Jessica Huseman

Busted: Top Trump pick echoed his false claims of election fraud

After Matt Gaetz’s spectacular implosion as Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, the president-elect has named another Floridian many see as a less controversial choice: Pam Bondi. Once the attorney general for Florida, she’s made a name for herself as a Trump loyalist. Her support for his claims of voter fraud and election interference, most notably for this audience, have been consistent and foreshadow what the Justice Department’s approach to elections could be if she’s confirmed.

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

You might, for example, remember her for her efforts to advance Trump’s allegations of fraud after the 2020 election. She was present at Rudy Giuliani’s infamous Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference, and insisted in interviews that Trump would have won Pennsylvania but for all the “cheating” in Philadelphia. To that end, she and others went to the state to falsely declare victory while filing pointless lawsuits.

Bondi has been a Trump devotee since before it was cool. She endorsed him in the 2016 primary over fellow Floridian Marco Rubio, and then joined the Trump administration’s transition team. When Trump fired his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, in 2018, her name was floated for the position before Trump ultimately selected William Barr.

In 2020, she was part of the team who defended Trump when he was first impeached over charges of abuse of power related to Ukraine. She made the rounds on television, defending his actions.

Since 2021, Bondi has been the chair of America First Policy Institute’s (AFPI) Center for Litigation and co-chair of its Center for Law and Justice. While in that role, the center advocated for the overturn of a Biden executive order that expanded voter registration access and waged multiple voting-related battles in state courts across the country.

This history paints a vivid picture of how Bondi would run the Department of Justice, if she is approved by the Senate: exactly how Trump wants her to.

“For too long, the partisan Department of Justice has been weaponized against me and other Republicans – Not anymore,” Trump wrote on TruthSocial when he announced her appointment. “Pam will refocus the DOJ to its intended purpose of fighting Crime, and Making America Safe Again.”

She and Trump appear to share an interest in seeking vengeance against prosecutors who attempted to criminally pursue the former and future president.

“The Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones,” Bondi said on Fox News last year after Trump was indicted in Georgia on charges of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. “The investigators will be investigated.”

That aligns with Trump’s promise in September to aggressively go after “corrupt election officials” and others if Trump believed they cheated in the 2024 election.

Bondi has not spoken publicly about some other possible Trump DOJ priorities floated by conservatives, such as culling the attorneys in the voting rights division or refocusing that division’s priorities towards investigating voter fraud rather than preventing voter suppression. She’s also said very little about the attacks on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

So far, it appears Republican lawmakers see Bondi as confirmable and there has been no major pushback to her nomination. But, Trump’s nomination processes have historically been chaotic and full of surprises — and this year is no exception. So who knows what will happen in the next few months. We’ll keep you posted.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

Election officials prepare poll workers and staff for the threat of political violence

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

After two apparent attempts on former President Donald Trump’s life, shootings at an Arizona Democratic field office, as well as the arrest of an Afghan national who had planned a terrorist attack on Election Day, the threat of violence has become a fact of American politics. Memories of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, with gruesome and unprecedented scenes of violence, have also left many Americans fearing what may come this election.

With just weeks until Election Day, it is particularly worrisome to those Americans who will be administering voting. While election administrators have long prepared for the possibility of violence, experts say their concerns have been heightened by the vicious rhetoric and behavior this year.

“Because of this Communist Left Rhetoric, the bullets are flying, and it will only get worse!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

The data shows, in fact, that political violence is not at an all-time high for the United States, and that recent incidents have, if anything, diminished support for such action over all.

Still, in May 2024, a survey of election administrators by the Brennan Center found that 40% of respondents had taken steps to increase the physical security of election offices and polling locations since 2020, and 38% reported experiencing harassment or abuse. Across the country, election offices are doing things like investing in “panic buttons” and training poll workers in de-escalation techniques as a result.

“Election officials aspire to prepare for every possible election scenario — sadly, the possibility of violence is one of those scenarios that has been part of election contingency plans and protocols for years, if not decades,” said Tammy Patrick, the chief programs officer for the Election Center, a nonprofit group representing election officials. “What is different this year is the preparation for potential, albeit remote, issues to arise at tabulation centers and election offices over the course of the election, with particular consideration for the post-election period and certification.”

Here’s a look at what election officials in key swing states and their biggest cities are doing to ensure safety this season. Of course, there are limits to what details officials will share about their security plans. The longstanding logic is that if those trying to thwart your security know the outlines of your plans, they can figure out ways around them.

Arizona: Training poll workers to defuse crises

In Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest county, elections department spokesperson Jennifer Liewer told Votebeat that election officials are working closely with the local sheriff’s department, and coordinating with state and federal officials through the county’s command center. “Agencies have been meeting for more than a year to prepare for the 2024 General Election,” she said.

Officials from all levels of government have also participated in tabletop exercises — drills meant to simulate emergency situations so that participants can prepare to respond. The county has also updated its poll worker training to include using de-escalation tactics to defuse potentially violent situations as well as “protocols on when and who to contact should poll workers feel the security of the facility or those in it might have a safety issue,” Liewer said.

“It is our hope that voters will peacefully cast their ballots,” she said. “Poll workers are prepared to intervene and de-escalate situations, but should the potential for violence occur, law enforcement is prepared to respond.”

Michigan: Responding to threats driven by misinformation

Michigan’s election workers have faced high-profile threats and intimidation over the last four years — mostly driven by misinformation.

“People who believe the misinformation have been driven to harass, threaten, or cause harm to local election officials simply for doing their jobs,” said Cheri Hardmon, spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

In response, Michigan’s election officials have stepped up their preparation since the 2020 election — hosting tabletop exercises on everything from AI-sparked misinformation to political violence.

“We will be ready — voters should have confidence that we are prepared for any disruption or threats to our system,” Hardmon said.

Hardmon said the state is also working to ensure poll workers feel secure. Benson earlier this year said her office would introduce a direct text line between poll workers and local law enforcement — so-called panic buttons — in response to conversations with election officials as well as emergency responders.

“We cannot have a secure democracy if we do not protect the security of the people who administer our elections,” Hardmon said. “We are very concerned about the potential for those threats to escalate into violence caused by the deliberate spreading of lies about the security and accuracy of our elections.”

Pennsylvania: Task force addressing threats

Earlier this year, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro created an Elections Threats Task Force that includes members in federal, state, and local law enforcement, as well as election administration officials. The group meets monthly to share information and coordinate response in the event of threats. Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt said at a September event that the Department of State had also been conducting tabletop exercises that included what to do if there was a threat of violence at a polling place.

