The Brief

Metro's long-planned Sepulveda Corridor transit project is expected to bring some relief to beleaguered commuters in the San Fernando Valley and Westside, but local residents and the public are still hammering out what exactly that would look like.

That'll be the focus of a series of public feedback sessions, starting with one on Saturday morning in Van Nuys.

Metro's proposals for the corridor have already generated a fair amount of debate — and there are two main options. Supporters of building a subway crashed one of the last feedback sessions on Metro's monorail proposals, so we thought we'd break down the issue for you to understand what's at stake for the communities affected by the project.

At this stage, the sessions are aimed at getting feedback on alternatives to monorail, as well as the possible elimination of the monorail option with a people mover connection to UCLA, according to Metro.

Why the Sepulveda Pass?

If you've ever driven this span of the highway during rush hour, you can probably guess why the project's being built. The 405 Freeway is one of the busiest in the nation — though the 5 Freeway wins first place, according to U.S. Department of Transportation data.

What's more, the stretch of the 405 running through the Sepulveda Pass is consistently ranked as one of the slowest and most-trafficked freeways in the country — and so it's not hard to imagine why commuters would jump at the opportunity to ditch their car for a train commute.

"There's a concentration of housing in the valley and a concentration of jobs on the Westside and where I'm based at UCLA in particular," said Jacob Wasserman, a researcher at UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies. "This line, according to the projections that Metro has run, has the potential to have tens of thousands of riders a day."

The proposals

Metro is studying the possible routes for the new line, as well as where to put new metro stations. Some of the proposals include new stations at UCLA, the Getty Center, and Ventura Boulevard — though not every plan includes stops at every location.

Metro had previously been considering building light rail along the 405 Freeway, similar to how the C Line runs along the median of the 105 Freeway. Light rail trains make up the majority of Los Angeles' Metro lines, with the exception of the B and D Lines, but they also tend to operate slower and have lower capacity than heavy rail. Wasserman said officials decided to nix that idea since it wouldn't be able to keep up with anticipated demand for the new line.

Note: Each of the proposals is called an "alternative" — as in, an alternative to taking the 405.

• Alternative 1: Above-ground monorail in the 405 corridor and electric bus connection to UCLA (LASRE)
• Alternative 2: Above-ground monorail in 405 corridor and underground automated people mover connection to UCLA (LASRE).
• Alternative 3: Above-ground monorail in the 405 corridor and underground alignment between Getty Center and Wilshire Bl (LASRE). This station would be the only monorail option to include a stop on UCLA's campus.
• Alternative 4: Heavy rail with underground alignment south of Ventura Bl and aerial alignment generally along Sepulveda Bl in the San Fernando Valley (STCP)
• Alternative 5: Heavy rail with underground alignment including along Sepulveda in the San Fernando Valley (STCP)
• Alternative 6: Heavy rail with underground alignment including along Van Nuys Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley and southern terminus station at Bundy Drive (Metro)

Alternative 2 — which involves the construction of both a monorail and a people mover to connect to UCLA — is the one that could be on the chopping block during the current round of public comment.

Notably, all of the proposed lines would connect the D Line expansion, which is slated to open in 2028, with Metro's E Line running from Santa Monica to East Los Angeles. They would also connect to Metro's G Line bus service, the Van Nuys Metrolink station, and the planned East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit Project.

Pros and cons

The project has brought out many stakeholders, and for many of them it's not as simple as building a monorail or a subway — though that's certainly something Metro will have to figure out by the end of the review process.

Wasserman identified some advantages for building a subway: increased capacity, shortened travel times, and interchangeability with other subway lines.

"The subway appears to, at least from the documents I've seen from Metro, have higher capacity, and this line will generate a ton of ridership," Wasserman said.

The subway would likely be able to travel through the Sepulveda Pass faster than a monorail — though eliminating a proposed stop at the Getty Center would cut down on travel times for the monorail. Metro projects the Getty Center stop would have about 1,300 weekday boardings, a fraction of the expected ridership at UCLA and connections to other rail and bus lines.

