What Federal Election Monitors Can and Can’t Do at Polling Places in Georgia

Georgians concerned about U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) election monitors being sent to Georgia for next week’s elections should be aware that federal and state laws strictly limit where they can go and what they can do.

The DOJ has notified at least six Georgia counties–Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, Bibb and Chatham–that it intends to send monitors to polling places for the election. Previous administrations have done so routinely to assess compliance with federal disability and voting rights laws – but this year, some have expressed concerns about how the DOJ’s monitors will conduct themselves.

The bottom line is that there are multiple safeguards in place to ensure that DOJ monitors do not interfere with the election. They have limited authority and limited access to observe voting – and their conduct is constrained by multiple laws prohibiting election interference and voter intimidation. Therefore, monitors cannot legally intimidate voters or take possession of ballots. State and local election officials are empowered to protect the election in the event of any illegal conduct.

First, the DOJ’s access to polling places is restricted – in Georgia, their access is limited to the access that a member of the public may have. Under Georgia law, members of the public are not allowed inside a polling place in Georgia unless they are a voter, the minor child of a voter, a credentialed poll watcher, or a person lawfully assisting a voter. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-413(f).

Second, where they can observe, DOJ monitors’ authority is quite limited – their only role is to observe and document any potential violations of federal law, and their only recourse is to file a lawsuit after the fact. That means DOJ monitors cannot step in to try to resolve a perceived violation with a voter or poll worker at the polling place.  Georgia courts have affirmed that certification of the election is a mandatory legal duty, and no local or state officials can refuse to certify based on any grounds raised by a DOJ monitor.

Third, DOJ monitors are constrained by numerous federal laws that protect voters and the voting process:

• They cannot use their “official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election” of any federal candidate. See 18 U.S.C. § 595.
• They cannot intimidate, threaten, or coerce voters, people assisting voters, or election officials. See 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b) (prohibiting voter intimidation); 18 U.S.C. § 594 (criminalizing voter intimidation).
• They cannot be armed at any polling location. See 18 U.S.C. § 592.
• They cannot take possession of any ballots or election materials, as custody of the ballots must remain with the proper election custodians designated under Georgia law (e.g., the poll workers and election workers). See 52 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq.

DOJ monitors have been deployed by the Trump Administration in recent elections, and based on public reports it appears that DOJ monitors have largely been acting within the confines of their authority.  However, in August, the Republican Governor of Wyoming very publicly objected to the behavior of DOJ monitors sent to his state, saying they had improperly tried to interview voters and inspect voting machines at polling places.^[1][2]

In the event that DOJ monitors overstep their bounds and violate federal laws, Georgia poll workers and election officials are authorized to take action to protect the election.

• Georgia law broadly prohibits election interference. Among other provisions, it is a crime in Georgia for any law enforcement officer to “[w]illfully hinder[] or delay[], or attempt[] to hinder or delay, any poll officer in the performance of any duty under this chapter.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-593. See alsoC.G.A. § 21-2-597; O.C.G.A. § 21-2-566.
• Georgia law also prohibits voter intimidation and voter interference. O.C.G.A. § 21–2–567; O.C.G.A. § 21–2–568; O.C.G.A. § 21–2–590.

What’s more, states can arrest and prosecute federal officers who violate state law if they are acting outside the scope of their authority under federal law.^[3] To successfully assert immunity, federal agents would have to show that (1) they were acting within the scope of their federal duties, and (2) that they did no more than was necessary and proper in fulfilling those duties.^[4]

If DOJ monitors overstep their authority and violate federal and state statutes, their immunity claim would fail both prongs of the test – as they would be acting outside the scope of their federal duties and/or doing more than is necessary and proper to fulfill them. Although rare, courts have allowed prosecutions to proceed against federal officials who have acted unlawfully in executing their federal duties.^[5]

Most Georgia counties that have received notice of DOJ monitors being sent to their polling places should be well prepared for them. To have an election result that reflects the will of the voters, it’s important that voters feel safe in turning out to vote and confident that their lawfully-cast votes will be counted. The presence of DOJ monitors at some polling places should not serve as a barrier to voting this fall.

[1] “Wyoming Governor Objects to ‘Very Odd’ D.O.J. Election Monitoring,” New York Times, Aug. 28, 2026.
[2] , available at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/28/us/politics/wyoming-governor-objects-to-very-odd-doj-electionmonitoring.html.
[3] In Re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890).
[4] Id.
[5] United States ex rel. Drury v. Lewis, 200 U.S. 1 (1906); Idaho v. Horiuchi, 253 F.3d 359, 374 (9th Cir 2001) (en banc).