Abigail Gardner, a spokesperson for Allegheny County, the state’s second largest and home to Pittsburgh, said the county elections office is in regular contact with state and local law enforcement about protecting polling places. Poll workers have also been provided instructions on de-escalation tactics. She said the county has not received any credible threats.

Karen Chillcott, Erie County clerk, said the county’s election office has recently tightened its security protocols. Partitions were added in the lobby of the office to separate staff from the public, and windows were installed so that the public could continue viewing ballot counting.

“We’re trying to balance transparency with our security,” she said. Some workers who were on hand for the 2020 protests at the county courthouse are still traumatized from the experience, she said, and the county is already facing increasing pressure from agitators this time around.

She is concerned that the activity might dissuade poll workers from coming to work on Election Day. Threats against election workers are “really counterproductive to democracy,” she said.

Texas: Poll workers equipped for quick response

In Dallas County — a populous, Democratic-leaning county in an otherwise Republican state — officials have revamped poll worker training to include more strategies to prevent and respond to issues of voter or poll worker harassment. Their training for poll workers includes de-escalation techniques and gives specific instructions on how to respond to potential threats or reach out to police.

“Every vote center judge is equipped with a smartphone and detailed contact information for local law enforcement, and poll workers are trained to follow a well-defined plan that prioritizes the safety of voters and election staff,” said Nic Solorzano, spokesperson for the department.

As in other states, the county has participated in tabletop exercises that have involved state and local agencies — the Dallas County Sheriff’s office, the Texas Department of Homeland Security, and local and state emergency management — to ensure a coordinated response in the event of an emergency.

Solorzano said that the elections department “remains cautious yet optimistic,” and that despite heightened tensions “our focus is on preparation, not fear.”

“Our priority is that voters in Dallas County feel secure and confident when casting their ballots, and we are fully committed to maintaining a safe and welcoming environment at all vote centers,” he said.

Wisconsin: Arena available for poll worker training

Milwaukee Election Commission Executive Director Paulina Gutiérrez said the state’s largest city has been working with law enforcement since early summer to prepare for the possibility of violence during voting. They have hosted training sessions with their staff, and worked with the federal government to conduct security reviews of voting facilities.

The city also planned to offer two training sessions for poll workers that would include “de-escalation training and how and when to call the police.” For larger trainings, they planned to use the Milwaukee Bucks’ arena, which the team has donated for the cause.

This will only get more focused as the election draws closer, Gutiérrez said.

“This past week, I already had five [discussions] with our first responder partners,” she said in late September.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org. Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org. Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org. Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org. Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

Why Georgia election board’s latest change to voting procedures is so perilous

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

For the last several weeks, election watchdogs and many other people have been abuzz over the rather strange actions of the Georgia State Elections Board.

The most recent one: The board decided last week that every precinct must now complete a hand count of ballot totals, to make sure that they match the tallies from the machine counts before the county can certify the election results. While some initially interpreted the rule to mean hand-counting all votes, the rule requires only that the number of ballots be tallied. That will take less time than a full hand count of votes, but it doesn’t mean it won’t cause problems or delays, especially since local election officials will have to add a step to their processes, with just weeks to go before the election.

State officials didn’t want this.

“Misguided efforts to impose new procedures like hand counting ballots at polling locations make it likely that Georgians will not know the results on Election Night,” Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, warned in August, before the board voted to approve the change. “Georgia law already has secure chain of custody protocols for handling ballots, and efforts to change these laws by unelected bureaucrats on the eve of the election introduces the opportunity for error, lost or stolen ballots, and fraud.”

The state attorney general, Christopher Carr, had advised the board that the hand-counting proposal was likely unlawful, because the legislature had not empowered the board to create such a requirement. Like a majority of the state elections board, including every member who supported this change, Raffensperger and Carr are both Republicans.

All of this is likely to spark more litigation. The Georgia Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee already sued the state elections board late last month over new rules governing how local officials finalize vote totals, contending they would cause “chaos” in the upcoming election. A hearing is scheduled in Fulton County in early October.

So that you can understand the implications of the new rule requiring the hand-tally of ballots, let’s start by explaining how voting works in Georgia: People voting in person select their candidates on a touchscreen voting machine, which prints out a paper ballot, like a receipt from a cash register. That paper ballot includes a list of the voter’s choices and a QR code that can be read by a separate tabulator machine. The voter takes their ballot printout and places it in the tabulator, which scans the code and tallies the votes.

Under the new rules, there are more steps. At the end of voting on election night, after removing the ballots from the scanner, three poll workers have to count them, by hand. When all three agree on the total number of ballots they have, the rules require them to document that number and sign off on it. Then they have to check that number against the ballot totals recorded on the voting machines. Any inconsistencies must be documented, and the person in charge of the precinct is responsible for determining how the error occurred.

In isolation, the requirements in Georgia seem harmless: Why should it be a big deal to require three people to count some paper, and agree on the number they’ve counted, to make sure that no ballots were counted or excluded improperly?

Actually, there are a lot of reasons.

First, changing the rules this close to Go Time is inherently harmful: Poll workers have been recruited, many have been trained, and the handbooks that dictate how they do their jobs have been printed. Late changes mean that poll workers are deviating from the process they understand, and officials are scrambling to revise these procedures at the last minute. Given the number of ballots that will be cast in Georgia —around 5 million were cast in the 2020 general election — this is unlikely to go perfectly in the hundreds of precincts across the state.

And Raffensperger is right: This is a huge change to Georgia’s “chain of custody” requirements for ballots. It introduces a lot more fingers to the process. It also means more opportunity for error, and more time before results can be reported.

“In smaller precincts, these delays should be minimal — there being not that many ballots cast. For larger precincts, the delays may be more substantial,” writes Anna Bower at Lawfare. “If larger precincts opt to hand count ballots on election night, then reporting of results could be delayed by several hours. A few hours could stretch into a day or two if a precinct puts off hand counting until the next day, as the rule allows.”

It’s during such delays, as we saw in 2020, that purveyors of election misinformation go to work, planting false notions about ballot dumping, poll worker misconduct, or fraud to explain pauses or anomalies in reported results and subsequent swings in vote totals.

