The Blanche DOJ and the Attack on the Midterm Elections
His role in the Trump attack on the midterms looms large in Blanche’s confirmation hearings.
Please click here to opt in to receive via email our Roundup—brief daily summaries of news developments and commentary related to executive power.
The hearings this week on the nomination of Todd Blanche to be attorney general may follow the usual script: one party on the attack and most, if not all, of the opposition unified in passionate defense. This is never a good look, but on this occasion, it would be a particularly serious problem. At issue is not whether Blanche will continue to run the Department of Justice—Trump can manage the Vacancies Act to prolong Blanche’s acting role for the balance of this second Trump term. The Senate will be deciding still more consequentially whether the Department of Justice as an institution may be run as Blanche has run it. The weaponization of the department against a president’s personal and political adversaries, and the use of its powers in support of his personal legal interests, are among the institutional issues that the Blanche record presents in unmistakable terms.
And then there is the pressing issue of the Justice Department’s role in advancing the president’s intervention in midterm elections that are only months away.
Blanche has endorsed the president’s claim of a fraud-ridden electoral process. In a Fox News interview two months ago, he echoed Trump’s long-running insistence that the 2020 election was “rigged.” He cited without more detail “a ton of evidence” that somehow eluded the many courts that rejected Trump’s legal challenges and the election law experts who have independently evaluated these allegations. Blanche suggested that this “ton” of evidence has been accessible for “many, many years” but also stated that it has been hard to get at because the perpetrators of this fraud “[are] very good at hiding misconduct.” He pledged that the department he leads is “very focused” on ferreting out this fraud with “good, old-fashioned law enforcement.”
For all that, Blanche was uncertain that his contribution to this president’s “stop the steal” claims would conclude with charges. He said that “the results” of ongoing investigations (which he is confident will establish fraud) may be just released to the public, perhaps as a “report,” even in the absence of indictments. In violation of basic principles governing federal law enforcement, Blanche is reserving the possibility of the department just expressing its public opinion on the commission of electoral fraud, particularly in 2020. Given that Blanche claims to have found “a ton” of evidence that the 2020 election was rigged, it is easy to predict how any such report will come out.
Meanwhile, against this background of false claims about “rigged” elections, the DOJ is supporting the president’s assertion of power to make rules, as he pleases, for federal elections. Here are just a few examples:
The Blanche DOJ has sued states for full access to their voter rolls as it seeks in this and other ways to supplant state constitutional authority to manage registration records and screen them for ineligible voters. Thirteen district courts have ruled against the department; so far one appellate court has upheld a lower court ruling that rejected the administration’s position.
The Blanche Department also failed a court test of its attempt, as part of an investigation into claimed 2020 election fraud in Fulton County, Georgia, to collect a storehouse of personal information about election officials. The court identified another problem with this investigation: “The statute of limitations for any possible crime arising from the 2020 Election has long expired.” Yet the Department—which the court pointedly noted was “now unquestionably under the current President’s control”—indicated that it was considering all options for plowing ahead. (CBS reported yesterday that the FBI fired two analysts who expressed concerns that the Fulton County investigation was “thin on evidence and appeared to be politically motivated.” One question for the acting attorney general: “What did you know and when did you know it?”)
The Blanche Department’s Civil Rights Division just days ago sent letters to 50 states and the District of Columbia threatening election officials with criminal prosecution if they fail to prevent noncitizens from voting—and demanding an unspecified response to these letters within five days.
There is little doubt that more is to come. Ominously, Blanche has indicated that his department will defend the administration’s deployment of ICE agents to polling stations to police the noncitizen voting that the president insists, against all evidence, has infected the voting system. In March, Blanche asked: “Why is there an objection to sending ICE to polling stations?” Pressed later, he both denied that he said what he said and doubled down on the proposition that he was defending, asking, “So what’s the risk?” (Jack and I discuss that “risk” here.)
The question before the Senate now is whether Blanche’s role in the pervasive weaponization and politicization of the Department of Justice is disqualifying. If he is confirmed, the Blanche Department will be strengthened in its resolve to support the interventions in this fall’s elections that Trump demands.
And confirmation will effectively ratify an unprecedented model for how this department can operate. Once established, the model will not be available for adoption by just one president or one party.