Voting rights groups are concerned about priorities shifting under
Trump's Justice Department
Send a link to a friend
[January 29, 2025]
By CHRISTINA A. CASSIDY
ATLANTA (AP) — The Justice Department appears poised to take a very
different approach to investigating voting and elections.
Conservative calls to overhaul the department by removing career
employees, increasing federal voter fraud cases and investigating the
2020 election are raising concerns among voting rights groups about the
future of the agency under Pam Bondi, a longtime ally of President
Donald Trump who will face a confirmation vote later this week.
Bondi supported Trump's legal efforts to overturn the 2020 Pennsylvania
election results, has reiterated his false claims about his loss that
year and during her Senate confirmation hearing refused to directly
state that former President Joe Biden won, saying only that she accepted
the results. She pledged to remain independent.
“Nobody should be prosecuted for political purposes," Bondi told
senators.
The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said after the
hearing that he was struggling with Bondi’s responses to key questions.
“Pam Bondi has proved herself loyal to Donald Trump and wealthy special
interests — and not the American people,” Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said
in a Jan. 15 statement. “The American people deserve an attorney general
who will protect their right to vote always, not only when it’s
convenient or suits your political party.”
Bondi’s nomination is scheduled for a committee vote Wednesday. If
confirmed to head the nation's top law enforcement agency, Bondi could
significantly alter how the department perceives voting rights
violations. Project 2025, the governing blueprint conservatives wrote
for an incoming Republican administration, provides clues on how that
might look.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/651e3/651e3446aadf2498386c07005f6a6000249c86f4" alt=""
The Justice Department has historically targeted voter suppression
efforts or state laws that could disenfranchise certain groups. But
Project 2025's authors view the agency as having “lost its way,” failing
to investigate and prosecute election-related crimes such as voter
fraud.
It says the department should have investigated election officials for
actions taken during the 2020 election, even though there is no evidence
of any widespread fraud and the results were confirmed through multiple
recounts, reviews and audits.
The report calls out Pennsylvania’s former chief election official as
someone who should have been investigated for potential violations of
federal law and envisions the criminal division — rather than the
department's civil division — as handling prosecutions of
election-related crimes. Courts across the nation, including in
Pennsylvania, turned away dozens of lawsuits filed by Trump allies
seeking to overturn the 2020 results.
During her Jan. 15 committee hearing, Bondi was asked whether she would
uphold the nation’s voting and civil rights laws. She said she would,
but the discussion quickly moved on.
Bondi, a former prosecutor twice elected Florida’s attorney general,
also echoed claims by Trump and his allies that the Justice Department
has been used for political purposes, pledging to end the
“weaponization” of the department under Biden. That also is a key
element of Project 2025.
On Monday, the department fired more than a dozen employees who worked
on the criminal cases against Trump.
[to top of second column]
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9fcf7/9fcf76f7a28b93ec86d587b69ae3cfb5cd476761" alt=""
Pam Bondi, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the Justice
Department as attorney general, appears before the Senate Judiciary
Committee for her confirmation hearing, at the Capitol in
Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ac65c/ac65c0fe49e065ffb5fda58e78b3f4e8a77ec492" alt=""
After the 2024 presidential election, Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who
previously advised Trump, called for a “reckoning" and said that
“every lawyer in the voting section and likely in the in the Civil
Rights Division needs to be terminated.” The division was created by
Congress in 1957 to enforce federal civil rights laws.
“These are leftwing activists who have come from and should return
to their leftwing organization,” Mitchell wrote in a Nov. 13 post on
social media.
Legal experts said there are protections to prevent the dismissal of
department employees without cause.
“Calling for terminations based on disagreeing with a legal approach
or based on disagreements with enforcement choices — it is asking
people to break the law, and that should be treated just as
seriously as if they were asking DOJ to knock over a bank,” said
Justin Levitt, a former department attorney and White House senior
policy adviser under Biden.
Voting and legal experts have said the authors behind Project 2025
have a misunderstanding of the law and how the department operates.
Adopting the report's approach, experts said, would likely result in
a decrease in enforcement of federal civil rights and voting laws
and could drive career department employees to leave.
The Legal Defense Fund issued a report opposing Bondi’s nomination,
saying she has worked “to undermine key protections for vulnerable
and historically marginalized communities.” The group cited her
involvement in drafting a rule in Florida that requires formerly
incarcerated people to wait five years before they can ask to have
their voting rights restored and in a Georgia lawsuit last year over
whether a local official could refuse to certify an election.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights also opposes
Bondi’s nomination, writing a letter to senators that said Bondi’s
“active participation in and support of Trump’s efforts to overturn
the 2020 election ought to be disqualifying in itself.”
One early test of how the department will approach voting rights is
a lawsuit filed over the right of private citizens to sue under the
Voting Rights Act. Most experts agreed it's unlikely courts would
set aside years of legal precedent if the incoming administration
changed its position, but the change could send a troubling message
nonetheless.
“It does give the impression that these legal positions are
susceptible to changing quickly and easily from one administration
to the next – and that’s not helpful in the long term,” said John
Powers, a former senior analyst in the department's civil rights
division who later served as counsel to the assistant attorney
general for the division.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bfa31/bfa311d38f978b0e98aa724a6d3c1efb4ca6fd84" alt="" |