Arizona introduced its own hand-count requirement — though it did so months ago, giving election officials more time to adapt procedures. The Arizona rule requires counties to hand-count the number of ballot envelopes dropped off at polling centers on Election Day before any ballots are tabulated. It applies only to ballots dropped off, not ballots cast at the centers themselves.

Still, it’s likely to cause delays. After the July primary, Maricopa elections spokesperson Jennifer Liewer said the process added about 30 minutes to the reporting time for the county’s results. She said the delay is likely to be longer in the general election, when hundreds of thousands of ballots are likely to be dropped off.

Georgia is one of several states considering last-minute changes in the way elections are administered. In North Carolina, litigation around whether students could use digital IDs to vote went down to the last minute. In Pennsylvania, long-running court disputes have left in limbo the rules over whether mail ballots with dating errors should be counted and how voters can overcome their mistakes. And in Nebraska, Republicans mounted an unsuccessful last-ditch effort to change the way the state’s Electoral College votes are apportioned in an attempt to help Donald Trump — a change that could have tipped the election outcome.

The vast majority of counties will pull off their elections with no issue. But last-minute changes in procedures increase the likelihood of mistakes that — even if they don’t prevent certification — will add confusion and delays in the reporting of results.

And, as we have all seen, confusion and delays in the results have led candidates (and voters) to make harmful false claims that shape people’s perceptions of the election for years. We will certainly see that this year.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

'Zuckerbucks': 2020 election conspiracy theories return to Missouri and Arizona

It turns out that right-wing activists have learned the same lesson as Hollywood: Everyone loves a sequel.

You may remember the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life from the so-called “Zuckerbucks” controversy during the 2020 election. That was when a couple of nonprofits including the Center for Tech and Civic Life distributed hundreds of millions of dollars that had been donated by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, as no-strings-attached grants to local election officials. Despite no evidence of partisanship (and lots of people checked), right-wing activists and critics labeled the funding a political act aimed at boosting turnout of Democratic voters.

CTCL now has a new program, the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence. It’s a group of 15 counties, all of whom submitted applications, who work together to share best practices and create things such as a voluntary set of standards for recruitment, training, management, and retention of poll workers, a major concern for election officials around the country.

Since the program’s launch in the spring of 2022, it and CTCL have been subject to waves of critical stories by rightwing news sites fueled by talking points from right-wing activists. So have the counties participating in the program.

In March of last year, those stories focused on Boone County, Missouri. Conservative media outlets such as The Federalist and The Heartlander accused the county of joining “a liberal dark money-linked election organization,” and doing so “using taxpayer money,” an apparent reference to the membership fee, which is less than $2,000 a year.

Fourteen other counties joined Boone County in the Alliance’s inaugural cohort “to support each other, share best practices, and shape a new set of performance standards for the field.” The Federalist wrote about Boone County and then a very similar story about DeKalb County, Georgia, only a few weeks later. Most recently, yet another story highlighted Coconino County, Arizona. All the stories are written by the same reporter, who cites the same report from the Honest Elections Project falsely claiming CTCL seeks to “systematically influence every aspect of election administration” — though investigations by such places as the Federal Election Commission have found that to be false — in the first two paragraphs of each of the stories about all three counties. You’d be forgiven for initially thinking it was a copy-and-paste job. The articles paint a murky picture of what in reality seems to be a low-cost way for counties to share best practices in election administration.

The new article attempts to support its conclusion by quoting emails between a Coconino official and CTCL. Patty Hansen, that official in Coconino County, said she doesn’t know where the Federalist reporter got the emails. The reporter never contacted her for comment, she said, and neither he nor anyone else identifying themselves as an employee of The Federalist has submitted public records requests to her office. Other organizations certainly have, though, and any one of them could have handed them over. (Remember our public records investigations?)

“It doesn’t matter to me where he got them,” she told me. “It’s just so strange to take bits and pieces out of different emails and try and come up with a conspiracy.”

Neither Boone County nor Coconino County has been dissuaded from continued participation in the program, those in charge there told me. Other counties participating in the alliance — a near-even mix of red and blue counties — should probably be on the lookout for similar coverage, though it appears to be having little overall impact.

Boone County Clerk Brianna Lennon, who personally came under fire over the county’s membership in the Alliance last year, said the public attention has mostly died down. But, she said, the public records requests from rightwing groups asking for all communications about and with the program continue. One group submitted such a request as recently as last Thursday.

“It’s always the same thing, emails between the clerk’s office and all the entities that are part of the alliance,” she told me. Lennon said the office will continue its membership, calling the alliance “the most efficient and economic way to provide professional development on election administration to my staff.”

Hansen had similar things to say. She’s been running elections for 36 years across three states, and saw her county’s participation in the program as a “way for me to learn from other experienced election officials to improve how we do things in Coconino County, but also to help others learn from my experience.”

She doesn’t seem bothered by the attention it’s brought to her office, nor was she particularly surprised by it. It’s a different version of negative attention her office and others like it have received in growing numbers since 2016.

“There are some people who are just really concerned, and believe there are conspiracies going on because their candidates aren’t winning,” she said. “It’s sad.”

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization committed to reporting the nuanced truth about elections and voting at a time of crisis in America.

Records requests are good, but the torrent flowing into election offices is doing real harm

Our investigation into the torrent of public records requests that elections offices across the country are fielding from activists searching for a way to boost baseless narratives of a stolen election shows they are doing real harm.

Like so much in county government (and especially elections), the work to fulfill a public records request is invisible. We journalists also love a good public records request! This project about how overwhelmed these offices are by public records requests, ironically, relied on records requests to answer our initial questions. It wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

So we understand the temptation of sending in a request— even a massive one, or one for data you aren’t even sure the county actually has. But every Votebeat reporter and editor has been trained to target requests more carefully than that.

Nonetheless, counties across the country are drowning in requests from conspiracy theorists searching endlessly for that ever-elusive proof of fraud, which can overwhelm an elections office to the point where other, vital responsibilities are given short shrift.

We have another piece of our investigation coming next week, but know there are a lot of converging problems here, and no single solution.

Counties are using deeply outdated information management systems and often have no public records tracking system. The offices are understaffed, and serially underpay workers responsible for responding to increasingly hostile requests. The flood of bad-faith and nonsensical requests have made all of this worse, resulting in what many election officials have characterized to me as an in-person denial of service attack for their offices. Then, when an office responds, the activists seeking to push theories of fraud sometimes mischaracterize the records, forcing local election officials to work even harder to respond.

