Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California, has faced backlash after accusing the Justice Department of undermining fair elections by sending federal monitors to observe the November elections in his state. In a response to the DOJ’s plan to deploy federal observers to California, Newsom claimed on Friday that such actions amounted to ‘a deliberate attempt to scare off voters and undermine a fair election.’
The DOJ’s move comes amid heightened tensions over election integrity, as several Republican-led states have requested federal observers for their elections. California and New Jersey are among the states that have accepted the offer, as both conduct highly contested elections, including a congressional map redrawing in California and a gubernatorial race in New Jersey. The decision has sparked a heated exchange between Newsom and DOJ officials, with Newsom dismissing the federal presence as a threat to election security and voter confidence.
DOJ Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, responded on X, criticizing Newsom’s claims as ‘calm down bro’ and asserting that sending federal election monitors is a longstanding practice to ensure election laws are followed. Dhillon emphasized that the DOJ has sent observers to various states, including California, for decades, and that such monitoring is not indicative of voter intimidation but rather a standard compliance measure to safeguard the integrity of elections. This response has been echoed by other officials, including Dr. Houman Hemmati, who questioned the rationale for voter concern, suggesting that such observers might actually bolster trust in the electoral process.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate for governor in California, joined the criticism, implying that Newsom’s stance was an attempt to deflect scrutiny of his electoral management. The GOP has historically been vocal in its allegations of vote-by-mail fraud and voter suppression, particularly in states where high voter turnout is closely monitored. This has further intensified the debate over the role of federal intervention in local elections and the potential impact on voter participation and trust.
Newsom’s criticism aligns with broader Democratic concerns about the DOJ’s perceived partisan bias, especially amid claims of its alleged support for Donald Trump. His press office has emphasized that the DOJ’s involvement in the California election is unnecessary and that the state has its own mechanisms for ensuring fair voting practices. However, opponents argue that without federal oversight, discrepancies in voting procedures – particularly in high-risk areas – could undermine the accuracy and legitimacy of election outcomes.
Meanwhile, Democrats in both California and New Jersey have criticized the GOP’s demand for additional federal monitoring, suggesting that such requests are politically motivated and not based on concrete evidence of voter fraud. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, for instance, labeled the DOJ’s decision as ‘highly inappropriate,’ arguing that the agency has failed to justify its involvement in the state’s election process. As the polls draw near, the controversy underscores the deepening divisions over the balance between state sovereignty and federal oversight in electoral matters.