|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
NEW BEDFORD — Mayor Jon Mitchell seems to be questioning the motives of the Department of Justice’s focus on the city for its upcoming primary election, but he says his office will comply with the DOJ’s recent request for information, which includes voter data, “as required by law.”
“The DOJ letter asserts that the basis for the document request is the fact that New Bedford has a high percentage of people with limited English skills,” Mitchell said in a written statement Friday evening. “New Bedford, of course, is hardly nationally distinctive in this way, and it raises the question whether DOJ’s expressed concern for the voting rights of non-English speakers is merely pretextual.”
“Whatever the Department’s motives, the City and Board of Elections will comply with its information requests as required by law, and it is welcome to observe the City’s elections,” he concluded. Asked what law requires the city to comply, city spokesperson Jonathan Darling did not provide further detail, responding “all applicable laws” by email. Last week, Election Commissioner Manuel DeBrito referred questions to Darling.
In a letter Thursday to DeBrito, the DOJ requested the city provide information and data, including a voter list with first and last names, saying it wants to ensure the city’s compliance with voting laws. The DOJ also said it would send monitors to observe polling locations on New Bedford’s Sept. 1 primary election, but hasn’t shared how many.
The DOJ letter said New Bedford doesn’t “yet” fall under a language requirement to offer voting materials in a language other than English. Boston, for example, is required to provide materials in Spanish as well.
But the federal government noted an estimated 4.5% of voting-age Hispanic citizens in New Bedford are “limited-English proficient” based on 2021 Census data. The threshold to trigger a requirement for voting materials in a language other than English is 5%.
New Bedford was one of more than one dozen jurisdictions across six states (five Democrat-led) singled out last week by the federal government as places that will see federal election monitors at their upcoming primaries, most of which have a language requirement.
Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, said last week that the agency is sending the monitors “into cities and counties where there may have been some problems with recent elections.”
Monitors are often attorneys with the federal government. They are supposed to observe and take notes regarding compliance with the Voting Rights Act and National Voter Registration Act. They may observe, but may not speak or interfere with voters.
Federal administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have routinely dispatched federal monitors, including in Boston, for decades.
But voting rights advocates say they’re concerned about the new context around this routine practice.
“The DOJ’s letter should be read in the context of the Trump administration’s numerous failed attempts to compel states to turn over voter information, assert control over state-run elections, and spread baseless lies to undermine the integrity of our elections,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, in a statement.
The federal action with New Bedford “raises serious legal concerns,” said Sophia Hall, deputy litigation director at Lawyers for Civil Rights, in a statement Friday.
“DOJ does not need a voter list to ascertain language access. That is a red herring,” Hall continued. “DOJ appears to simply be continuing its campaign of intimidation against richly diverse and progressive communities in an effort to chill participation in democracy.”
The Boston-based organization mobilizes thousands of volunteers to help ensure voters know their rights during elections, including with language access concerns, she said.
“The administration shouldn’t be asking for lists,” said Rachael Cobb, assistant professor of political science at Suffolk University. “And what are they going to do with those lists? I think that is the big concern.”
Most voter records are public under the Massachusetts public records law and can be requested from local election offices, the Secretary of State’s website notes.
The Light has previously obtained a copy of New Bedford voter data, which contains registered voters’ names, party affiliation, home addresses and dates of registration.
City spokesperson Darling said the city had no additional comment when asked whether the city will provide only voter names to the DOJ, or provide more details.
Cobb, like others, would not speculate why the DOJ picked New Bedford, one of 351 Massachusetts municipalities.
“But the overall picture is there is a desire to get involved in a lot of elections,” Cobb said. “For the most part, elections go smoothly. Sometimes, there’s a snafu and usually it’s because of human error, not because of some nefarious person trying to undermine the whole thing.”
State Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, a Democrat running unopposed for reelection in New Bedford, said there have not been documented instances of voter fraud in the city. He said that the DOJ’s actions with the city are “nothing less than voter intimidation and voter suppression.”