Building heavy rail would also open up an opportunity for Metro to use trains and even conductors from elsewhere in the system. Los Angeles already has two heavy rail lines: the B Line from Union Station to North Hollywood and the D Line from downtown to Koreatown (which will be expanded to Westwood by 2028).

The heavy rail lines would also be a guaranteed boon for people who attend or work at UCLA. All of the subway proposals would have a stop at UCLA, while only one of the proposed monorail routes, Alternative 3, would stop directly on campus.

"The UCLA community, from the administration itself to students, staff, faculty, in large part is supportive of options with a stop on campus," Wasserman said.

Much of the opposition to heavy rail has come from homeowners in Bel Air who oppose tunneling underneath their properties, according to Wasserman. Meanwhile, Sherman Oaks residents have voiced concerns about noise and impact on the streets.

However, Metro said in a statement provided to LAist that the agency is confident the tunneling will not pose issues for Bel Air residents.

"We have successfully tunneled under all types of private property -- and at shallower depths than what we would anticipate for any of the Sepulveda subway options now under study," Metro spokesperson Dave Sotero wrote in a statement provided to LAist. "To date, Metro has not had issues with noise, vibration, subsidence, or the ability of property owners to build above our existing subways in Los Angeles County."

Sotero pointed to recently completed tunneling projects in Los Angeles, including the expansion of the D Line into the Westside and the tunneling of Metro's Regional Connector project underneath Walt Disney Concert Hall.

"Metro is fully capable of conducting appropriate studies and design to ensure construction and operation of new transit projects can occur without issues," Sotero wrote.

The monorail would come with one big advantage: It would involve less — or potentially no — tunneling. That would likely lower Metro's construction costs and allow the project to get up and running sooner than the subway.

However, a potential disadvantage for the monorail is noise and air pollution, which has already proved to be a concern with the C Line along the 105 Freeway.

"If you commute on the [C] Line daily, you are prone to suffer permanent hearing damage because of the noise of cars that you have to deal with every day," Wasserman said. "A monorail might have the same thing, especially if there's a stop at the Getty Center or stops in the valley that are in the median of the 405."

Monorails are much less common in the U.S. than either light or heavy rail, but there are a few examples of cities that have operate them for public transportation: Seattle, Jacksonville, and the Las Vegas area all have installed urban monorail systems.

"Monorail is a relatively untested or at least underused technology compared to the subways, and so we don't quite know what changes might come up, whether the cost estimates are actually accurate to what's going to happen on the ground," Wasserman said.

Next steps

Metro is projecting that it will finish construction on the Sepulveda Corridor line between 2033 and 2035. Metro is still in the environmental review phase, meaning there will be more rounds of public comment to narrow down and refine the proposals — and Wasserman cautioned that the final project might look different from the proposal anyway.

"Things change in the construction process — you dig and you encounter a new sewer line that you didn't expect was there," Wasserman said. "Funding, obviously, could dry up or slow. And so the route that's selected and the design that's selected might not be exactly what's built, but it will look largely similar is my bet."

Metro is planning to release a draft environmental impact report, the next major step in the construction process, in early 2025.

Upcoming public comment sessions

• Saturday, May 11, 2024 – 10 a.m. to noon, Marvin Braude Center, 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, CA 91401. Transit: Metro Bus Lines 233 and 761 serve Van Nuys Boulevard; the Metro G Line (Orange) Busway Van Nuys Station is located three blocks to the south. Parking will be available under the building (entrance off Sylvan Street). 
• Virtual Meeting: Monday, May 13, 2024 – Noon to 1 p.m. Zoom Link: https://qrco.de/Sepulveda-May13. Call in: +1 669 900 6833. Webinar ID: 848 5610 6007.
• Tuesday, May 14 – 5:30 to 7:30 p.m., Westwood United Methodist Church, 10497 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024. Transit: Metro Bus Lines 20 and 720 serve Wilshire Boulevard. Parking is available under the Belmont Village Senior Living Westwood, just east of the church. 
  

