Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon condemned federal election monitors as “aggressive” and “irregular” during the state’s August 18 primary, sparking an investigation into their actions, which included unannounced visits and requests to examine voting machines, according to multiple reports.
Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon labeled the conduct of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) election monitors during the state’s August 18 primary as “aggressive” and “irregular,” prompting an investigation by the state attorney general. The monitors, deployed to ensure compliance with federal voting rights laws, reportedly arrived unannounced at polling sites in Laramie County, questioned local officials about poll worker training, and sought access to voting equipment, according to multiple accounts.
Monitors’ Actions Draw State Officials’ Outrage
Laramie County Clerk Debra Lee described the DOJ monitors’ behavior as a poorly managed exercise and one that showed complete disregard for our state laws and administration of our elections.
She stated that the monitors, who arrived shortly after polls opened, asked for training guides, inquired about the acquisition of new election equipment, and requested to examine tabulators—actions she said exceeded their authority under Wyoming law. They included questions about the nature, length and timing of poll worker training,
Lee said, adding that the monitors wanted to examine our tabulators.
The monitors also allegedly attempted to interview voters, a move Lee said violated Wyoming state law, which restricts election observers to monitoring registration and turnout. But as ‘monitors,’ as per Wyoming state law, they weren’t allowed to go interview voters; they weren’t allowed to check the tabulators,
Gordon said, citing the clerk’s account. A DOJ official later told Lee that the decision to deploy the monitors was made on short notice, and an email notifying her of their presence may have been misrouted.
Gordon, a Republican, expressed strong opposition to the federal oversight, saying, I feel very strongly about the federal government coming in and taking our guns—I don’t like that. I don’t like the federal government coming in and taking our votes, either.
His comments reflect broader concerns among some state officials about federal interference in election processes, particularly amid President Donald Trump’s ongoing disputes over election integrity.
DOJ Defends Monitoring as Part of Voting Rights Enforcement
The DOJ defended its actions, stating that monitors were deployed to ensure transparency, ballot security, and strict compliance with federal voting rights statutes.
Darin Smith, the U.S. attorney for Wyoming, emphasized that the agency was working alongside local officials to ensure every lawful vote is protected.
However, the department did not directly address claims that the monitors exceeded their scope, referring instead to its standard protocols for election observation.
Wyoming’s attorney general, Keith Kautz, has launched an investigation into the monitors’ activities, with Gordon urging a thorough review of the nature of all this.
The state’s Republican secretary of state, Chuck Gray, who has amplified Trump’s election fraud claims, noted that his office received only a single email about the federal officials, adding, Transparency is so important, and accountability.
Questions Over Federal Role in State Elections
The incident has reignited debates over the federal government’s role in state-run elections. Critics argue that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, under Trump’s administration, has shifted focus from protecting voting rights to scrutinizing election procedures, a move some see as politically motivated. The monitors’ actions in Wyoming align with broader tensions over election integrity, as the Trump administration has pushed for increased federal oversight amid unfounded claims of fraud.
While no evidence of election tampering has been cited, the episode highlights the growing friction between state and federal authorities. Laramie County Clerk Lee called the monitors’ actions aggressive, unexpected, disruptive,
and Gordon vowed to get to the bottom of it as best we can.
The outcome of the attorney general’s investigation could set a precedent for future federal involvement in state elections.
The situation underscores the complex interplay between federal and state powers in safeguarding elections. As the investigation unfolds, the focus remains on whether the DOJ’s actions adhered to legal guidelines—and whether such interventions will become more frequent.
