As the November 2025 off-year elections approach, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that it will send election monitors to polling sites in select counties across California and New Jersey. The move, which has drawn both praise and criticism, aims to ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal civil rights laws during a particularly consequential election cycle.
According to a DOJ statement released on October 24, officials will monitor six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Kern, Riverside, and Fresno counties in California, as well as Passaic County in New Jersey. The department emphasized that such monitoring is a routine part of its mission to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process. Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity, Attorney General Pam Bondi declared in the statement. We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free and transparent elections they deserve.
The timing of the DOJs decision is notable. New Jersey is holding an open gubernatorial election, while Californias voters are participating in a special election to redraw the states congressional mapa move widely seen as a response to Republican redistricting efforts nationwide. The stakes are high, with both states serving as political bellwethers ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), offered a pointed take on social media, calling the DOJs move a test run for 2026. His comment reflects a broader sentiment among election experts that federal scrutiny of local voting processes may become more common as the nation heads into another contentious national campaign cycle.
On the ground in California, the announcement has elicited a mix of surprise and acceptance. Fresno County Clerk James Kus acknowledged that while the DOJs presence is welcome, his office was not given advance notice. It was a bit surprising because we hadnt had that outreach. And most election observation groups, they reach out to us ahead of time to let us know theyre coming, Kus said, according to KSEE/KGPE. Still, Kus expressed understanding, noting, They may be just getting this going so they may not be quite ready for it. I mean, its not every state that has early elections or early voting opportunities like we have here in Fresno County.
Early voting is already underway in Fresno County, with nine locations open and about 91,000 to 92,000 ballots returned so far. On October 26, the second day of early in-person voting, Kus reported approximately 400 to 500 voters had cast their ballots in person. He encouraged voters to participate early to avoid long lines as Election Day nears. Weve had about 91, 92,000 ballots in total returned so far to this point, which is a very good number, Kus said. With the primary scheduled for June 2026 and the general election in November 2026, local officials are already looking ahead to future contests.
Fresno County Supervisor Nathan Magsig voiced strong support for the DOJs monitoring efforts, framing it as an opportunity for improvement. Weve got the primary coming up in June of next year. And, of course, the general election in November. So anything that the Department of Justice may find, where theres opportunities for us to improve here in California and more specifically in Fresno County, were open to that, Magsig said.
While election monitoring is not unusual, Kus noted that it has been four years since DOJ observers last visited Fresno County. We have had observers from the DOJ in past elections, although it has not happened in the last four years, he explained. The absence of recent federal monitors, combined with the lack of advance notice this year, has added an element of unpredictability to the proceedings.
The DOJs monitoring is not without its detractors. California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks lambasted the effort as election interference by the California Republican Party. In a social media post, Hicks argued, Sadly, weve come to expect it from a so-called party operating as little more of Trump fan club [especially] in trying to rig the game before its ever played. His comments reflect broader partisan tensions surrounding election oversight, with Democrats often wary of what they see as attempts to undermine confidence in the process, and Republicans insisting on the need for vigilance against potential fraud.
In New Jersey, Attorney General Matthew Platkin sought to reassure voters. Once again, we are prepared to ensure that all eligible New Jerseyans are able to cast their ballots without harassment, discrimination, or intimidation, Platkin stated on October 24. He made clear that authorities would act decisively against anyone seeking to disrupt the voting process. However, Platkin also criticized the DOJ, telling The Associated Press that the department had been unable to identify a legitimate basis for its actions.
The response from state officials underscores the delicate balance between federal oversight and local autonomy. On one hand, the DOJ argues that its presence boosts transparency and public confidence in elections. On the other, state leaders and some local officials question the necessity and timing of federal intervention, especially in the absence of specific allegations of misconduct.
California Governor Gavin Newsoms office also responded to the DOJs decision on October 24, though details of the statement were not disclosed in initial reports. The governors engagement highlights the political sensitivity of election monitoring in a state that has often found itself at the center of national debates over voting rights and election security.
For many voters, practical concerns remain top of mind. With Proposition 50 and other issues on the ballot, turnout in Fresno County has been strong so far. Election officials are urging residents to vote early, a message that resonates amid memories of long lines and crowded polling stations in prior years.
Looking ahead, the DOJs actions in California and New Jersey may well serve as a template for federal involvement in future elections. As Rick Hasen suggested, this years monitoring could be a prelude to more extensive oversight in 2026 and beyond. Whether such measures will enhance public trust or fuel further partisan discord remains to be seen, but for now, the spotlight is squarely on the mechanics of democracy in actionand on the officials tasked with ensuring every vote counts.
