Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram
As the Department of Justice deploys approximately 1,000 election monitors and observers across all 50 states for the first time in its history, New Haven remains the only Connecticut jurisdiction under federal watch—despite last week’s public announcements by Mayor Justin Elicker and the city’s bipartisan registrars that they would prohibit federal monitors from entering polling places.
Last week, New Haven Democrat Registrar of Voters Shannel Evans and Republican Registrar of Voters Lisa Milone sent a joint letter to the DOJ stating that “election monitors may not enter any polling places in the city.” They cited Connecticut General Statutes § 9-236, which generally limits access inside polling places to voters, local election officials, municipal clerks, registrars, and news media.
New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker reinforced the position, arguing that the presence of monitors would be “counterproductive and make our polling places feel less accessible,” citing what he described as President Trump’s efforts to undermine elections and the “politicization” of the DOJ. He emphasized that the city and both registrars were “united in ensuring every eligible New Haven voter can cast their ballot freely, safely, securely and without fear of intimidation or interference.”
Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas aligned with the city, confirming that federal monitors are not among those authorized to enter under state law and may only observe from outside the 75-foot restricted zone.
Yet the DOJ’s Election Day press release listing jurisdictions for monitoring explicitly includes New Haven, Connecticut. A statement obtained by the CT Centinal from the DOJ explains the selection:
“New Haven, Connecticut was chosen for compliance with Sections 11(b) and 203 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. §§ 10307(b), 10503, and Section 302 of HAVA, 52 U.S.C. § 21082(a). New Haven has an estimated VAP of 104,185 people and is covered for Spanish language pursuant to Section 203.”
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act requires covered jurisdictions with significant language-minority populations to provide bilingual voting materials and assistance. Section 11(b) addresses intimidation, threats, or coercion related to voting, while HAVA Section 302 concerns provisional ballots. The DOJ has stated that the monitors are there in part to help ensure voting rights for Spanish speakers and the distribution of translated election materials.
Monitors, operating in two teams of two (with one team led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Zachary Denver based in New Haven), have been observed outside polling places, including at Davis Street School in Upper Westville and locations in Westville, the Annex, and Fair Haven Heights. They have interviewed some willing voters outside the 75-foot zone about issues such as accessibility, language support, and signage. DOJ correspondence has repeatedly emphasized that the monitors “only observe” and “do not intrude or interfere in any way in the voting process,” possess no powers of arrest, detention, search, or seizure, and are not to carry firearms.
This monitoring comes against the backdrop of a separate DOJ lawsuit filed in April 2026 against the State of Connecticut, Governor Lamont, Attorney General Tong, the City of New Haven, and Mayor Elicker. That suit challenges sanctuary policies, including the state’s Trust Act and New Haven’s Welcoming City executive order, which the DOJ argues interfere with federal immigration enforcement.
While local officials have framed the monitors’ presence as potentially intimidating or counterproductive, the DOJ’s stated purpose is routine enforcement of longstanding federal voting rights statutes—protections enforced across administrations since the Voting Rights Act’s enactment in 1965. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division said, “Election integrity has been one of the top priorities for this Administration and this Division. I am very proud we are deploying the largest monitoring effort in DOJ history, and pursuing transparency for elections in an assertive and nondiscriminatory manner.”
The irony deepened when the official FBI New Haven X account itself posted false information on the eve of the election claiming “Election day is Wednesday,” a clear error that remained visible for hours, drew Community Notes corrections, and was later deleted—precisely the kind of inaccurate date messaging the Bureau treats as potential voter suppression when done by others.
For Connecticut voters in a jurisdiction with a large Spanish-speaking voting-age population, the presence of federal monitors outside the polls provides an additional layer of federal oversight focused on language assistance and related compliance—regardless of local efforts to restrict their proximity.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
