[New York = E-Daily Seong Joowon Correspondent] With the U.S. midterm elections about a week away, controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s interference in the election is intensifying. Amid a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice to block the counting of mail-in ballots from approximately 20,000 California voters, even a Republican election management expert has expressed concern. Election experts are warning of the potential for conflict not only on Election Day but also during the vote-counting and result-certification processes.

On the 22nd (local time), during a webinar on midterm election issues hosted by the Institute for Global Politics (IGP) at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Steven Richer, former chief election officer for Maricopa County, Arizona, commented on the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against California, stating “It’s not about past elections, nor is it about future elections. It’s about the election currently underway,” he noted.
Having been elected as a Republican and directly responsible for election administration, he described this lawsuit as a significant shift from the Trump administration’s previous actions, stating, “This measure should at least be viewed as a warning sign.” He explained that we must closely monitor whether similar measures spread to other regions.
On the 15th, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit alleging that more than 20,000 people in California who may not be U.S. citizens are registered to vote. It asked the court to set aside their mail-in ballots and prevent them from being counted until their citizenship status is verified. On the 19th, it also filed a motion for an emergency order.
On the same day, the Department of Justice announced that it had indicted 28 non-citizens in California on charges including illegal voter registration, voting, and making false statements during the citizenship application process. The department stated that all of them are permanent residents and are included in the list of approximately 20,000 individuals previously identified by the Department of Justice. However, an indictment does not imply a guilty verdict.
The legal battle is intensifying ahead of the election. On the 22nd, the Department of Justice requested intervention from the federal appeals court after the district court’s decision on the emergency order was delayed. On the 23rd, it demanded that at least 18 counties in California verify the identities of voters suspected of being non-citizens within 48 hours and set aside ballots for which citizenship status has not been confirmed. The district court’s hearing on the matter is scheduled for the 27th.
The Department of Justice argued that these measures are intended to prevent the votes of U.S. citizens from being diluted by illegal voting. In contrast, California election officials are questioning the reliability of the data provided by the federal government. There are also concerns that even citizens could be misclassified, potentially infringing on their legitimate right to vote. It has not been confirmed whether the approximately 20,000 individuals identified by the Department of Justice are actually non-citizens.

“It Doesn’t End on Election Night”… Attention Turns to the Results Certification Process

Experts are paying particular attention to the period following Election Day on November 3.
Dana Remus, a partner at the law firm Covington & Burling and former White House legal counsel to President Joe Biden, cited attempts to delay or obstruct the certification of legitimate election results as the greatest concern.
Remus raised the possibility that election officials could be pressured to postpone the certification of results or that administrative procedures could be delayed by litigation. She emphasized, “The risk is real, and we all need to be vigilant.”
In the United States, even after voting ends on Election Day, procedures such as verifying mail-in ballots, correcting signature errors, conducting post-election audits, and verifying vote counts continue. State and county election authorities then officially certify the results in accordance with legal procedures.
Richer explained, “Elections do not end on election night,” noting that federal government intervention—such as the seizure of ballots or vote-counting equipment—during the period from Election Day to the final certification of results could be particularly problematic.
However, experts emphasized that warnings about the possibility of election interference should not lead to distrust of the U.S. electoral system as a whole. They noted that U.S. elections are fundamentally administered by state and local governments, and that legal safeguards are in place.
Rich also expressed concern over recent actions by the Department of Justice but maintained his fundamental assessment that these midterm elections are proceeding largely normally and that the results can be trusted.
The new focus of the U.S. midterm elections is expanding beyond simply which party will win to whether vote counting and the certification of results after the election can be carried out in accordance with legally established procedures.