Of course, reporting on records requests has the potential to be just as tedious as filling them. We also had to figure out how to manage our investigation on top of our normal commitment to covering voting news every day. It started with three part time freelancers, sending our own records requests to every county in Arizona — we knew, based on our own reporting, things were particularly acute there — and major counties beyond. Then, these freelancers, Jen Fifield, and I combed through the records, identifying particularly aggressive requesters and interviewing local administrators to better understand the impact of the requests. Jen took all of this information and shaped it into two stories we felt were representative of what we’d learned.

From start to finish, the effort took almost a year.

A project this wide-ranging takes up a lot of resources in a small newsroom and costs a lot of money. Still, we knew — because we talk to election administrators every single day — that we uniquely understood this really was shutting down whole offices. We also knew we were the only newsroom likely to comb through Freedom of Information logs and payment stubs to trace records requests back to a small group of activists operating in Arizona. Now that Jen Fifield has molded all of that work into fascinating stories, I know the effort was worth it.

And we aren’t done.

We know that these stories only scratch the surface of the problem, and we are eager to keep shedding light on this.

So, talk to us!

Is there a local activist group overwhelming your office with bad faith records requests? Has your county implemented a public records tracking program that has expedited its ability to process requests you wish others knew about? Reach out to me or Jen and let us know.

Before there was Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, there was New Ashford, Massachusetts. For years, that town held the distinction of being the first place in the nation to report its election results. With few residents, the town could open polls before 6 a.m., count the fewer than 40 ballots, and report results to the newswire before 8 a.m. The town’s dedication to this practice led to Phoebe Jordan being the first woman in the country to have her ballot counted in a presidential election on Nov. 2, 1920. She was one of 12 women to vote in New Ashford that day. Here is a picture of her!

From Votebeat Pennsylvania: Pennsylvanians will be automatically processed for voter registration when they get a new driver’s license

From Votebeat Pennsylvania: Judge tells Delaware County to accept in-person votes from residents whose flawed mail ballots were rejected

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Young voters are showing up for 2024 — and election officials need to be ready

We’re about to see a lot of polls (hello 2024!) that talk about “young voters ages 18-29.” But young voters are not a monolithic group, politically or administratively.

That group, after all, contains all of these people: An 18-year-old Ivy League freshman attending college full-time; a 20-year-old bartender working full-time; a 25-year-old single mother attending community college part-time; and a recently-divorced 29-year-old in cosmetology school.

These people likely do have very distinct political views, only partially influenced by their age. All four would also interact with their local election system — from registering to vote to casting a ballot — in very different ways.

All of this has obvious implications for election administration. In 2018, Michigan kicked off same-day voter registration — that resulted in very long lines of newly eligible kids at the two biggest colleges in the state in 2022, when turnout surged. And while many worried the uptick in changes to voting laws across the country would make it harder for young voters to show up, 2022 marked the second highest turnout in a midterm for young voters in three decades.

Last week, I went to California to moderate a panel on youth voter participation for the Education Writers Association and it had an absolutely all-star lineup: Jonathan Collins, a political scientist at Brown who studies youth voter engagement (especially among black voters); Abby Kiesa, the deputy director for the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University; Courtney Hope Britt, chairman of the College Republican Caucus; and Victor Shi, strategy director for Voters of Tomorrow and Joe Biden’s youngest delegate in 2020.

In a five-minute overview of what we mean when we say “youth voters,” Abby pointed out that only about one-fourth of 18-year-olds are enrolled in college, making it important that both campaigns and election offices target younger voters outside of schools as well as inside of them. Similarly, Jonathan offered that people between the ages of 18 and 29 are plugged into the economy in extremely different ways, meaning that their political values — and resulting eagerness to turn out to vote — will necessarily shift over time.

If you aren’t familiar with CIRCLE or with Jonathan’s research, I recommend both. Though, I was most impressed — sorry to my fellow non-youths on the panel! — with Courtney and Victor. Both were clear-eyed about the ideological divide we face and the impact it’s having on our policies. Courtney pointed out that Republicans largely “don’t think about youth voters” at all. That results in policies that ignore and disadvantage youth at the expense of other communities. Victor explained that most youth voters aren’t Democrats or Republicans, having been dissuaded from engaging by general nastiness. Both were also more coherent and thoughtful than many in their parties several years their senior.

We know that the old trope that “young people don’t vote” is becoming less and less true. Jonathan and Abby (and a bunch of other smart people) believe this category of folk will turn out in 2024, and it makes sense to start thinking about their needs now.

Victor and Courtney are, of course, the type of people journalists tend to go to when selecting younger voters to feature in a piece — extremely politically engaged young people who are formally affiliated with a party. They’ll tell you themselves they don’t represent the norm. Victor, for example, pointed out that most people his age are neither Republicans nor Democrats but classify themselves as independents, skewing the types of voices we hear in their generation further. And Courtney, having started higher education as a community college student, reminded everyone in the room that community college students tend to be far more plugged into the community — and therefore more likely to participate in local elections — than the local university community.

Courtney and Victor both stressed the importance of journalists and election officials speaking to a range of “young” audiences, and encouraged these groups to resist the temptation to do college outreach and assume that will reach all young voters in your community.

“Walk up to people in the grocery store!” said Courtney; “Young people go the same places you do — talk to them,” said Victor.

In 1971, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, lowering the federal voting age from 21 to 18. While a majority of Americans supported the move (it followed a pretty public war in which 18-year-old men were drafted), a handful of states — Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah — never took any action on ratifying the amendment. South Dakota symbolically ratified the amendment in 2014. Reads the Argus-Leader of the effort, championed by state Sen. Chuck Jones (R-Flandreau): “Jones also might want to look at the 21st Amendment, which repealed prohibition, and also has never been ratified here.”

From Votebeat Arizona: “Where’s Celia?” An Arizona elections official becomes the target of a virtual manhunt by GOP activists on a public records crusade.

From Votebeat Michigan: Intimidation and harassment of Michigan election workers could land violators in prison under new legislation

From Votebeat Texas: What’s at stake in the long-awaited trial over Texas’s sweeping 2021 elections law

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Other 2024 GOP candidates say Pence did the right thing on Jan. 6 — but would they?

The first Republican primary debate, as expected, was really awkward. Former President Donald Trump was not in the room but also very much in the room. Even while it appeared the eight presidential candidates standing on the stage might actually succeed in ignoring Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election until the last half of the debate.

