-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Americans are understandably freaked out about the possibility of disruption in the elections next month. I get the concern. But every doomsday scenario falls down in practice. If we can just tune out the noise, the process at the polls is most likely to be refreshingly mundane.
I have run a nationwide election protection program. It’s real work to get people to dedicate a full day to helping others. It’s much harder to recruit bodies to hunt for fraud: because fraud at scale doesn’t really happen, that sort of snipe hunt doesn’t get many takers. And intimidation? Keyboard warriors love to act out online, but to actually show up is a totally different thing. They would be thrown out of the polls. They would be risking jail, because intimidating voters is a crime local officials are very prepared to enforce.
What if the federal government sends armed agents, including immigration officers, to polling sites to suppress turnout and maintain power? Not only is it emphatically not legal, it’s not practical. There are almost 100,000 polling places. The logistics of an intimidation operation don’t work countrywide.
Here’s what I believe will happen: The federal government will send a group of a dozen goons to a suburban polling place somewhere, and they’ll have a camera crew with them. Bystanders will happily oblige them in filming as well. That clip will go viral and scare some voters into not showing up at the polls because they think that there are individuals intimidating voters all over the place.
If people are worried about intimidation, go see for yourself that in your neighborhood things are very normal. Even if social media depicts pure chaos. You want to see whether it’s raining? Don’t use a weather app: Look outside.
Local and state election officials are preparing for mayhem or interference by the federal government. That doesn’t mean chaos is likely. It’s local authorities’ responsibility to prepare for everything so that the voters don’t have to worry about it. And they are as prepared as I have ever seen them. They’re preparing for a lot of truly outlandish scenarios, and some that are more realistic, so that they can be ready to make sure that the election is smooth and secure and feels very normal.
Ballot seizure is also very much on people’s minds, and I think it’s particularly salient because federal agents did it in Fulton County, Ga., and because local sheriffs did it in Riverside. But there are two big reasons that’s not going to happen this fall.
First, the seizures in both Fulton County and Riverside were of old ballots. Fulton County’s ballots seized this year were from 2020. California’s were more recent. It was a 2026 seizure for the 2025 elections, but those elections were still over, and results had already been tallied.
That’s very different from an attempt to seize ballots while results are still pending, which is flatly unconstitutional.
The seizures in Fulton County and Riverside surely took the judges in those districts by surprise — and overzealous law enforcement in those cases did us a favor. Now there are very few judges anywhere who are going to be surprised by such requests.
As the years go by, fewer and fewer things can catch us all off guard. I’ve been working on elections for a couple decades now. My list of things to watch out for in 2000 was long. My list of things to watch out for in every subsequent election grew longer. The last couple of years, my list of things to watch out for has spilled off the page and onto the floor. For election officials, it’s a lot. They are stressed out, they’re underpaid, they’re overworked.
But all that said, they’ve got this. They’re actually as prepared as I have ever seen, including dealing with things that they haven’t ever seen before and should never have to be seeing.
I understand why people might feel afraid. I understand why people think there are risks. And that’s because it’s not normal to have the president fostering this much concern about the democratic process, nor to have the president this unattached to the democratic process.
But the process doesn’t depend on the president. It depends on us.
Justin Levitt is a professor of law at Loyola Law School Los Angeles. This article was produced in collaboration with the Conversation.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- Levitt argues that widespread, organized voter intimidation is unlikely: recruiting people to show up at polling places is difficult, intimidation is a crime, and a nationwide operation would be impractical given the roughly 100,000 polling locations.
- In the article’s view, a more plausible danger is a limited incident filmed and spread online, creating an exaggerated impression of disorder that could deter voters. Levitt therefore urges people to distinguish viral images from conditions at their local polling place.
- Levitt contends that election officials’ extensive preparations make disruption less likely to derail voting. The article also argues that recent ballot seizures involved elections whose results had already been tallied, and that attempted seizures of ballots while results were pending would be unconstitutional.
- Although acknowledging that presidential rhetoric has unsettled voters, Levitt argues that elections depend on state and local officials and the public, not on the president.
Different views on the topic
- Election officials and voting-rights advocates argue that even a limited federal presence could intimidate voters and suppress turnout, particularly if images circulate widely online. The Brennan Center notes that voters might be deterred even if few encounter armed agents in person.[1] The NAACP has also sued to block federal agencies from deploying agents to polling places, arguing that such action could frighten voters, including Black, Latino and Asian voters and people in mixed-status families.[6]
- Officials’ preparations reflect concern that disruption could take forms beyond a mass deployment at polling sites. Reuters reported that state and local officials are preparing for possible political interference, misinformation, cyberattacks and demands for access to voting records or equipment.[2] Other election officials are preparing for possible federal attempts to seize ballots or voting equipment, while recognizing that any standoff may end up in court.[5]
- The concern is not that nationwide chaos is inevitable, but that uncertainty itself may affect participation. A survey cited by NPR found that about 40% of voters considered it likely that ICE agents would be at voting locations in their area, and voters of color were more likely than white voters to fear immigration-related questioning.[4]
- The federal government has said it does not plan to send immigration officers to patrol polling places en masse, but has left open the possibility of agents responding to specific incidents. Election-law experts and officials say that ambiguity, alongside the possibility of targeted deployments, warrants preparation even though federal law sharply restricts armed agents’ presence at election sites.[3][7]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It started as a ploy to scare Texas out of redrawing its congressional map and ended with California voters approving a new map of their own, one that could hat could help alter the balance of power in Washington.
William Mulholland was the water boss who made L.A. possible. His reputation gave him unchecked authority as a dam builder. In 1928, that led to one of America’s deadliest disasters--and the question of whether it was a crime.