Metro is also soliciting feedback on proposals for East San Fernando Valley line. That session will take place at 12:30 p.m. at the Marvin Braude Center immediately following the feedback session for the Sepulveda Corridor.

Braddock Sandoval perused tables with wigs, a Darth Vader mask, a black tutu and other items and garments on an unusually sizzling day in Los Angeles. He found a Hawaiian flower necklace and a shark costume and tried them on.

The chemistry professor at Occidental College heard about a campus swap where he could pick out a free Halloween costume with the goal of keeping it from being thrown away. Curious and in need of one, he swung by to see what he could find.

“I think there’s too much cheap plastic waste in this world. So the idea that people are recycling costumes is fantastic, both for budgets, like me, but also just for the planet,” Sandoval said with a laugh. He planned to attend a Halloween dance party dressed as a great white shark eating a tourist — a costume inspired by the freebies he found at the swap.

Every Halloween, costumes get their big moment. But every year, millions end up in a landfill after a single use, and many are made from synthetic plastics that don’t easily break down, contributing to environmental pollution. In Southern California and across the country, Halloween costume swaps and thrift stores are keeping costumes from going to waste. People can donate clean costumes and pick a new one, reducing waste and the resources and emissions required to make new ones.

This year, the National Retail Federation estimates Americans will spend some $4.4 billion on Halloween costumes. In 2018 alone, they discarded about 11.3 million tons (10.25 million metric tons) of textiles, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. When shopping sustainably, experts say, keep three principles in mind: Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.

Shelie Miller, a University of Michigan professor who studies the environmental impacts of products, said Halloween costumes, like fast fashion, are often made cheaply from plastic materials. They tend to fall apart, she said, and are “not really intended to stick around for a very long time.”

And there are other environmental impacts.

Clothing accounts for 4% to 10% of global carbon emissions, she said, while textile dyeing contributes about 20% of wastewater emissions from industrial sources worldwide.

Synthetic fibers used in clothing, including many costumes, can shed microplastics during washing and end up in water sources, she said. Microplastics have been found in the ocean, air, food and water, as well as a range of human tissues. Growing evidence suggests they can pose risks to human health. Many of these materials are made from oil, which emits pollutants when burned, driving climate change and fueling extreme weather.

“The process of making these, the Halloween costumes, it’s incredible,” said Zack Bowersox, a senior lecturer in political science at Washington University in St. Louis who teaches a class on fast fashion and the environment.

Rather than being stitched together, costumes are often heat bonded, with the plastic melted at the edges to join pieces. “After the season, they’re not meant to even be thrifted or returned, they’re just meant to be thrown away. And that’s where most of them end up, it’s in the landfill. Something like 80% of those suits end up in the landfill,” Bowersox said.

Miller said there are many ways to enjoy Halloween without buying a one-off costume.

“Whenever we buy anything, we’re not just buying the one thing, we’re buying all of the environmental impacts of everything that went into making that product,” Miller said. “So whenever we’re using any sort of single-use product, whether we’re talking about single-use plastic or single-use costumes, we really have to be thinking about is this really how we want to spend our time, money, resources, and is there a better way?”

Braddock Sandoval, a chemistry professor at Occidental College, poses for photos with a costume he picked out during a Halloween costume swap on the campus in Los Angeles, Friday, Oct. 16, 2026

(

Jae C. Hong

/

Associated Press

)

How one fashion lover launched a Halloween costume swap

Sustainable fashion advocate Lexy Silverstein founded the Ultimate Halloween Swap last year after realizing how much money and material went into a costume that might be worn only a few hours before being dumped.

As an avid Halloween fan who loves donning costumes, she was forced to reflect on her own consumption and waste.

“That’s a lot of costumes that I’m buying and wearing once and getting rid of,” she told herself. And she began thinking of other seasons that encourage people to buy new things, like back-to-school time.