State Rep. Mark Sylvia, of Fairhaven (also running unopposed and also a Democrat), said in an email that the DOJ’s request for data and other information is “part of a broader pattern of federal overreach.”
“When the federal government requests the voting records of a single city, the safeguards guaranteed by our Constitution are being tested,” he continued. “Accepting a federal data request into one community invites it into every community. The City and the Commonwealth should respond in accordance with local, state, and federal law and to protect the privacy of New Bedford’s voters.”
Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, a Democrat, who oversees the state’s elections, did not provide comment. Debra O’Malley, spokesperson for his office, noted New Bedford is not required to provide voting materials in any language other than English, adding “it is not clear from the letter why New Bedford was chosen for observation.”
Timothy Mellett, deputy chief of the DOJ’s Voting Section, who submitted the request to New Bedford, did not respond to questions from The Light on Friday and Monday, including how many monitors will be sent and whether the city is legally required to provide the requested data and information. Kiersten Pels, a DOJ spokesperson, also did not respond to questions.
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s office said it will continue to monitor the DOJ’s actions, including to see whether anything becomes unlawful interference, for which the office would take action.
“My office will continue working with our state and local partners to ensure that every eligible voter can cast their ballot and have their vote counted, as we do every election cycle,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said in a statement on Friday. “If the Department of Justice wants to monitor that process, they are welcome to do so, just as any citizen may.”
The DOJ is sending federal monitors to cities and counties in Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia, all of which will hold their primaries between July 21 and Sept. 8.
In its letter to Detroit officials, the DOJ said its observers in 2024 saw confusion and long waiting times at some polling sites; the federal government requested Detroit’s poll training manuals. It did not ask for voter data, as it did in New Bedford.
For Lansing, another Michigan city, the DOJ has also requested precinct information and a 2024 voter registration list. Lansing’s mayor said the city will “gladly provide documents and information in response to all lawful requests,” CBS News reported, but that mayor noted its elections have always been safe and secure.
Michigan’s attorney general said the letters were “predicated on baseless accusations” including “false allegations of long lines.”
The jurisdictions identified by the DOJ as receiving monitors are as follows:
- Boston and New Bedford
- Nashua and Manchester in New Hampshire
- Fairfax and Prince William counties in Virginia
- Maricopa, Apache and Pima counties in Arizona
- Detroit, Lansing and East Lansing in Michigan
- and Hennepin and Ramsey counties in Minnesota
Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
The fact that Mitchell (or his slippery spokesman who used to work for Tom Hodgson) won’t cite the laws he’s allegedly following is a red flag. This ought to trigger a mayoral recall.
On the other hand with how much New Bedford has skewed to the right in recent years his replacement would likely be far worse. Instead of simply being a pushover like Mitchell they’d be doing everything they could to ingratiate themselves with Trump, regardless of who they hurt in the process.
Mitchell hired Hodgson’s mouthpiece?
Is that violation of party patriotism?
What next. Since I, like many others, cast my ballot by mail, will they come to my home to ask me to prove that I am Dawn.
There already exists a state process to establish and verify identity and right to vote prior to requesting a mail-in ballot.
This is clearly an attempt to intimidate and suppress the vote.
The DOJ is complicit in all of it.
Jonathan Darling must state the law, and stop hiding behind semantics.
John Darling is a very nice young man. John Darling is there for voicing what the mayor and in the past what the sheriff wants out. John Darling follows what his boss, the mayor tells him too!
After the recent devastating city budget crisis all voters should have real concerns about city elections.
How can we expect fair elections when our city administration can’t even explain how $50 Million Dollars was spent from Dec 2025 to April 2026 to leave the city with $32 Million Dollar Deficit.
A $18 Million Dollar Surplus in Dec 2025 leading to a $32 Million Dollar deficit is a $50 MILLION DOLLAR SWING that no one can explain what happened or where this money went.