They certainly tried. Asked if former Vice President Mike Pence did the right thing that day by ignoring Trump’s demands to reject electoral votes cast for Joe Biden, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis danced around the question until Pence himself forced an answer. “Mike did his duty,” said DeSantis. “I got no beef with him.”

Slow clap for DeSantis, whose team apparently did not prepare him to answer perhaps the most obvious question any Republican candidate could possibly have been asked in the first debate. He’d only just acknowledged Trump’s loss two weeks prior to the debate, so it sort of boggles the mind he wasn’t more prepared for this.

But the criticism I’m lodging here is broader. DeSantis didn’t offer the only clumsy answer — far from it — and that it took half the debate to get around to such an obvious point speaks volumes. Voters need to know what candidates believe was the right thing to do that day, but neither the Republican Party nor many of its candidates are prepared to deal with it — a frustrating and puzzling failure given the two-and-a-half years that have passed.

The only candidate on the stage with a coherent message on the issue was Pence himself. He took a surprisingly straightforward approach during the debate, demanding answers from his opponents and raising his voice to defend his actions on Jan. 6. Words like “surprisingly” and “demanding” are not usually words one uses in a sentence about Mike Pence.

But he was the only one. And even he, along with most of the others, said they would still support Trump if he was the nominee even if he was convicted of a crime, with no one really addressing the incongruity of their praises for Pence’s actions with their willingness to support Trump for another term.

Despite having all of those people on stage, we genuinely don’t know what most of them would do if faced with similar circumstances.

That discordance goes well beyond the eight people standing on that stage, though. To this day, few of the people that should have straight answers do.

Trump was supposed to have a press conference this week where he laid out absolute proof of his claims about voter fraud in Georgia. This newsletter is not about that press conference because it didn’t happen. On Truth Social, he said he intends to instead offer the proof in “formal legal filings.” I guess we’ll have to keep waiting.

It’s hard to get a straight answer from most Republican leaders about their 2020 views, even when the stakes are low.

This week, for example, Donald Palmer, a Republican commissioner with the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, appointed by Trump, participated in a Twitter Spaces event aimed at poll worker recruitment that, for some reason, was titled “How to Stop the Steal.” So I emailed the agency with a straightforward question: “Does Commissioner Donald Palmer believe the 2020 election was stolen?”

It took three separate emails and two days of prompting to get a sort-of straight answer:

“The EAC Commissioners believe that U.S. elections are secure and fair.”

Oh.

It’s not great that most Republican candidates and some sitting officials don’t have straightforward answers to straightforward questions about a nearly three-year-old event. And now that 2024 is staring us straight in the face, it’s even more unnerving to hear mealymouthed answers about the previous presidential election.

Pence was right when he characterized his actions on Jan. 6 as a decisive moment of leadership that those seeking similar positions of power should articulate a stance on. He is one of the few willing to do such a thing.

And that matters, because post-2020 America has a completely new type of political crisis — an election crisis — that could emerge to test a president. Remember the famous Hillary Clinton ad about the 3 a.m. phone call, and who would be prepared to answer it? Right now, it’s hard to tell.

This week’s history lesson is more of a PSA: 50,000 women in Boston registered in 1920 after the 19th Amendment was ratified, and now we can meet them. Reports WBUR: “Evidence of that historic moment 103 years ago have long been available in the form of 160 volumes of voter registration records in the city’s archives. Now, a team of archivists and transcribers are digitizing them and making the records searchable as part of the Mary Eliza Project: Boston Women Voters in 1920.” The project is named for Mary Eliza Mahona, considered to be the first formally trained Black nurse in the United States and one of the first women who registered in the city, at the age of 76.

From Votebeat Arizona: Arizona pilot for secure ballot paper won’t move forward as planned

From Votebeat Michigan: People leaving prisons in Michigan would get information on how to register to vote under proposed bill

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Election officials told the truth — and now Trump is being held accountable

We’ve waited a long time for something, anything, to happen to the people who organized things behind the scene while rioters barreled up the steps of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

It is easier to charge someone with a straightforward crime — like, say, breaking into the U.S. Capitol and assaulting police — than to bring charges such as the ones brought against former President Donald Trump this week. .

It’s his third indictment, but the most resonant.

If you’ve run into me at a conference or a meeting or a panel it won’t come as a surprise to you that I have a lot of feelings. And so perhaps it won’t surprise many of you that when this indictment came down, despite more or less expecting it, I felt overmatched by this moment.

For the last two years at Votebeat, and several years before that as a reporter elsewhere, I’ve watched the actions election administrators – underpaid, overworked and beat down – took to make sure this country could continue to function in the wake of the actions laid out in this indictment. And now, as the indictment makes clear, that truth-telling has been elevated to its highest importance: It is being used to establish that the former president of the United States used lies about the election to commit actual crimes.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment lists eight categories of officials, agencies, and institutions — among them the president’s most trusted sources and closest allies — who repeatedly told him his rigged-election claims were false and misinformed. It includes Republican state legislators and state officials like governors and secretaries of state who used facts to defend the successful elections their states pulled off in 2020. Without these multiple layers of truth-telling, it may have been much harder to build the case against Trump.

Of course, Trump isn’t the only person being held accountable. In Michigan over the last two weeks, nearly 20 people have been charged with election-related crimes. And other legal dramas that have played out in the two years since Jan. 6 — like Dominion’s extremely successful defamation suit against Fox News — had already made clear how crucial these contributions from election officials were to ensuring accountability. But these charges are different.

This 45-page indictment is among the most consequential indictments ever filed in the history of this country: It makes the case that a former president of the United States was the leader of a massive conspiracy to overturn the will of the American people. It will have profound, reverberating effects on our future, and it solidifies the importance of the contributions local and state officials made to getting us here.

Unfortunately, many of the people most responsible for our ability to overcome the attempt to overturn the government on Jan. 6 are no longer in office, having been replaced by people who may not make the same choices. Rusty Bowers lost a bid for the state Senate in Arizona, for example, to state Sen. David Farnsworth, who criticized Bowers for refusing to help Trump. Countless election administrators across the country have been removed or forced out, and replaced with individuals who may not be as brave in the face of similar demands.

And there will be similar demands! Trump, who pleaded not guilty on Thursday, is, if anything, ratcheting up the anger and ferocity as these indictments play out. He has demanded loyalty, accused the indictments of being political hit jobs aimed at destroying his 2024 candidacy, and is actively seeking revenge in the form of baseless investigations and impeachments. Other candidates are following the path he laid down.