Last year, the swap collected hundreds of costume donations, including 10 boxes from the LA Clippers basketball team. It was such a success that she decided to do it again and has since expanded across Southern California, including at Occidental College where Sandoval found his shark suit.

Now, Silverstein is hoping to organize swaps for back-to-school, prom season, winter coats and other high-consumption, single-use times of year.

Washington University in St. Louis has its own version going. Its thrift store is stocked with clothes and items collected during student move-outs when many items get left behind, including Halloween costumes and accessories. For the second year, it organized an on-campus pop-up where the campus community could buy used Halloween costumes for a low price.

Cassie Hage, the university’s assistant director at the Office of Sustainability, said this year’s selections included Austin Powers and kiwi outfits, a demon from the hit TV show “Stranger Things” and matching platypus onesies that delighted a group of friends who stumbled upon them.

“They were kind of dancing around” in them, she said. “That was just a really fun moment to watch.”

How to reduce, reuse, recycle

Thrifting, attending clothing swaps and raiding friends’ and family members’ closets are all ways to avoid buying new costumes. You can assemble a Halloween costume from clothes and accessories you or a friend already own, or modify existing pieces to create a new look.

Silverstein also suggests renting costumes by looking through websites like Facebook Marketplace, Depop and Poshmark.

If you have to buy something, Bowersox suggests buying costumes or accessories made of plant-based materials such as cotton or linen. Licensed products can cost more, he said, but can offer greater transparency over how and where they’re made.

Alison Linder, assistant sustainability coordinator at Occidental College, which has a thrift store of its own with Halloween costumes in stock, encouraged people to organize their own swaps with neighbors, friends or school classmates.

“It’s just as easy as asking your friends for a loan and offering to share what you have,” she said. “And just by doing that simple thing, you save money and you’re helping the environment.”

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

In the increasingly bitter legal standoff between President Donald Trump and media outlets whose reporting he dislikes, a new and crucial third party has emerged: citizens who watch and read the news and need it to do their jobs.

A lawsuit filed Monday on behalf of six such citizens — essentially representing the wider public audience — argues that it’s not only the rights of news organizations that are violated when Trump bans them from White House premises. Even more fundamentally, the lawsuit argues, such bans violate the public’s right to independent reporting about its president and government.

“The ultimate injury here … is to the democratic public,” says the suit, filed in federal district court in New York against Trump and three key aides, including the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles.

“The First Amendment protects the public’s right to know what its government is doing,” said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, along with the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School.

“The White House cannot decide what information Americans receive by punishing critical reporting,” Fallow said in a statement. “When the White House expels reporters because of their coverage and threatens others with expulsion, it isn’t just the press that suffers — the public loses access to independent reporting and gets something closer to government propaganda.”

The Trump administration, asked for comment on the lawsuit, responded in a statement that it attributed to an unidentified White House official: “No person may demand access to the Oval Office.” It said media that peddle “misinformation and defamation are completely capable of reporting their manufactured stories from directly outside.”

The plaintiffs all rely on White House news for their work

The six plaintiffs are all people who say they rely on independent and diverse White House reporting for their teaching, journalism or advocacy. They include a noted human rights advocate, a political journalist, a Yale history professor, a high school civics teacher, a legal journalist, and a student journalist at the University of Pennsylvania.

The complaint filed Monday recounts how various news organizations that have been targeted by Trump are already battling the administration in the courts. These cases include the current lawsuit by CNN, MS NOW and Politico, whose journalists were banished from the White House in September.

A federal judge recently extended an order preventing the White House from enforcing the ban while the case makes its way through the legal system. Still affected, though, is CNN’s pool coverage of Trump. The White House has been denying the network its usual slots in the video pool covering the president’s activities and travel, and CNN has threatened further action.

Also continuing is the legal case involving The Associated Press, whose reporters were barred last year from the Oval Office, Air Force One and some events in retaliation for the outlet’s decision not to follow Trump’s lead in changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico, which lies partially in Mexican and other waters, to the Gulf of America.

