Voters line up at a polling place. (Image via Shutterstock)
A federal judge warned the Justice Department Monday that there would be “hell to pay” for misleading his court as conflicting accounts emerged about who would monitor polls on Election Day.
“I would have to hope and assume that an officer of the court would not misrepresent the reality of who these monitors are gonna be,” U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said, Democracy Docket’s Jacob Knutson reported.
“Because if there is some type of misrepresentation — and I don’t suggest there is — obviously there’d be hell to pay.”
The stern warning came as DOJ abruptly shifted its position and said it would have “no problem” with an injunction requiring reasonable efforts to exclude sworn officers from monitoring polls.
The about-face came as the NAACP sought emergency intervention to prevent federal law enforcement officers from serving as monitors, arguing their presence would intimidate voters.
DOJ attorney Kathryn Barragan said participating employees from federal law enforcement agencies would be administrative or clerical personnel. Walton said that “appeared to be an inconsistency” with an earlier department declaration.
Trump’s DOJ also argued in the same litigation that a federal voter-intimidate prohibition “does not apply to the federal government,” according to a separate Democracy Docket report, which described it as a “dangerous new argument.”
Walton demanded more information about the monitoring operation, including how locations were selected, expressing concern about political considerations.
But he also questioned whether the NAACP had demonstrated the potential irreparable harm necessary for emergency relief.
“I do have concerns,” Walton said Monday. “But those concerns, I don’t know if they rise to the level of me being able to conclude that the plaintiffs have met that high burden of showing potential of irreparable harm.”
Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.
For customer support contact support@rawstory.com.
