By David Kiley
The announcement that the U.S. Department of Justice intends to send federal poll watchers to heavily Democratic cities such as Detroit and Lansing will likely make Election Day feel different for many voters, even if the practical impact at individual polling places varies.
Besides poll watchers, the Trump Admin. is likely to try to deploy armed ICE agents to polling places in Democratic strongholds in swing states like Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and even reliable red states like Texas where there is a contentious and potentially close Senate race.
Much will depend on the legal authority under which any federal personnel are present, how state and local election officials implement the rules governing polling places, and the conduct of those observers.
While Trump supporters will view additional observers as a way to promote confidence in election administration, Democrats will view the move as an attempt to impede voting in communities that have long been the focus of unfounded allegations about election fraud.
For many voters in Detroit and Lansing, the most noticeable change could simply be a heightened sense of attention. If federal observers or other authorized election monitors are present, voters may encounter additional people wearing identification badges, taking notes, or observing election procedures from designated areas.
Under applicable election laws, however, observers generally are not permitted to interfere with voting, question voters directly, or compromise ballot secrecy. Poll workers, who are trained to administer elections under Michigan law, remain responsible for checking voters in, issuing ballots, and maintaining order inside the polling place.
Nevertheless, perception matters. Members of communities with historical experiences of voter intimidation or unequal treatment may rightly interpret the increased federal presence in Democratic strongholds as a signal that their neighborhoods are being singled out for suspicion.
Voters will encounter the same procedural safeguards that exist in every election. They will check in with local election officials, verify their eligibility, receive a ballot if properly registered, and cast their vote in private. If questions arise about registration status or eligibility, Michigan law provides procedures for resolving those issues, including the use of provisional processes where applicable. These protections exist regardless of whether outside observers are present.
Election workers may face additional pressures as well. Poll workers could be required to answer procedural questions from authorized observers while continuing to serve voters efficiently. If observers challenge election procedures through appropriate legal channels, polling locations may experience occasional delays. The aim of Trump poll watchers will be create delays and lines to vote. However, election officials typically prepare for these possibilities and are responsible for ensuring that voting continues according to state law.
The atmosphere at some polling places could also be shaped by media attention. National coverage of federal observers in Democratic-leaning cities might lead reporters, campaign representatives, or additional credentialed observers to be present nearby. While this increased visibility could make Election Day seem more contentious than usual, it does not necessarily indicate that voting itself is being disrupted. Most voters are still likely to complete the voting process without incident.
Can Trump use ICE to intimidate voters? Yes. Here’s how.
While there is no legal authority for a president to deploy U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE) to surround polling places or require voters to show identification to federal immigration officers before voting, here is how the Trump administration could dance around that as it does so many laws.
ICE officials could deploy armed agents, masked of course, to Democratic strongholds under the false pretense of “pursuing a specific individual based on an existing immigration matter unrelated to voting.” ICE would use its federal authority to stop and question citizens for ID to create disruption at Democratic stronghold polling places and reduce overall voting and vote counts among Democrats.
A court would consider whether the timing and locations created an unlawful interference. But that would all be adjudicated post election. In the meantime, elections would be certified, or pending certification and chaos would ensue about who actually won elections.
Trump thrives on chaos. His strategy has always been to sow chaos so that the proper application of laws is disrupted. Such activity by ICE would be analyzed under immigration law, not election law. A court could still consider whether the timing or location created unlawful interference with voting. But the damage would be done to Democracy and fair voting.
Trump is ruthless about using federal agencies to target political opposition. Recently, he greenlighted FEMA aid to reef states, while withholding it from blue states. That is an unheard of abuse of power in the tradition of U.S. Democracy.
David Kiley is a member of Chelsea Indivisible, and a journalist with decades of experience writing for CNN, Businessweek, Forbes, Fortune, AOL, USA Today and HuffiingtonPost, among other media outlets.