Wednesday, May 7

There’s been much reporting in the past month about radical changes to the U.S. Department of Justice — particularly its civil rights division and voting section. I’ve been speaking with former DOJ attorneys and officials to make sense of what it all means for the future of how the federal government will defend voting rights. Also in this week’s newsletter: A look into why Ed Martin Jr., President Donald Trump’s pick for top D.C. prosecutor, may be doomed, and Trump calls for the release of convicted election denier Tina Peters.

As always, thanks for reading. 

— Matt Cohen, Senior Reporter

Far-right extremism isn’t just fringe — it’s driving policy at the highest levels of government. Help us expose it with in-depth, fearless reporting by becoming a Democracy Docket member for $10/month or $120/year.

Why Former DOJ Attorneys Are Worried About the Future of Its Voting Section

Ever since reports emerged about some major changes to the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil rights division — and in particular, its voting section — I’ve been speaking with former DOJ attorneys to help put into context just how unprecedented the changes are. 

Last week, The Guardian reported that all the senior civil servants working as managers to the voting section were reassigned elsewhere in the DOJ. But we’re hearing the situation may be even worse than that — we may have more to share soon. 

Justin Levitt, a constitutional law scholar and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s civil rights division, put into perspective the gravity of reassigning the voting section managers to other parts of the DOJ. 

“These are senior managers with decades of nonpartisan expertise, people who have enforced the law on the books in Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, in the first Trump administration,” Levitt said. “The notion that the people who know what they're doing have been transferred out of that experience is a pretty clear sign that the civil rights division doesn't plan to enforce voting rights laws at all in this regard.”

In mid-April, prior to reassigning the managers and personnel of the voting section, the DOJ quietly updated the section’s mission statement, shifting its focus from defending voting rights to going after voter fraud.

“The mission of the Voting Rights (sic) Section of the DOJ Civil Rights Division is to ensure free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion,” the new mission statement reads, according to reporting from The Guardian. “The Section will work to ensure that only American citizens vote in US federal elections and do so securely. Other section priorities include preventing illegal voting, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error. All attorneys within the Voting Section will advocate with zeal on behalf of the United States of America in furtherance of all objectives as tasked.”

It’s a major shift for the voting section, especially given that investigating voter fraud is currently carried out by the DOJ’s criminal division, not its voting section. Should the voting section actually make this shift to align with this mission statement it would be devastating. But the former DOJ staffers I spoke with explained that it’s not so easy to make that shift. 

“Like anything with the current administration, they can make broad pronouncements that are intended to make people mad, but I'm really curious about what the execution looks like,” a former DOJ attorney in the voting section told me. 

Levitt explained it to me in more technical terms. There are regulations that divide up the responsibilities of the civil rights division and changing them isn’t as easy as writing a new mission statement. 

“Those regulations can be changed, but that has to be changed through the regulatory process,” Levitt said. “And those regulations do not include authority for most of the civil rights division to prosecute voter fraud.”

Will Trump’s Election Conspiracy Theorist Pick For D.C. Prosecutor Be Confirmed? 

Ever since Trump named “Eagle” Ed Martin Jr. as his pick for U.S. Attorney for D.C., there’s been a steady stream of controversy. That is, of course, par for course for most of Trump’s cabinet picks — from Pete Hegseth to Pam Bondi — but something about the slow trickle of stories about Martin’s controversial past and extremist ties seems to be rankling some Republican senators. 

Martin is currently serving as the top D.C. prosecutor in an interim capacity until he’s confirmed by the Senate. It’s unclear when that vote may happen but Politico reports that some GOP senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee are a bit “uneasy” about confirming him — mostly due to his past comments on the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Sen. Thom Thillis (R-NC) told reporters Tuesday that he “indicated to the White House I wouldn't support [Martin’s] nomination” because of his Jan. 6 ties and past comments. 

Typically, U.S. attorney picks don’t get a confirmation hearing — instead, Martin sent written responses to questions from Senators. But Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent the committee’s chair, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) a letter last month demanding to break precedent and hold a hearing for Martin. 

Martin — a longtime attorney and former chair of the Missouri Republican Party — was a prominent voice in the 2020 Stop the Steal movement before the Jan. 6 attack, and went on to defend three rioters, including a member of the Proud Boys. He’s repeatedly downplayed the Capitol riot, and has spread conspiracy theories about who really caused it. Since becoming interim D.C. attorney, Martin has fired and launched investigations into scores of Jan. 6 prosecutors — even calling for some prosecutors to be jailed. Most recently, Martin attempted to downplay his ties to an alleged Nazi sympathizer — who he previously called “extraordinary” at an awards ceremony last year at Trump’s New Jersey golf club.

Since he was tapped as D.C. prosecutor in an interim capacity after Trump’s inauguration, he hasn’t toned down his election conspiracy beliefs in the slightest. In March, Martin reportedly formed a special election integrity unit within his office to investigate voter fraud. In an internal email announcing the new unit, Martin wrote that “Americans do not have confidence in our election systems. One of the best ways to restore that confidence is to protect our systems and demand accountability.” It’s unclear what this unit will do but Martin said in the internal email that the unit already opened its first investigation. 

No surprise, then, that some GOP senators are getting cold feet about Martin’s nomination.

Trump Orders DOJ to ‘Secure the Release’ of Convicted Election Denier Tina Peters

On Monday night, Trump posted on TruthSocial that he’s directing the DOJ “to take all necessary action to help secure the release of” Tina Peters. Peters is a former GOP election clerk in Colorado who was sentenced to nine years in prison last year for her role in a voting system data breach, in a failed attempt to find voter fraud.

In 2021, Peters — an avowed election denier with ties to renowned conspiracy theorist and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell — allowed unauthorized people into the Mesa County election office and used the stolen identity of a software engineer to copy sensitive election data to post online. Peters was found guilty of three felony counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one felony count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and a slew of misdemeanors.

Peters was sentenced to nine years in prison last October. The Colorado judge who sentenced her did not mince words in throwing the book at Peters:

“You are no hero, you abused your position and you’re a charlatan who used, and is still using, your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again,” Colorado District Judge Matthew Barrett said.

Naturally, Peters has become something of a folk hero amongst Trump and the MAGA crowd. So it comes as no surprise that they’re pushing hard for her release. On X, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said she previously sent a formal request to the FBI “to look into the sentencing and treatment of Tina Peters.” And in March, the DOJ filed a statement of interest to review Peters’ conviction.

The problem is that Peters was convicted on state charges, so it’s not clear what the DOJ could do to secure her release. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (D) in March called the DOJ’s effort to intervene in the case a “grotesque attempt to weaponize the rule of law.”

“The United States cites not a single fact to support its baseless allegations that there are any reasonable concerns about Ms. Peters’ prosecution or sentence, or that the prosecution was politically motivated,” Weiser said.