The New York Times is also involved in litigation, over a Pentagon policy requiring escorts for journalists on its grounds. And ABC is fighting back against the Trump administration in a dispute over renewal of its broadcast licenses.

This lawsuit seeks more wide-ranging relief

The new lawsuit filed Monday, though, is different from previous legal action against the president — first, in that the plaintiffs are ordinary citizens, shifting the focus from news gatherers to news consumers, and thus implying a much larger pool of stakeholders. In addition, it seeks more wide-ranging relief.

The suit, which names Trump as defendant along with Wiles, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, and Secret Service Director Sean M. Curran, calls not merely for reinstatement of access that has already been impacted, but for a broad injunction that would protect from retaliation every news outlet that covers the White House —- now, and in the future.

“Defendants’ policy of restricting the access of disfavored news organizations deprives the public of the reporting of those organizations,” the complaint says. It also “inevitably deprives them of the independent reporting of other news organizations as well, since every journalist who reports from the White House must now account for the possibility that a critical or ill-advised word about the president may result in their access being summarily restricted or revoked.”

“Plaintiffs ... seek a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional because it imposes restrictions on a limited public forum that are viewpoint-based and unreasonable,” the complaint adds. “They also seek an injunction barring defendants from enforcing the policy.”

Plaintiffs include a human rights advocate, a teacher and a student journalist

The plaintiffs are:

—Kenneth Roth, former longtime executive director of Human Rights Watch and a lecturer at Yale’s law school and school of global affairs. Roth “relies on newsgathering and reporting from members of the White House press corps to inform his public writing and commentary,” the suit says.

—Daniel Froomkin, media and political journalist and editor of Press Watch, a nonprofit that encourages political journalists to “fulfill their essential mission of creating an informed electorate and holding the powerful accountable.”

—Beverly Gage, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and professor at Yale University who “relies on newsgathering and reporting from the White House press corps to inform her scholarship, public writing and commentary.”

—Peter Schmidt-Nowara, a social studies teacher at a New York City high school, who teaches civics courses and considers White House reporting “essential to his work as an educator.”

—Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, whose publication is “especially reliant on the White House press corps to provide accurate and timely coverage of the president.”

—Ethan Young, a student at the University of Pennsylvania and editor-in-chief of The Daily Pennsylvanian, who, as a student journalist, “relies on a diverse, independent and trustworthy cohort of White House reporters to serve as his proxy.”

Schmidt-Nowara, who teaches at Brooklyn Technical High School, is quoted in the lawsuit as saying: “As a social studies teacher, I want my students to have access to accurate, independent reporting about their government.” He adds he is “gravely concerned that the Trump administration’s restrictions on White House reporters are cutting off access to crucial information.

“I joined this lawsuit because my students deserve to know what’s happening in their government and to hear from a free and independent press,” he says.

Young, the student journalist, contends that since he can’t personally access White House press spaces, he relies on “a diverse, independent and trustworthy cohort” of White House reporters to serve as his proxy.

The effect of federal policy changes has been “acutely felt on college campuses, Penn’s included,” Young is quoted as saying. “As a student journalist, I rely on reporting from the White House press corps to understand the decisions made in Washington, their consequences, and how they impact my college community. A vibrant free press allows me to do just that.”

A panel of federal appellate judges on Sunday questioned the timing, constitutionality and authority of the Justice Department’s demand that California election officials set aside thousands of mail ballots from people the federal government suspects may not be citizens.

During rare weekend arguments, two of the three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared skeptical of a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump’s administration in mid-October. The lawsuit accuses California officials of failing to meet a 48-hour deadline to review 20,000 names the administration flagged as likely noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls.

The administration asked a federal judge to require the state to withhold counting those ballots until the voters’ immigration status could be verified. The district judge scheduled a hearing for Oct. 27, days after the case was assigned, but the federal government appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an expedited decision.

Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly told the panel that California is causing irreparable harm “by allowing noncitizens to vote in violation of their own state laws. The damage is irreversible and irrevocable.”