“The Republicans are very high class,” Trump recently told the crowd during a rally in Erie, Pa. “You’ve got to get a little bit lower class.”

I don’t have to tell you that an indictment won’t solve these problems. I also don’t have to tell you that things are likely to get worse before they get better: the push for hand-counting paper ballots, the angry battles over control of elections, the rampant abuse of public records requests by bad-faith actors, and the baseless lawsuits that demand so much taxpayer money are ongoing proof that his message is still resonating.

We’d like to hear from you about your reaction to this indictment. Email me and let me know if you feel vindicated, or you still feel like you’re fighting a losing battle. Let me know how your voters are reacting to this indictment, and what questions it’s raised for them about election administration in 2024.

We’re hopping across the pond for this week’s history section to introduce you to Irish suffragette Mary Molony (which is frequently misspelled as “Malony”). In 1908, she became famous throughout the United Kingdom while she followed Winston Churchill — who was running to regain a seat in Parliament — around on the campaign trail and rang a large bell every time he spoke. She would demand he apologize for insulting the suffrage movement, and when he refused to do so, she would drown him out as he continued with his planned speeches. On May 9, 1908, the London Evening News ran an article about a run-in between the two titled, “A Speech Spoiled: Miss Molony’s Successful Interruption of the Liberal Candidate.” It reads in part, “For some time Mr. Churchill struggled good-humouredly against the bell, but at last he gave up the effort in despair, saying, ‘If she thinks that is a reasonable argument she may use it. I don’t care. I bid you good afternoon.’”

From Votebeat Pennsylvania: Why Trump’s “fake electors” in Pennsylvania are likely to avoid prosecution

From Votebeat Michigan: Michigan trio indicted in voting machine breaches. Clerks and experts say it’s a warning for others.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Trump campaign officials started pressuring Georgia's secretary of state long before the election

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Long before Republican senators began publicly denouncing how Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger handled the voting there, he withstood pressure from the campaign of Donald Trump to endorse the president for reelection.

Raffensperger, a Republican, declined an offer in January to serve as an honorary co-chair of the Trump campaign in Georgia, according to emails reviewed by ProPublica. He later rejected GOP requests to support Trump publicly, he and his staff said in interviews. Raffensperger said he believed that, because he was overseeing the election, it would be a conflict of interest for him to take sides. Around the country, most secretaries of state remain officially neutral in elections.

The attacks on his job performance are “clear retaliation," Raffensperger said. “They thought Georgia was a layup shot Republican win. It is not the job of the secretary of state's office to deliver a win — it is the sole responsibility of the Georgia Republican Party to get out the vote and get its voters to the polls. That is not the job of the secretary of state's office."

Leading the push for Raffensperger's endorsement was Billy Kirkland, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign who was a key manager of its Georgia operations. Kirkland burst uninvited into a meeting in Raffensperger's office in the late spring that was supposed to be about election procedures and demanded that the secretary of state endorse Trump, according to Raffensperger and two of his staffers.

When reached by phone, Kirkland directed the request for comment to the Trump campaign, which did not respond. The White House and the Georgia Republican Party also did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Joe Biden has been projected as the winner of the presidential election in Georgia by a margin of roughly 14,000 votes. The state is now conducting a hand recount at the Trump campaign's request. Raffensperger's office has said that the recount won't swing enough votes to tip the state into Trump's column.

As the Georgia results have become increasingly clear, Republicans have unleashed intense criticism on the secretary of state's office, accusing it without evidence of mismanaging the election and allowing Biden to carry the state by fraudulent means. Georgia's U.S. senators, Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, both of whom failed to win majorities for reelection on Nov. 3 and face Democratic opponents in January runoffs, called for Raffensperger's resignation. All of the Republicans representing Georgia in Congress also signed a letter sent to Raffensperger's office from the personal email account of the chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Earl “Buddy" Carter, criticizing the office for a series of supposed irregularities.

Rep. Doug Collins, who recently lost a bid for Loeffler's Senate seat, has been particularly vocal. On Monday, Collins tweeted, “In a year of political division in Georgia, few things have unified Republicans and Democrats — one of them is Brad Raffensperger's incompetence as Secretary of State." Raffensperger has reserved some of his sharpest responses for Collins, calling him a “failed candidate" and a “liar" on social media.

On Monday, The Washington Post reported that Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, had phoned Raffensperger to see if the secretary of state had the authority to toss out legally cast ballots. Graham has said that he was simply asking how the process works. Two members of Raffensperger's staff who were on the call told ProPublica that the secretary of state's account was accurate and that they were appalled by Graham's request.

Raffensperger said that the Trump campaign “scapegoated" him. Its contention that he ineffectively managed the election amounts to “hot air and hyperbole," he said. “In Georgia, it is not new to see failed candidates claim fraud or suppression. At the end of the day, the Trump campaign's messaging didn't resonate with 50% plus one of the voters."

The campaign's formal efforts to gain the secretary of state's endorsement began on Jan. 10, when Kirkland emailed Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs, assuming that Raffensperger would welcome the opportunity to serve in an unofficial role. “We are getting ready to release the campaign's statewide leadership team and wanted to make sure you were good to be listed as an honorary co-chair?" he wrote, according to an email obtained by ProPublica. At the direction of Raffensperger, Fuchs declined.

“It is our standard practice not to endorse any candidate. This policy is not directed at any specific candidate, but all candidates, as the Secretary oversees elections and the implementation of new voting machines here in Georgia," she wrote.

Kirkland has a long history in Georgia Republican politics. He has also worked for the Trump White House — first in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and then for Vice President Mike Pence. He left the White House in the fall of 2019 to become a Georgia-based senior adviser to the Trump campaign. He also serves as a senior adviser to Pence's leadership PAC. FEC filings show that Kirkland is paid for consulting by the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. Loeffler hired Kirkland to be her campaign manager in January.

It's not unusual for candidates to ask for the endorsement of state elected officials, including secretaries of state, said veteran Republican elections attorney Ben Ginsberg. “But usually, campaigns accept the answer they are given if they know how to behave," Ginsberg said.

The Trump campaign did not accept Raffensperger's refusal. After Raffensperger announced that his office would mail absentee ballot applications to every registered voter in the state ahead of its June primary, a move opposed by the Trump campaign, the executive director of the Georgia Republican Party, Stewart Bragg, requested a meeting. He told Raffensperger's staff that he wanted to discuss election law and outstanding public records requests for voter data filed by the party.

