Election Observers and Monitors: What’s Normal—and What’s Not
Election observers are a normal part of the American democratic process. In nearly every state, people are permitted to watch parts of voting periods and ballot counting. From federal officials to congressional staff to political party and nonprofit volunteers, observers have for years promoted transparency and public confidence in elections.
While these groups of people have distinct roles and differing names (observers, monitors, watchers, and challengers) and legal authority to watch election processes, one principle binds them all: Observing an election is not the same as running one. State and local election officials remain responsible for administering elections, protecting voters, and securing ballots and voting equipment.
Election observers will be a major part of the election landscape in November’s midterm elections. Both major political parties are preparing expanded poll-observation efforts, while congressional staff are also being trained and deployed through longstanding observer programs. Justice Department election monitors have already shown up at polling places in different state primaries, and Justice Department officials plan to deploy 1,000 election monitors nationwide in November.
With more observers likely to be present this fall, understanding who they are, and the very different rules governing what they can and cannot do, is especially important.
For decades, the Justice Department has sent attorneys and other staff to observe elections and assess compliance with federal voting laws, including protections against racial discrimination and voter intimidation and requirements involving language assistance and accessibility.
But Justice Department election monitors have no special federal statutory authority simply because they are monitors or because they are Justice Department employees. Their rights are generally similar to those of members of the public. Justice Department monitors can observe election activities, document potential violations of federal voting laws, and raise concerns with election officials. But they cannot take over election administration or order state or local officials to change their procedures.
They also do not have independent authority to enter restricted polling places or election facilities, inspect voting equipment, handle ballots, or demand immediate access to election records simply because they work for the Justice Department. Where state law does not otherwise allow access, Justice Department monitors generally must observe like any other member of the public and can be removed if they violate those rules.
That distinction has already mattered during the 2026 primaries. After the Justice Department sent two monitors to Laramie County, Wyoming, for the Aug. 18 primary, state officials opened up an investigation into their conduct. According to the county clerk, the monitors arrived without effective advance notice and sought to interview voters inside polling places, obtain poll-worker training materials, and examine voting equipment and tabulators. Local officials denied requests they believed were inconsistent with state law. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon subsequently asked the state attorney general to investigate the monitors’ activities.
Justice Department election monitors are also distinct from federal election observers authorized by a court order and specific provisions of federal voting laws, who may be sent to a handful of jurisdictions.
Federal law allows specially designated, credentialed congressional staff to observe the administration of federal elections, including where ballots are cast, processed, scanned, tabulated, canvassed, recounted, and certified. That gives congressional observers broader access than Justice Department monitors or most partisan observers. But broader access does not mean broader control.
Congressional observers may ask questions of election officials, but they cannot interfere with officials doing their jobs. They cannot handle ballots or election equipment, advocate for a candidate or position, compromise ballot secrecy, interfere with voters, or otherwise disrupt election administration. And they can be removed if they violate these rules or are disruptive.
Congressional observers have historically been deployed in bipartisan pairs, particularly in close congressional elections. But federal law does not require bipartisan teams.
Poll observers—sometimes called poll watchers or challengers—are private individuals permitted to observe election processes. They are often appointed by candidates or political parties, but sometimes nonpartisan organizations. In some states, such as Arizona or North Carolina, certain observers may also be permitted to challenge whether a prospective voter is eligible to cast a ballot.
State law determines what observers can and cannot do. There is no federal constitutional right to serve as a poll observer, and states set the rules governing who may observe, where they may go, what they may see, and how they may conduct themselves.
Those rules vary from state to state. State law may limit how close observers can get to voters or election workers, whether they can take photographs or use phones, and who they can speak with. States may also prohibit observers from disrupting voting, electioneering, intimidating voters, interfering with election workers, or compromising ballot secrecy.
Observation does not mean unlimited access. An observer being required to stand in a designated area or follow rules governing access does not mean election officials are hiding something. Courts have rejected claims that restrictions on observers, standing alone, show that fraud or mistakes occurred. However, if they violate these rules, they can be removed.
Having observers present at an election is not unusual. Neither is an observer asking a question, taking notes, or raising a concern.
An observer’s allegation does not establish that something improper occurred. A disagreement about a routine election procedure is not evidence of fraud. And being authorized to observe an election does not give anyone authority to interfere with voting, handle protected election materials without permission, intimidate voters, or substitute their judgment for the election officials responsible for administering the election.
While there may be more monitors and observers this year than in typical midterm elections, one thing remains true: They must stay within the limits of their authority and allow state and local election officials to run the voting and ballot-counting processes. At the end of the day, states run elections.
Election observation is part of the process. Election interference is not.