A new lawsuit is the latest seeking to block the Trump administration’s plan to use armed agents to interfere with the midterm elections in November.
The action asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent federal agencies from deploying the officers to voting precincts around the country.
“In just the past few weeks, the leaders of two of the nation’s largest law enforcement bodies — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation — have provided statements confirming that their agencies stand willing and able to send agents into polling places,” plaintiffs claim in Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
Hakeem Jeffries
In addition to DSCC, plaintiffs include Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Association, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
The threats by ICE and FBI officials have been confirmed by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and the White House, according to the litigation filed Sept. 23. “When asked about the prospect of sending the National Guard or ICE to polling locations, President Trump himself responded that he would ‘do anything necessary’ to hold what, in his view, constitutes an ‘honest election.’”
That litigation comes on the heels of similar actions filed by coalitions of unions and civil rights organizations concerned about the effect the administration’s unlawful plan would have on the often-marginalized groups they represent.
Democracy Forward and other legal groups filed an action Sept. 10 on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, Common Cause, UnidosUS and Denver, Colo. The NAACP, Mi Familia en Accion, OCA-Asian Pacific, National Urban League, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, United Food and Commercial Workers International and International Unio of Painters and Allied Trades filed suit Sept. 18.
NAACP et al. v. DHS et al. notes that statements about sending armed agents to polling sites have come “while simultaneously conducting unprecedented law enforcement operations targeting communities of color in the lead-up to the election, including a sweeping national voter fraud investigation, an unusual voter surveillance operation targeting naturalized citizens, and months-long violent and intrusive immigration operations.”
Alex Padilla
At the same time, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., Schumer and 16 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus demanded the DHS Office of Inspector General investigate a whistleblower report that the federal agency has directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ fraud detection and national security officers to impersonate voters at the polls.
The senators issued a statement urging “an independent investigation into the alleged wrongdoings detailed in the whistleblower’s claims, which describe agency leadership directing officers to violate the law and DHS standards of integrity.”
The lawsuits also mention the administration’s efforts to use an immigration database to cross reference voter information to purge state voter rolls.
“Officials stated that they would use what they called ‘supplemental magic’ to add A-numbers, unique identifiers that USCIS assigns to noncitizens, to the voter data collected by the agency,” NAACP et al. v. DHS et al. claims. “Officials acknowledged that ‘in some instances you’ll see people have multiple A-numbers,’ indicating ‘an error in the data,’ but nevertheless insisted that agents continue using the data to refer individuals for investigation.”
LULAC et al. v. DHS points to a federal law passed during the Civil War barring federal officials from ordering “‘any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.’”
The statute specifies fines and imprisonment for leaders who break the law, the litigation explains. “Congress was concerned about executive overreach, and the risk that the federal executive would use armed force to interfere in state and federal elections.”
The reason: The presence of federal agents at polling places would disrupt the smooth operation of local elections, which in turn would make it more difficult for elections officials and law enforcement to prevent polling sites from becoming places of confrontation.
Not to mention that the federal agents in question have become notorious for their violence against immigrants and Americans alike, the lawsuit adds.
“U.S. citizens may reasonably fear interactions with ICE. … American citizens peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights have been shot and killed by ICE. And ICE agents frequently stop and question citizens — sometimes detaining them for days — based on racial profiling.”