to "observe for potential violations of federal law and report concerns to the Department" but did not address why an FBI agent was chosen. The NAACP, which sued for records about the plan, says sending about 1,000 monitors "stands to jeopardize the election and interfere with the right of voters to participate in the election free from intimidation," according to Jurist; the department says it is monitoring "in a similar manner and for similar purposes as in past election cycles going back decades." Responding on Thursday, the NAACP acknowledged the department's clarification but said personnel from federal law-enforcement agencies would still take part, the International Business Times reported.
What the monitors may do
Election monitors watch for compliance with federal voting-rights laws, such as access for voters with disabilities or language help where the law requires it. According to the declaration, monitors are told their primary role is "largely limited to observing, taking notes, and interviewing willing voters outside the polling place." They are trained to wear business casual clothing with no visible federal insignia, follow each state's rules, "not talk with any voter inside the polling place," speak with voters outside only "after the voter has cast his or her ballot," and introduce themselves to election officials on arrival, carrying federal credentials. Neff wrote that the division "is not engaging any sworn law enforcement personnel who are legally authorized to effectuate an arrest to act as monitors in a 'law enforcement agent' capacity," and that while monitoring, the Bureau of Prisons, ATF and DEA employees "will not be acting as 'law enforcement personnel.'" That wording rules out monitors acting as agents; it does not rule out people who have arrest powers in their regular jobs serving as observers. The declaration does not say whether any of those employees hold sworn law-enforcement positions, which carry arrest powers, and it says the division "does not track the position title of volunteers," checking them as needed to ensure they are appropriate, for example "not sworn law enforcement personnel." Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department attorney who helped oversee the election monitor program during the Obama administration, told MS NOW, "It's not normal for those types of federal officials to serve as monitors," adding, "But they're still just there only to observe, and can (and will) still be tossed out of the polls if they disrupt or disturb or intimidate."
The lawsuits
The NAACP sued Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Civil Rights Division, on October 2 under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking records on where monitors will go, who they are, and whether FBI, Homeland Security or ICE personnel are among them, according to Jurist. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan denied its request for an emergency order requiring quick release of records on the monitors' roles and locations, and asked the two sides to try to resolve the dispute, Law&Crime reported; Neff's declaration followed. He wrote that the division has not finished choosing monitoring locations and that releasing a full list "would undermine CRT's monitoring effort and potentially put our monitors at risk," noting that groups are organizing to "monitor" the department's monitors. The department says it will have a presence in all 50 states and will not disclose the full list of monitored locations until Election Day; "Every monitor will merely observe and report any potential violations of federal law to the Department, which will be reviewed after Election Day," spokesperson Kiersten Pels told States Newsroom. Dhillon has defended the program, saying the department has used its Voting Rights Act authority to send monitors for decades, according to Jurist.
According to the docket text as quoted by Capture Cascade, an online archive that says it traces "the systematic capture of American democratic institutions" (Profoundd could not reach the court docket directly), Sooknanan on Thursday, October 29, told the two sides to keep conferring and said the government "should use reasonable efforts to process and produce records on a rolling basis before the November 3, 2026, election," noting that only three business days remained and that the NAACP "waited over two weeks to begin these discussions after the Government offered." The order sets no production deadline and requires a further joint status report by November 12. Earlier, the NAACP had proposed that narrowed categories of records be produced by October 29, and the government declined, according to Capture Cascade's account of a joint filing. The NAACP's statement that day described a court direction requiring reasonable efforts to produce records before Election Day, the International Business Times reported.
A second NAACP suit, filed October 16 with three voters from Arizona, Texas and Florida against Attorney General Todd Blanche and other Justice Department defendants, argues that the monitoring plan violates the Voting Rights Act's ban on voter intimidation; Democracy Docket describes it as seeking to block the plan, and Bloomberg Government as seeking an injunction barring the department from using monitors to intimidate voters and an order to report how it will deploy and train them. "There is no federal statute that gives Defendants the authority to turn polling places into interrogation rooms," the complaint says. The NAACP said "the limited deployment of neutral, well-trained federal election monitors to observe compliance with federal civil rights laws is not intimidating where there is a basis for their presence," but "A limited, hands-off election monitoring effort is not what the Justice Department is planning this year," Democracy Docket reported. A Justice Department spokesperson said, "The suit is built on a foundation of unwarranted fear and baseless speculation," and "DOJ's routine monitoring of elections is not an effort to intimidate voters, but to ensure compliance with federal law," Bloomberg Government reported. Democracy Docket's case page listed no ruling as of Friday afternoon; Profoundd could not reach the court's docket directly.
Why the question came up
FBI Director Kash Patel, asked at a September 15 Senate hearing whether agents would be sent to polling places, said the bureau has election-crimes coordinators in all 56 field offices and would not "shy away" from election-integrity work, Democracy Docket reported. Voting-rights groups, Denver and Minnesota's Hennepin County have separately sued the Department of Homeland Security over what they describe as a policy allowing armed ICE officers to go to polling places to serve warrants and enforce immigration law, and have added the Justice Department and Patel to that suit; the government has not conceded that Patel's remarks amount to such a policy, Democracy Docket reported. Federal law makes it a crime for anyone in federal civil or military service to order, bring or keep "troops or armed men" at a place where an election is being held, unless needed "to repel armed enemies of the United States." Democracy Docket's founder, Marc Elias, chairs the board of Democracy Forward, which represents the plaintiffs in that suit against DHS.
Monitoring in this year's primaries also drew objections. In Arizona's July 21 primary, the department sent at least six prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office there, along with an FBI special agent on loan to that office, to monitor voting, Democracy Docket reported from records Democracy Forward obtained. A department spokesperson told Democracy Docket that "department attorneys, including prosecutors, will serve as election monitors," as had happened "in many past elections," which Democracy Docket disputes, saying monitors were historically career civil attorneys; that "All monitors must meet the same legal and ethical requirements, including that they not interfere with the voting process"; that "Monitors will not identify themselves as prosecutors"; and that every monitor's role is to "observe for potential violations of federal law and report concerns to the Department." The spokesperson did not address why an FBI agent was chosen.
In Wyoming, the department sent two Civil Rights Division attorneys to Laramie County for the August 18 primary, CNN reported. Republican Gov. Mark Gordon said afterward, "It sounded like the behavior of the observers was a bit aggressive," and "It just was irregular," and asked the state attorney general, whom the governor appoints, to look into it. Gordon said he is not against election monitors and that "the conduct of this election was phenomenal," and his spokesperson said no one was asserting the monitoring affected the outcome, CNN and the Associated Press reported. The Laramie County clerk said her office denied the monitors permission to interview voters in polling places and that they "wanted to examine our tabulators," the AP reported. The department pointed CNN to a statement by Wyoming's U.S. attorney, Darin Smith: "We are working alongside local officials to ensure every lawful vote is protected."
For earlier reporting on concerns inside the FBI and on border agents at Florida early-voting sites, see Profoundd's reports from October 29 and October 26.
This article reflects reporting through Friday afternoon, October 30, 2026. Sources: declaration of Eric Neff, NAACP v. Dhillon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, October 28; Jurist; Bloomberg Law; MS NOW; Law&Crime; Townhall; Democracy Docket; 18 U.S.C. § 592; Democracy Docket on the Arizona primary and the NAACP's October 16 suit; Bloomberg Government; the Associated Press via WDIV and CNN via KEYT, August 28; States Newsroom via the Daily Montanan, October 27; Capture Cascade; the International Business Times, October 30.
