DOJ's First Election-Crimes Grant: $5 Million, 20 Awards of $250,000, and a Perjury-Backed Immigration Certification at the Front Door

Twenty awards. That is the whole competition. On October 15, 2026, twelve days before the midterm election, the Bureau of Justice Assistance posted the OJP FY 2026 Integrity in American Elections Grant Program (O-BJA-2026-172793, Assistance Listing 16.738). It offers up to $5 million in total, in grants of up to $250,000 each, for 24-month projects starting January 1, 2027.

The money is small. The signal is not. This appears to be the first OJP solicitation dedicated to funding state and local criminal enforcement of election law, covering the investigation and prosecution of "votes by aliens, felons, the deceased, those younger than 18, those who vote more than once, those who vote in the name of another, and other illegal voting and registration crimes." Federal election grants to states have historically flowed through the Election Assistance Commission for equipment, administration, and security. This one flows through the Byrne JAG statutory authority (34 U.S.C. 10151–10158) to prosecutors.

Before deciding whether to apply, a jurisdiction has to decide whether it can sign the certification in Appendix 1.

The Deadlines and Who Can Apply

OJP's standard two-step process applies:

Eligibility is limited to governments: states (including DC, Puerto Rico, and the territories), counties, cities and townships, special districts, federally recognized tribes, and "other units of local government" such as towns, boroughs, parishes, and villages. No nonprofits, no universities as prime applicants, no match. Applicants may submit more than one application if each proposes a different project.

The realistic applicant pool is narrower than that list suggests. Allowable costs are tied to "state authorities to enforce criminal laws": investigating and prosecuting state or local election crimes, and preventing election-related activity punishable under state or local criminal law, such as "criminal tampering with voting systems, criminal schemes to accomplish voter fraud, or illegal circumvention of voter eligibility requirements." The applicants that fit are:

• State attorneys general with election-crimes or public-integrity units
• County and district attorneys, especially in large jurisdictions that already receive election-crime referrals
• Secretaries of state or state election agencies with statutory investigative divisions, where state law gives them criminal referral or investigative authority
• Multi-county task forces run through a lead government

A county elections office that wants to fund routine list maintenance is a weak fit. The NOFO's objectives are about detecting, documenting, substantiating, and referring crimes, not about administering registration.

The Certification Is the Real Eligibility Test

Every state or local government applicant, though not tribes or public universities, must submit a certification signed by its chief executive officer or a senior official with authority to bind the jurisdiction, using only the template in Appendix 1. It is signed "under penalty of perjury." It attests that the official has received legal advice on, and that the jurisdiction and all subrecipients will comply with, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644. Those provisions bar state and local governments from restricting the exchange of citizenship or immigration-status information with DHS. The certification warns that a false statement may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 or § 1621 and may trigger civil False Claims Act liability.

The NOFO calls this "a basic minimum requirement." Applications that should include it and don't will be denied. Awards will also carry a § 1373 compliance condition.

For jurisdictions with sanctuary-style policies that limit information-sharing with immigration authorities, that ends the analysis. Whether a given policy actually violates § 1373 has been heavily litigated since 2017, and courts have split on DOJ's power to attach these conditions to Byrne JAG money. A senior official who signs a perjury-backed attestation in the middle of that legal uncertainty is taking on personal exposure. Counsel should review the jurisdiction's actual policies, not just its reputation, before anyone signs.

The out-of-scope list reinforces the point. Any program "at any tier" that impedes enforcement of federal immigration law, including by failing to give DHS agents access to correctional facilities or to honor DHS release-notification requests, is excluded. So are legal services to removable noncitizens.

Priority Points Go to 287(g) and Homeland Security Task Forces

OJP lists its standard FY2026 priorities: supporting law enforcement operations "including immigration law enforcement," combating violent crime, serving American citizens, protecting children, and supporting trafficking and sexual-assault victims. It adds an explicit preference for state and local efforts coordinated with federal immigration enforcement. That preference is shown by § 1373 compliance plus a policy that gives federal agents jail access and honors detainer-related release notices.

On top of that, priority consideration goes to applicants that participate in, or commit to, a 287(g) partnership or a Homeland Security Task Force (HSTF). Claiming it takes paperwork: a letter of support from the U.S. Attorney's Office's lead HSTF attorney, or documentary evidence of an existing 287(g) agreement or a "bona fide commitment" to one. Applicants also complete the Agency Funding Priorities Inventory in JustGrants and must name the priorities they advance in the narrative.

With twenty slots and a modest award size, priority consideration is likely to decide close calls. The NOFO itself notes that priorities are "one of many factors" and do not guarantee funding.

How the Application Is Scored

The proposal narrative is capped at 10 double-spaced pages. The weights:

The need section is worth only 5 percent, and that is the most interesting design choice in the NOFO. Applicants don't have to prove a large problem. They have to prove they can run an investigative operation. Design and capability together carry 65 percent. A strong application describes the referral pipeline (from election officials, list-maintenance flags, or cross-checks), the investigator and prosecutor staffing, the case-management and evidentiary standards, and a track record of election or public-integrity prosecutions.

Applicants should still write the need section with care. The data is contested, and reviewers will know it. Iowa's Secretary of State reported in 2026 that a voter-roll audit using the federal SAVE system identified 277 confirmed noncitizen registrants, with 35 counted ballots in the 2024 general election. That was down from an initial list of 2,186 potential cases. Georgia's 2024 audit flagged 20 potential noncitizens among roughly 8 million registrants. DHS has publicly cited far larger national figures from SAVE cross-checks, and other reporting has questioned whether those claims hold up. The strongest narratives rely on the applicant's own referral and case data. They show how many referrals came in, how many were substantiated, and what slowed resolution, without leaning on national estimates.

Who Should Apply, and How to Build the Budget

A $250,000, 24-month award funds roughly one dedicated investigator or a part-time prosecutor plus analytic support. Plan around that. Projects that fit the scale include:

• A dedicated election-crimes investigator in a prosecutor's office that currently handles referrals ad hoc
• A referral-triage and case-tracking system that standardizes how election-official referrals become investigations, with defined substantiation criteria
• Training for line prosecutors and investigators on state election statutes, evidentiary standards, and intent requirements, which are where many illegal-voting cases fail
• Prevention work aimed at criminal tampering with voting systems, which overlaps with election-infrastructure security

The timing matters. A January 2027 start puts the grant period after the November 3, 2026 midterm, which means funded work will center on referrals from the 2026 cycle and on preparation for the 2028 primaries. Applicants who can document a backlog of 2026 referrals have a concrete, verifiable need.

Read alongside BJA's other FY2026 solicitations, the program fits a pattern. DOJ's much larger Special Attorneys Program (O-BJA-2026-172792, Round 10 closing October 28) funds federal prosecutors embedded in local jurisdictions. The immigration-cooperation conditions now appear across OJP's portfolio. For county prosecutors, the question is less whether this one $250,000 grant is worth pursuing and more whether the jurisdiction can sign the certification that a growing share of DOJ money now requires.

To finish:

1. Start SAM.gov now. OJP wants the process started by November 1.
2. Get a legal read on § 1373 and § 1644 before the CEO signs anything.
3. Decide on 287(g) or HSTF priority early. The U.S. Attorney's Office letter takes lead time.
4. Build the narrative around capacity. Design and capability carry 65 percent. Need carries 5.

For prosecutors and state agencies working through an unfamiliar DOJ format on a six-week clock, Granted can help structure the narrative and budget so the scored sections carry the weight reviewers assign them.