{
  "id": 18057295,
  "title": "Midterms proceeded without chaos, despite unprecedented Justice Department interference in recent days",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/04/midterms-proceeded-without-chaos-despite-unprecedented-justice",
  "topic": "science",
  "section": "Science",
  "published": "2026-11-04T02:20:31.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Conversation",
    "slug": "the-conversation",
    "url": "https://theconversation.com/midterms-proceeded-without-chaos-despite-unprecedented-justice-department-interference-in-recent-days-295622"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Midterm elections took place smoothly on Election Day, November 3, 2026, in Alaska, despite ongoing interference from the Justice Department. Federal courts across the nation have been handling various cases related to the Trump administration's attempts to exert control over state elections, but all have ruled against the administration. Multiple federal judges have criticized the administration for attempting to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local officials and employees involved in administering the midterm election.\n\nOne federal judge stated that the administration was engaged in a campaign of intimidation, threats, and coercion, while another expressed concern that if the executive branch could discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, democracy would be in danger. The Supreme Court, in a notable rebuke, refused to intervene in the administration's appeal of a lower court ruling that prohibited federal intervention in California ballot counting.\n\nNaomi Schalit, politics and legal affairs editor at The Conversation, discussed with Dickinson College President John Jones, a former federal judge, the Trump administration's actions and the perspective of the courts. Judges have been reluctant to get involved in cases after voting has begun, due to the high number of early votes cast either in person before Election Day or using mail-in voting. Courts do not want to disrupt the voting process and view federal intervention as an infringement upon the states' power to regulate elections. The Constitution grants states the authority to regulate elections, with only limited exceptions for national elections, such as Congress having a role.\n\nThe string of losses for the administration in these cases highlights the Department of Justice's perceived abandonment of its mission. In the past, the DOJ was expected to maintain a nonpolitical stance, refraining from interfering in elections or revealing investigations. The recent actions of the DOJ, including sending target letters to individuals involved in the Alaska controversy and dispatching thousands of election watchers, mark a significant shift. This behavior has been deemed unprofessional and strains the department's credibility and reputation. President Donald Trump claimed to have ordered the lawsuit against the Alaska Senate race, and while impeachment is not likely, it may be considered if the Democrats gain control of the House.",
  "summary": "The Trump administration is fighting one battle after another in the nation’s courts over its power – or lack thereof – in the 2026 midterm elections.",
  "key_points": [
    "Midterm elections proceeded smoothly on November 3, 2026, in Alaska.",
    "Federal courts ruled against Trump administration's interference attempts.",
    "Supreme Court refused to intervene in DOJ's appeal of California ballot ruling."
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}