Who determines if there is a violation of federal election statutes?
Executive summary
Federal statutes are written by Congress and interpreted and enforced through a mix of federal agencies, prosecutors, and ultimately the courts; administrative agencies like the Federal Election Commission handle civil campaign‑finance enforcement while the Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes criminal election offenses, with investigative support from agencies such as the FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) [1] [2] campaign-finance" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[3] [4]. State and local election officials run the mechanics of elections, and federal agencies coordinate with them while Congress and the judiciary provide the legal framework and final judgments about statutory violations [1] [5] [3].
1. Who writes and defines the laws that can be violated: Congress and federal statutes
The baseline answer is that Congress determines what counts as a federal election statute by passing laws—such as the Federal Election Campaign Act and voting rights statutes—that set the conduct standards federal authorities enforce [1] [6]. Those statutes give specific agencies jurisdictional roles and enforcement powers, meaning that the question “who determines a violation” begins with statutory text enacted by Congress and its allocation of enforcement authority [1] [5].
2. Civil enforcement: the Federal Election Commission interprets and enforces campaign‑finance rules
For campaign‑finance violations in the civil regulatory sphere, the independent Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the agency Congress created to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act and related disclosure requirements, and it has exclusive civil jurisdiction over many campaign‑finance matters [2] [6] [7]. The FEC adjudicates complaints, issues advisory opinions, and can levy civil penalties, meaning it determines whether a civil violation of campaign‑finance law has occurred within its statutory remit [2] [6].
3. Criminal enforcement and voting rights: the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys
When actions cross into criminal territory—ballot destruction, vote‑buying, fraudulent voting, or discriminatory interference—criminal investigations and prosecutions are led by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Attorneys, with DOJ components such as the Public Integrity Section and the Civil Rights Division playing defined roles in enforcing criminal and civil voting protections [4] [8] [5]. The DOJ’s prosecutorial decisions, informed by investigations (often conducted by the FBI), determine whether conduct will be charged as a federal crime, with designated Assistant U.S. Attorneys serving as District Election Officers in many districts [4] [9].
4. Who investigates: FBI, USPIS, CISA and other federal partners
Investigative responsibility typically falls to agencies like the FBI for suspected criminal interference with voting systems and communications, to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for crimes involving election mail, and to cyber and infrastructure agencies such as CISA for election‑infrastructure threats, all of which collect the evidence that informs prosecutorial and administrative decisions [4] [10] [9]. These agencies do not by themselves “determine” legal guilt, but their findings shape whether DOJ or the FEC pursue enforcement actions [4] [3].
5. The courts: final arbiter of statutory violations and constitutional limits
Even after agency or DOJ action, federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of statutory and constitutional questions; courts resolve disputed applications of election laws, and landmark decisions have clarified the balance between state administration and federal authority in elections [1] [5]. Thus, a formal determination that conduct violates federal election statutes is made through either administrative adjudication subject to judicial review or criminal conviction entered through the courts [6] [1].
6. Coordination, limitations, and political friction
No single actor operates alone: the Election Assistance Commission serves as an information clearinghouse and reports compliance issues to DOJ when audits reveal problems, while GAO and CRS note that overlapping roles and policy choices can alter enforcement emphasis [11] [3] [5]. Political dynamics matter because Congress decides statutory scope, the FEC’s structure can produce partisan deadlock, and DOJ priorities affect which alleged violations receive prosecution, meaning determinations of violations are shaped as much by legal text as by institutional capacity and political will [12] [3] [5].