Kirkland crashed the meeting shortly after it began. “A lot of people have noticed you didn't endorse," he said, according to two staffers. Raffensperger again made clear that any endorsements were against office policy, he told ProPublica.

Raffensperger had to leave the meeting early for another event. When the meeting came to a close, one of his staffers offered to continue the conversations at a later date and asked if there was any additional publicly available voter data that the party needed. “We'll see how helpful you are in November," Kirkland said, before leaving the office and slamming the door behind him, according to the staffers.

Trump has repeatedly and baselessly questioned the Georgia results on Twitter, accusing both the secretary of state's office and Republican Gov. Brian Kemp — a Trump loyalist who, unlike Raffensperger, did agree to be an honorary campaign co-chair — of coordinating with activist and former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams to make Georgia's elections less secure.

“The Consent Decree signed by the Georgia Secretary of State, with the approval of Governor \@BrianKempGA, at the urging of \@staceyabrams, makes it impossible to check & match signatures on ballots and envelopes, etc. They knew they were going to cheat. Must expose real signatures!" Trump tweeted over the weekend.

Nothing about the consent decree — which was aimed at addressing the disparity in signature matches among racial groups — prevents clerks from verifying signatures. Raffensperger said his office has repeatedly and publicly explained the process for signature matches, and he laughed at the idea that he would coordinate with Abrams, who has criticized his office over issues such as long lines at the polls in minority neighborhoods in prior elections.

Trump and the Republican legislators have pressed their allegations even as the National Republican Senatorial Committee has distributed talking points implicitly acknowledging that Biden won the election, according to an internal memo obtained by ProPublica. That message contrasts with what Trump, his campaign and his administration are telling supporters.

The memo was circulated last week among Georgia field staff, who are preparing for two runoff elections in January that will determine which party controls the upper chamber. It contains a series of “key" talking points directed at prospective voters. One says that the Democratic candidates, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, “are funded by out of state liberals because they'll be a rubber stamp for their radical agenda to defund the police, open our borders, and pack the courts." Another states that, should Warnock and Ossoff get elected, “Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi will have the votes they need to transform our country into a socialist state."

The talking points omit any mention of Biden, but none of the outcomes outlined by the NRSC, which did not respond to requests for comment, would be possible with a Republican president.

Raffensperger expressed frustration at the lack of action by Republicans from the White House down to proactively address issues of election integrity. “If Trump and Collins were concerned about voter fraud, they would have proposed and passed legislation to fix it." Instead, he said, “they did nothing, absolutely nothing."

Filed under:

Trump's call for an 'army' of poll watchers is falling flat so far

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Donald Trump Jr. looked straight into a camera at the end of September as triumphant music rose in a crescendo. “The radical left are laying the groundwork to steal this election from my father," he said. “We cannot let that happen. We need every able-bodied man and woman to join the army for Trump's election security operation."

It was an echo of what his father, President Donald Trump, has said in both of his presidential campaigns. At a September campaign rally in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, the president encouraged his audience to be poll watchers. “Watch all the thieving and stealing and robbing they do," he said. “Because this is important."

But the poll-watching army that the Trumps have tried to rally hasn't materialized. Although there's no official data, election officials across the country say that they have seen relatively few Republican poll watchers during early voting, and that at times Democratic poll watchers have outnumbered the GOP's. In Colorado and Nevada, where the Trump campaign was particularly active in recruiting poll watchers, its efforts largely petered out.

Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state in Georgia, ­a swing state experiencing a record voter turnout, said both county governments and political parties can supply poll watchers in Georgia. Most are showing up in Fulton County, whose seat is Atlanta.

“I am receiving reports of a few thousand poll watchers from a variety of left-leaning groups. There are very few poll watchers from right-leaning groups," she said. “The Trump campaign is simply calling for additional poll watchers because they know there is a dearth of right-leaning poll watchers."

Although Kentucky election law doesn't allow for poll watchers, the parties can have registered “challengers" at the polls on Election Day whose only job is to challenge a voter's eligibility. In Fayette County, home of Lexington, Republicans have submitted only seven names of challengers while Democrats have submitted 117. Don Blevins Jr., the clerk in the county, says he doesn't know how many will actually show up on Tuesday.

“Only in recent years have campaigns thought about doing this, and then rarely followed through," he said.

In Williamson County, Texas, a swing county just north of Austin, election administrator Christopher Davis said that the few poll watchers there were mostly sent by a local conservative activist who promotes unfounded claims of voter fraud. When the county opened up its central count office this past weekend to process mailed ballots, only one poll watcher showed. The watcher, Davis said, was from the Trump campaign and behaved according to the rules.

“Maybe we're just lucky in WilCo," Davis said.

Several Trump supporters in Arizona said they volunteered to be poll watchers, but there was no follow-up. “I actually signed up twice because I never heard from them. I never was contacted, and I signed up almost two months ago," said Lynne Berreman, who lives in Phoenix. “Hopefully it's because they already have enough people."

A late October lawsuit by Nevada's Republican Party tacitly acknowledged that the GOP's poll watching operation there was ineffective. The party sued Clark County, home of Las Vegas, in an effort to stop the counting of mail-in ballots until “meaningful observation" was allowed. The suit alleged that poll watchers were not allowed to be close enough to the counting process to do their jobs. A state court judge denied the request for a temporary injunction hours after it was filed.

Despite the small number of official poll watchers, unauthorized Trump supporters at times have shown up and behaved aggressively at polling places and drop boxes, according to tips received by Electionland.

The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The paucity of Republican poll watchers doesn't necessarily reflect a lack of enthusiasm for the candidate. In fact, avid supporters may prefer more vocal or demonstrative ways of expressing their views than watching polls all day. Trump's cries for help in the prevention of fraud make the poll watcher's role seem far more dramatic and consequential than it actually is. More than 20 Trump campaign training videos for poll watchers, reviewed by ProPublica, make clear the mundane nature of the task, encouraging volunteers to be on time, to bring a water bottle, to not interact with voters and to be respectful “even to our Democratic friends!"

Poll watching “is like watching paint dry," said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, specializing in elections. “If you're waiting for the busloads of fraud to arise, and what you get is small American-flag-waving democracy, you begin to go out of your head. It's like sitting in a field waiting for the UFOs and the UFOs never show up. And then you're just sitting in a field, which is fine for a couple hours, but polls are open about 15 hours a day."