The Trump administration has made efforts to identify noncitizen voters a priority this year, even though noncitizen voting is exceptionally rare.

Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, questioned whether the appellate court even has jurisdiction to hear the case even before a ruling by the lower court.

Donnelly argued that the schedule set by the lower court judge was too slow and effectively a denial of the government’s request, as state elections officials process thousands of mail ballots every day.

Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, questioned whether the federal government was violating the Tenth Amendment, essentially commandeering the state to enforce a federal law that makes it a misdemeanor for a noncitizen to vote.

The federal government is simply asking California to enforce its own law, which also bans noncitizens from voting, Donnelly said. He argued the state’s refusal to comply with the federal request to set aside the ballots for review was “frustrating the purpose” of the federal law against noncitizen voting.

The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to set the time, place and manner of congressional elections, Bennett said. The executive branch may be “unhappy with what they’re doing, and doesn’t like the manner,” Bennett said, but under the Election Clause the state has the right to determine those issues — including how it sorts out any noncitizen voters.

Attorney Seth Waxman, representing Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan, said the federal government’s list was unreliable and that segregating the ballots for a review process would effectively disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.

Even if election staffers spent just three minutes checking each of the expected 2.75 million mail ballots against the government’s list, the process would take 140,000 man-hours, Waxman said — or about 16 years of working time.

Waxman cited a review of 200 records from the Trump administration’s list conducted by Los Angeles County staffers. Assistant Registrar-Recorder Monica Flores said in a court filing that the sample included canceled or inactive registrations, individuals with no voting history and voters who appeared to have been born in the United States, which the filing notes “is strong evidence of citizenship.”

If the administration disagrees with how California runs its elections, it can ask Congress to change that process, said attorney Sam Siegel, representing California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

The federal government has provided no credible evidence to support its suspicions, said Siegel.

“It has no basis in law or in fact,” he told the panel. “We just dispute the premise that noncitizens are voting.”

But Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, said everyone has an interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens vote. He suggested that granting the administration’s request for an emergency order could provide clarity.

“Without an injunction, you will never know” if that is happening, Bumatay told Siegel.

Bennett said the panel would try to issue a ruling as quickly as possible.

Democrats and outside watchdogs are planning a massive presence at the polls on Election Day driven by concerns that President Donald Trump will further leverage the vast resources of the federal government to interfere with a midterm that could hobble his final two years in office.

They won’t be the only ones there. A sprawling election protection effort on the left that is expected to deploy tens of thousands of monitors will be met by the largest-ever monitoring program by the Justice Department and still more observers from Republican-aligned groups. The result could be unlike anything seen at the polls in modern times.

The effort among Democratic and nonprofit groups includes training volunteers to stand watch outside polling places and report activities they consider concerning. The network includes traditional government watchdogs such as Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union plus a flood of volunteers assembled by state Democratic parties, congressional leaders, national activist groups and organizations focused on protecting democracy.

The Democratic National Committee’s Association of State Democratic Committees created a first-of-its-kind cybersecurity unit staffed by former CIA and FBI officials to monitor and report online misinformation, including artificial intelligence deepfakes, said Jane Kleeb, vice chair of the DNC.

That’s as Democratic mayors, attorneys general and secretaries of state host tabletop exercises simulating worst-case scenarios, such as a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials at voting locations or the seizure of ballots and voting equipment.

On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders have assembled a legal team that rivals that of any presidential campaign.

“We’ve never done this before,” Kleeb said of the party’s sweeping efforts. But “we’ve never had to deal with the president of the United States saying that he may seize ballots, put ICE agents outside polling locations and other kinds of very clear direct threats to the voting process.”

The Department of Justice has already filed lawsuits in California and Alaska that could affect ballot counting or certification.

While Trump continues to make baseless allegations of cheating in the election, administration and military officials have said they have no plans to deploy immigration agents or troops to polling sites.

White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis blamed “radical Democrats” for creating fears about election security by refusing to enact voter ID requirements and other Republican-backed measures.

“President Trump has done more than any other president to ensure we have free and fair elections,” Bis said.

