Indicted and impeached Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has taken legal action against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in a bid to prevent federal officials from monitoring polling sites in Texas. Paxton’s lawsuit was filed as a last-minute effort to halt the DOJ’s plans.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has taken legal action against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and other federal officials, alleging that the Biden-Harris administration employed federal agents to intimidate voters. In a nine-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Amarillo, Paxton outlines his accusations against the administration.
In response to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) announcement on November 1, a lawsuit has been filed. The DOJ plans to send federal observers to 86 jurisdictions across 27 states, including eight Texas counties, on Election Day. The observers are expected to be present in Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston. The DOJ’s civil rights division will coordinate this effort, ensuring continuous communication with state and local election officials throughout the day.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced the deployment of observers as part of its efforts to enforce federal election statutes. The observers will ensure compliance with important laws such as the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and Civil Rights Act. It is worth mentioning that the Americans with Disabilities Act safeguards the voting rights of individuals with disabilities, ensuring they have equal opportunities. Additionally, the DOJ’s criminal section is responsible for upholding federal criminal statutes that prohibit voter intimidation and suppression based on race, color, national origin, or religion.
According to Paxton, the DOJ’s observers do not meet the legal requirements for poll watchers under state law. He argued in his filing that poll watchers must be appointed by a candidate or political party.
“Texas law allows ‘watchers’ to be present in both polling locations and central counting stations during the relevant election-day and vote-counting periods,” argued Paxton. “But far from creating a broad, catch-all exception under which DOJ monitors may slip into Texas polling stations and counting stations, ‘watcher’ is a tightly defined and closely restricted legal category under Texas statute.”
Paxton argued that in order to provide “watchers” with a certificate of appointment, they must provide an affidavit stating that they will not record audio or images during monitoring operations.
“To be eligible to serve as a watcher, a person must have completed a training program developed and maintained by the Texas Secretary of State,” Paxton argued in the filing.
“The Biden-Harris Administration’s lawless intimidation campaign infringes on States’ constitutional authority to run free and fair elections,” said Paxton in a statement Monday. “Texas will not be intimidated and I will make every effort to prevent weaponized federal agencies from interfering in our elections.”
Texas has asked the court to temporarily and permanently stop DOJ observers from being present at voting and central count facilities in the upcoming November 5 election.
The case is currently ongoing in front of U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by Donald Trump and is known for being open to conservative lawsuits. Judge Kacsmaryk previously made headlines when he ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to revoke its approval of mifepristone, a drug frequently used in abortions. This decision sparked a nationwide discussion about the implications of allowing a federal judge to question the FDA’s scientific expertise in matters of medical regulations.
Judge Kacsmaryk is currently overseeing a lawsuit filed by Trump against CBS News regarding their October interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump alleges that the aired footage was edited in a deceptive manner with the intention to confuse, deceive, and mislead the public. He further asserts that this editing was done to favor Democrats and constitutes interference in the election and voter process.