Since the City Council voted on the budget cuts nothing has been said on where the budget deficit stands and it’s like the issue of fair elections is being used as a diversion from what is going on with the budget deficit.
With no updates from the city, no coverage by the local press, voters are left in the dark, so again how can anyone expect voters to not be concerned about anything especially fair elections in this city.
Has there been voter fraud?
The Verified Voting web site , https://verifiedvoting.org/ evaluates the integrity of elections nationwide by examining equipment, procedures, kinds of ballots, and post-election verification and ballot recount actions.
According to Pamela Smith, of Verified Voting, 97% of votes in this country have a paper ballot which can be used for post election audits or recounts. This inspires confidence in our federal system of state run elections.
One can look up local jurisdictions to see what equipment is used and what procedures are in place. People should take a look at the Verifier Map and judge for themselves. In Massachusetts 100% of voting is done on hand marked ballots which can be used in post election audits and /or recounts depending on the margin of victory.
I don’t believe that an election is unfair because there is a budget deficit or that the issue of fair elections is now being used as a diversion from the budget deficit.
If Mitchell so quickly adhered to the request, why not adhere with the request to remove illegals.
Biased?
Cheerleaders?
Or just plain Brainwashed ? ? ?
Time for the nb light to take a deep dive into the mayor’s supporters.
By that do you mean the the clear majority of New Bedford’s voters?
What We Know — and What We Still Don’t Know
The U.S. Department of Justice has every right and responsibility to enforce federal voting laws. Congress has empowered the DOJ to investigate compliance with statutes such as the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and the Help America Vote Act. In New Bedford, the DOJ says its request for voter records and election information is intended to ensure that voters with limited English proficiency receive the protections guaranteed under federal law.
No one should object to protecting voting rights.
But transparency should apply to the federal government as well.
Mayor Jon Mitchell has said the city will comply with the DOJ’s request “as required by law,” yet neither the mayor’s office nor the city has identified which specific law requires compliance with this particular request.
Likewise, the DOJ has not publicly explained why New Bedford was selected or why it requested voter information directly from the city when much of that information is already maintained by the Commonwealth.
Most importantly, there is no public evidence that New Bedford has violated federal voting laws. The DOJ has not alleged misconduct, identified a compliance failure, or filed any enforcement action against the city. Its letter cites New Bedford’s population of residents with limited English proficiency but does not point to any specific complaint or violation.
That absence of public evidence naturally raises questions. If this is a routine compliance review, the DOJ should say so. If there is a specific concern, the public deserves to know what it is. If New Bedford was selected based on objective criteria, those criteria should be disclosed.
These questions are not an argument against federal oversight. Election integrity and voting rights depend on fair and consistent enforcement of the law. But public confidence also depends on transparency and even-handedness. When a federal agency requests voter records and sends election monitors into a community, it should be prepared to explain why.
Until then, two facts remain true: the city says it will comply with lawful requests, and the public has yet to see any credible evidence that New Bedford is out of compliance with federal voting laws.
Thank you for this.
When all you receive is one sided reporting and posting of links with miss leading information it creates doubt and causes voters to lose trust.
When taxes keep going up and $50 Million Dollars is not accounted for, there is no explanation, and than it’s brushed off because of towing the party line, or support for this mayor, it causes voters to have doubt, lose trust, and not turn out for elections.
Keating’s House district is the least Democrat-voting district in MA, and New Bedford is the largest city in the district. This might be an attempt to figure out which polling sites to interrupt/intimidate/rig in the general mid-terms in November in an attempt to swing the election.
Cannot think of why the feds would be interested in New Bedford…Maybe having a former president campaigning so close to a polling place? Maybe not having republican ballots during an election? Maybe the mayor keeping on the election commissioner who oversaw all of that?
Look at what has happened in New Jersey, like Massachusetts it’s just another far left liberal mess. No one should be surprised to see that this could happen in our state. 100% Supporting the Save America Act.