# Election Worker Intimidation Litigation 2026 Through October 2026 the federal government told the people who run American elections that counting certain ballots could make them criminals. On **October 30, 2026** — four days before the midterm election — a federal judge in San Francisco ordered it to stop, and made the order enforceable. This is the case that produced that order. It is distinct from the ballot fights that prompted it: the question here is not whose ballots get counted but **whether the federal government may threaten the clerks who count them.** ## Who sued, and when The plaintiffs are not states or candidates. They are the organizations whose members do the work: - the [[NAACP]] and [[LULAC]], as civil rights organizations representing affected voters - the labor organizations representing state and local election officials and workers — the Service Employees International Union, the [[AFL-CIO]] and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees They filed in the U.S. District Court for the **Northern District of California** on **Thursday, October 29, 2026**, naming the [[Department of Justice]] and the [[Department of Homeland Security]] as defendants. The case went to Judge [[Trina Thompson]], who ruled the next day without waiting for the government's response. ## What the complaint described The conduct at issue had accumulated over about three weeks and is recorded in more detail at [[DOJ California Noncitizen Ballot Litigation 2026]] and [[ICE Voter Records Collection]]. The order's own summary of it: - On **October 13, 2026** the departments wrote to the California Secretary of State and the Los Angeles County Registrar demanding they sequester the ballots of roughly **20,000 registered California voters** the government "believed" were "likely" noncitizens. When the state and county refused, the government sued them in the Central District of California. - Letters went to election officials in other states as well — in some cases, according to the plaintiffs, **delivered by armed Homeland Security officials** — warning of investigation and criminal penalties if officials failed to preserve records or set aside the ballots the government flagged. - Specifically, the plaintiffs said, officials had "threatened the criminal prosecution of state and local election workers if they process and count ballots using procedures required by federal and state law." ## What the order does Judge Thompson granted a temporary restraining order. It bars the two departments from: - **threatening state or local election officials and workers with criminal prosecution** for processing or counting 2026 ballots in compliance with state and federal election law, on the theory that a ballot belongs to someone the government alleges is ineligible; and - **demanding that states remove named individuals** from voter registration lists, or treat those individuals' ballots differently from any others. She found the plaintiffs had shown the departments' conduct likely violated the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], the [[Elections Clause]], and the Fifth and Tenth Amendments — and that the government's stated purpose did not change its likely effect: > [!quote] From the order > "Although Defendants claim that their actions are designed to halt unlawful voting by noncitizens, their actions are likely to have the effect of interfering with election administration and disenfranchising lawful voters." On her reason for ruling immediately: > [!quote] From the order > "One of the hallmarks of a fair election is the freedom to exercise the right to vote free from threat, fear, or intimidation. Free exercise of the right to vote is a core tenet of our democracy. It requires safeguarding to ensure full participation and public trust in our elections. Election Day is around the corner. Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots. Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling." **It reaches beyond California.** Although Thompson sits in Northern California, the order on its face restrains the departments rather than any particular state's officials, and reporting on it treated it as applying nationwide. It is a temporary order, not a final judgment, and by its terms it runs past Election Day. ## What made it the first of its kind By late October several judges hearing the government's ballot cases had told Justice Department lawyers from the bench to stop threatening election officials. Those were admonitions. Thompson's was the first order to **prohibit** the threats as a matter of law, with the force that carries. ## The government's response The Justice Department objected to being enjoined before it had been heard. Spokesperson Kiersten Pels said the ruling showed a "two-track system of justice," adding that "the judge issued an order against the federal government without even waiting to hear from the United States, while in other cases the Department's own urgent election claims are delayed by judges until after Election Day." The department appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on **Saturday, October 31, 2026**. Also on October 30, the department sent every state election chief a letter directing them to preserve ballots and election records, and warning that willful violations of federal record-keeping law can carry criminal penalties. ## Why it matters 1. **It names the pressure point.** Certification and counting are done by clerks, registrars and temporary workers, most of them without lawyers. A credible threat of prosecution does not have to succeed in court to change what a tired county employee does with a contested stack of envelopes at 11 p.m. The order treats that gap between legal merit and practical effect as the injury. 2. **The plaintiffs are the workers, not the states.** California and Alaska were already litigating as governments. This suit was brought by the unions and civil rights groups whose members absorb the risk personally — a different theory of who is harmed when a department threatens an election office. 3. **It completes a pattern.** With [[DOJ California Noncitizen Ballot Litigation 2026]], [[United States v. State of Alaska]] and [[ICE Voter Records Collection]], this is the fourth federal election action of October 2026. Taken together they describe a federal government intervening in the administration of a midterm election in several states at once — and, in the last four days before the vote, losing in court each time. > [!warning] Live case > This page records a temporary restraining order and the appeal from it, not a final judgment. The underlying lawsuit was undecided when this was written, and the government's appeal was pending. Accounts of the order's exact expiry date differ; check the docket before citing one. ## See Also - [[Trina Thompson]] — the judge who issued the order - [[DOJ California Noncitizen Ballot Litigation 2026]] — the ballot demands that prompted the suit - [[United States v. State of Alaska]] — the parallel certification fight, dismissed two days later - [[ICE Voter Records Collection]] — the investigative track - [[NAACP]] · [[LULAC]] · [[AFL-CIO]] - [[Todd Blanche]] · [[Markwayne Mullin]] - [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] · [[Elections Clause]] - [[Election Interference]] · [[Voter Suppression]] · [[Election Certification]] - [[2026 Midterm Elections]]