After the Democratic National Committee complained that the Trump administration has “produced vanishingly few documents” about any plans to send federal agents to the polls for the upcoming midterm elections, a judge has ordered the DOJ to produce a “partial” list with redactions justifying its secrecy.

Senior U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on Saturday said the “time sensitivity of upcoming elections” informed her order that the government “produce […] a partial Vaughn Index” by Sept. 10, a list of withheld documents, with a description, and the legal justification for claiming the materials are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

On Friday, the DNC’s attorneys credited the judge for forcing the administration to make “halting progress towards compliance.” But even that wasn’t enough, the lawyers said. They accused the government of intentionally “queueing […] nonresponsive documents before responsive ones” to “delay[] public awareness of information contained” therein.

“Nonetheless, Defendants have produced vanishingly few documents beyond public materials of marginal relevance and press clipping expressly excluded from the DNC’s FOIA requests,” the filing said, demanding a timely “batched production of responsive records” well ahead of the midterms.

Howell in mid-July ordered ICE and CBP to “immediately begin processing potentially responsive” records “at a rate of at least 1,000 pages per month” after the government’s sudden reversal on the claim that “no responsive records were found” — in a case that seeks documents “concerning potential deployment of federal agents and troops to polling places, drop boxes, and election offices.”

  • fratermus@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    Lawfare published an interesting/worrying roundtable discussion

    … about the limits the Constitution and statutes put on the use of military in U.S. elections—as well as the arguments an eager executive might make to skirt those restrictions. They discuss how the history of domestic deployment law shows that legislators have long believed voting deserves special protection from military involvement. They also explain why, ahead of the 2026 midterms, that isn’t as reassuring as it might sound.

    Lawfare Daily: The Military, Elections, and the Law (youtube, although available in audio form elsewhere)