Tens of thousands of volunteers trained to observe

State Democratic parties have trained an estimated 10,000 volunteers to observe polling places and report anything potentially concerning they might see from federal agents. Common Cause has trained roughly 16,000 more volunteers to stand watch at voting precincts, said Suzanne Almeida, vice president of states for the group

She said a broader Election Protection coalition involving 300 other groups has trained tens of thousands more.

Smaller pockets of volunteers from other groups also are preparing to show up, including roughly 100 organized by Senate Democrats and hundreds more from a Democratic-allied group called Save America, which is training clergy members, veterans, teachers and other local community members. National groups such as Indivisible and MoveOn are activating their own expansive networks.

There are so many organizations working to protect the voting process — including many that cannot legally coordinate with each other — that some officials involved worry about unintentionally creating chaos outside polling locations.

Almeida said Election Day confusion is possible in some precincts but the nature of the threat requires a collective effort.

“It will actually take all of us if some of the threats we are most worried about come to pass,” she said.

Trump administration sends its own team

Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, was asked on CBS’ “60 Minutes” whether the Republican administration is planning to send ICE agents to polling places.

“There is no plan to do that,” she responded.

Still, the Justice Department is planning its largest-ever election monitoring effort, with about 1,000 department staff expected to observe voting and ensure federal laws are being followed, spokesperson Kiersten Pels said. That comes after a primary season in which the department said it deployed more than 100 election monitors across hundreds of polling locations.

At least one of those placements sparked tensions with local officials. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, said the behavior of two monitors during that state’s primary was “a bit aggressive” and “irregular.” A Laramie County clerk said the Justice Department monitors arrived at the polls intending to interview voters, but her office didn’t allow it.

The department disagrees that the monitors did anything improper, Pels said. She added that the monitors are trained to comply with federal law governing conduct at polling places and won’t “interfere with the voting process.”

Democratic lawmakers and voting rights advocates have raised concerns that the Trump administration’s monitors could intimidate voters or abandon the duty they’ve had for decades to protect against civil rights violations.

The department plans to send them to every state, focusing on high-population areas, jurisdictions that have had problems in the past and districts with close elections, according to a senior department official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity under terms set by the department.

The Republican National Committee said its operation involves deploying “election integrity deputy state directors” in 22 states, among them Arizona, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina.

Those workers are the “eyes and the ears of the RNC in the field” who recruit volunteers and organize trainings, said Ally Triolo, the RNC’s election integrity communications director. Their mission is to surface anything that seems unlawful.

At the same time, the RNC has enlisted nearly 22,000 poll workers and is recruiting poll-watching volunteers for competitive districts. The poll watchers will “observe the process and help ensure election rules are followed in accordance with the law,” Triolo said.

Local election officials prepare for increased attention

While federal monitors have quietly observed elections for decades, largely without incident, some election officials are taking precautions.

Chris Swope, the city clerk in Lansing, Michigan, said he preemptively contacted law enforcement and his attorney in case federal monitors violate election law, although he expects them to abide by the rules.

The Democratic Mayors Association issued guidance to local Democratic officials with detailed instructions about what to do if federal agents appear at polling locations.

It notes that federal law prohibits the presence of federal immigration agents, the FBI or other investigative personnel. It also issued a reminder that federal agents are not allowed to be armed at the polls, nor are they allowed to interact with voters or handle ballots or election equipment.

Justice Department officials have said their monitors won’t be armed and will not interfere with voting. Asked about department monitors being sent to Georgia, Trump told a reporter recently: “They’re not going to do anything other than watch.”

Some of the poll observations have already begun. Mary Corcoran, Save America’s executive director, said her group’s volunteers have been monitoring precincts during early voting in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio to help give voters a sense of security.

“The fear is the point, and we must do something about it,” she said. “Left unanswered, fear does the work of keeping people home without a single agent setting foot at a polling place.”

— Associated Press writers Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington and Jessica Hill in Las Vegas contributed to this report.