Courts block DOJ overreach as both flanks sell midterm fantasy

By Dana Whitfield · Reporting from Washington · October 31, 2026

As more than 50 million Americans cast early ballots in the midterms, courts block federal overreach while campaigns fracture over purity tests and spoiler tricks.

When the machinery breaks down and the lawyers move in

We are days from an election where early votes have already been cast across the country. Yet both political camps are spending the final weekend arguing about whether the votes should even count. More than 50 million Americans cast pre-election ballots across the country, according to CNN, the Associated Press, and Catalist. Texas leads all states with more than 7.4 million ballots cast early. Instead of talking about interest rates or infrastructure, the final stretch of the midterms looks like a constitutional obstacle course. Lawyers engineered it because they refuse to accept the arithmetic of a free election.

This brings us directly to Bush v. Gore. The landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, settled a recount dispute in Florida's presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The shared mechanism here is clear. When the political process fails to produce a consensus, the judiciary becomes the reluctant, often partisan, arbiter of electoral legitimacy. We saw this pattern reemerge in the Northern District of California, as reported by The Guardian and CNN. There, US District Judge Trina Thompson issued a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Justice from threatening or coercing election workers to stop processing ballots. The Justice Department had sent letters to election officials across states threatening to prosecute and jail any who failed to preserve ballot records. Judge Thompson wrote that the Department of Justice's intimidation, threats, and attempts at coercion force election workers daily to choose between acceding to unlawful demands or adhering to their duties. Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter stated on Fox News that the administration was looking to take the California mail-in ballot case straight to the Supreme Court before Tuesday. Meanwhile, DOJ attorney Elizabeth Shapiro acknowledged in a federal court hearing in Washington, DC, before District Judge Tanya Chutkan that the federal database of potential noncitizen voters contains errors. When asked if US citizens have been falsely accused, Shapiro stated: “I believe that’s correct, your honor.” That is not governance; that is administrative vandalism masquerading as ballot security.

The Alaska spoiler circus and Michigan purity tests

The right is not alone in manufacturing administrative chaos. In Alaska, the Senate race has descended into a bizarre farce over two candidates sharing the exact same surname. That echoes the strategic use of third-party candidates to siphon votes from a major party nominee in a tight race seen during the 2016 United States presidential election. The contest features Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, against Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from a remote Alaskan fishing village running without a party designation. The New York Times reported that Democratic operatives with ties to Mary Peltola's campaign attempted to recruit Dan J Sullivan as a spoiler candidate. The Trump administration filed a lawsuit to block certification of the election result if the Republican loses. Meanwhile, an FBI probe extended to campaign donors of Daniel J. Sullivan. Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy wrote on X regarding Mary Peltola that this was a fraud perpetrated against the people of Alaska. Mary Peltola denied knowledge of the scheme, stating: “I have no idea.” Of her former staffers who leaked details, she added: “If I could fire them again, I would be happy to fire them again.” But a dirty campaign trick is still just a campaign trick, as University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller noted: “Now it’s in the hands of the voters, not litigation.”

Down in Michigan, the Democrats are busy sabotaging their own institutional coherence through performative ideological purity tests. That recalls the tension between a populist-left wing and the party establishment that persisted into the general election during the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed disinvited his former primary rival, Rep. Haley Stevens, from a Sunday campaign event at a Detroit church. Stevens conditioned her attendance on El-Sayed denouncing an outside group's controversial ad attributing rising costs to US support of Israel. El-Sayed accused Stevens of reopening a settled primary race. At a campaign stop in Sterling Heights, he told reporters that he would rather not distract from key issues and did not agree with the ad's contents. Maryland Sen. Angela Alsobrooks flew in to rescue El-Sayed, stating she believes he is going to be a strong person in the Senate. Yet this intra-party fracture mirrors the exact kind of performative self-immolation that costs parties winnable seats. El-Sayed fights with Stevens over foreign policy messaging. Meanwhile, Republican nominee Mike Rogers is quietly reaching out to community leaders like Rev. Dr. Charles Williams II to build a broader coalition in Detroit.

Refusing the fantasy arithmetic of both political flanks

Both political flanks are selling a dangerous fantasy to the American electorate this cycle. The right wants voters to believe that local election administration is a vast criminal conspiracy. It uses federal threats and flawed databases to sow distrust in the simple act of counting ballots. The left wants voters to believe that institutional norms are optional as long as your ideological goals are pure. That includes dabbling in third-party spoiler recruitment in Alaska or purging moderate voices like Haley Stevens in Michigan. Neither approach passes the basic actuary test of civic competence. We cannot run a constitutional republic if every close election triggers a federal injunction and every policy disagreement results in excommunication from the party.

The workable answer is to let the administrative machinery function without partisan interference and let the voters settle the arithmetic at the ballot box. Voters have already cast their ballots across the country, navigating storms forecasted by the National Weather Service in Great Plains states like Texas and Kansas. A CNN poll shows Democrat James Talarico leading Republican Ken Paxton 49% to 43% in a race Cruz warns could slip away entirely. Voters understand the trade-offs better than the professional agitators do. When the polls close, the country needs fewer federal prosecutors threatening election workers and fewer candidates disinviting their colleagues over purity tests. It needs vastly more boring, trustworthy competence that respects the verdict of the people.

Courts block DOJ overreach as both flanks sell midterm fantasy

When the machinery breaks down and the lawyers move in

The Alaska spoiler circus and Michigan purity tests

Refusing the fantasy arithmetic of both political flanks

Sources