Analysts say that the president and his staff may not believe their own predictions of a poll-watching army, but that they may be raising the specter to deter Democratic voters from going to the polls. The campaigns also want people to sign up to be poll watchers, even if they don't actually follow through, because their contact information helps identify potential donors.

Bob Bauer, the attorney for the campaign of former Vice President Joe Biden, said the Trump campaign is betting on scaring voters into staying home to avoid confrontation. But, he said, that tactic appears to have backfired, as young people and other likely Democratic voters have flocked to the polls during early voting.

Democrats have their own poll-watching strategy, according to campaign insiders. They encourage volunteers to watch not only voters but also Republican poll watchers, and to be on the lookout for any GOP effort to intimidate voters or challenge them without justification.

Poll watchers are common in American democracy and have been a fixture of precincts since the 1800s. In the vast majority of states, the parties or the campaigns are allowed to send trained watchers to each precinct. Poll watchers largely sit silently, taking notes on anything out of the ordinary to report to the party or campaign attorneys. Their job is not to intervene but to observe and serve as witnesses for court cases or challenges if they observe something illegal or inappropriate, said Ben Ginsberg, one of the most well-known Republican election attorneys. Most often, poll watchers report nothing.

This isn't the first Republican campaign with a lot of talk about poll watchers but little action. In 2016, Trump adviser Roger Stone mounted a last-ditch effort only days before Election Day while Trump was down in the polls and threatening not to accept the results of the election. Stone had pledged to recruit 3,000 hand-selected volunteers in a list of cities, but few showed up.

By text, Stone said that his efforts in 2016 were not poll watching but exit polling to ensure the legitimacy of the count and were “entirely independent of the Trump campaign." Litigation lodged by Democratic groups, portraying the effort as a veiled attempt to intimidate voters, hurt his ability to recruit in large numbers, he said.

“Unfortunately defending against extensive litigation and our legal victories sapped our resources so that the number of exit polls conducted fell far below what we had hoped to achieve," he said. Federal courts ultimately ruled that the effort did not constitute voter suppression or intimidation.

Stone was convicted and sentenced to prison time in February for lying to Congress and witness tampering during the House investigation into Russian activity in the 2016 election. In July, the president commuted his sentence and he was released.

In 2008, the conservative group True the Vote, which promotes unfounded allegations of voter fraud, sent hundreds of volunteers to minority neighborhoods around Houston, where the organization is headquartered. In the 2010 midterms, it pledged to mobilize thousands of people to serve as poll watchers. Between 2010 and 2012, True the Vote chapters opened across the country and the organization began preparing a national recruitment effort.

But what happened?

“Long, sad trombone sound," Levitt said. While a few people showed up, and some counties had a larger presence than others, the campaign largely fizzled. “It was nowhere near the all-caps nightmare that it was reportedly supposed to be." True the Vote did not respond to a request for comment.

In 1982, after the New Jersey GOP sent off-duty law enforcement officers to watch voting, the state's Republican Party and the Republican National Committee entered into a consent decree barring them from “ballot security" initiatives. North Carolina's Republican Party was added to the consent decree in 1990. All three parties were released from the consent decree in 2018, raising concerns that the intimidating behavior would start anew. But so far it hasn't.

Every state has different rules for poll watching, though some form of it is generally allowed. In general, parties or candidates register watchers with the county. Volunteers generally must pay their own way to the polling location, and they must be trained and present proof of that training at the polls, where their behavior is intensely restricted. They generally cannot be on their phone, speak to voters or engage in any way with the process, or they may be removed from the polling location.

The result, poll workers say, is rampant boredom. “It was just a really long day," said Zachary Brown, who served as a vote challenger — the equivalent of a poll watcher in Michigan — in Pontiac in 2012 for the conservative group Protecting Michigan Taxpayers. Brown said he saw nothing out of the ordinary. The determination behind the campaign to fish out fraud when there was none was “disheartening," he said, and it led him to turn away from the conservative movement. He hasn't been a poll watcher since and considers himself an independent politically. “All I saw were people voting," he said.

The Trump campaign's poll-watcher efforts this year were more centralized than normal in Colorado, where state Election Day operations manager Joe Samudio took over the task from county party chairs of appointing poll watchers during early voting and on Election Day. Samudio seemed successful in recruiting volunteers but then was reassigned to Minnesota, leaving the program in limbo. Although Colorado sends mail-in ballots to all voters, it also has numerous locations for in-person voting. Poll watchers also can observe counting of ballots whether they're mailed in or cast in person. Samudio did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

“He had all these people and then suddenly he was sent to Minnesota and I didn't hear from anyone else for several days," said Peg Perl, the election director for Arapahoe County in Colorado. She said she did not recall seeing or hearing of any Republican poll watchers during the first week of early voting, while some Democratic poll watchers did show up.

Colorado GOP spokesman Joe Jackson said that the party is currently dispatching watchers in all major counties.

The Trump campaign's frustration over poll watching has boiled over in Nevada. In an early October poll watcher training in Las Vegas, Jesse Law, the Trump campaign's Election Day operations manager, complained to online and in-person trainees that Democratic poll watchers can “get away with anything" but Republicans are heavily watched.

Democrats were there not to ensure the integrity of the vote, as his volunteers would be, but to watch Republicans, Law said in a video obtained by ProPublica. “The problem with the Democrats being at these locations … is they are sent here to destroy your life," he said, saying that they would “make up that we are suppressing the vote."

“They are there to know everything that's on your phone, everything you're writing down, everything about you," he said, looking around the room. Law did not respond to an email asking for comment.

Law emphasized that trainees should not break the law and give Democrats ammunition to use against Trump (whom he called “the boss") in court. “If you are over here going 'that person isn't legal' and that person is completely legal, that's a black eye for us. Don't do that," he said. “If you are seeing a problem, document it, talk to an attorney about it, and let's get to the bottom of it — no spectacles please!"

A lawyer for the conservative Heritage Foundation hosted secret meetings with state election officials — and no Democrats were invited

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Keep reading...Show less

Here's what the post office needs to survive a pandemic election

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Keep reading...Show less

Some Republican secretaries of state are rejecting Trump and conservative think tanks on mail-in voting

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Keep reading...Show less

New York City’s early voting plan will favor white, affluent voters: advocacy groups

An analysis from three advocacy groups has found that New York City’s plan for early voting for the 2020 national elections is grossly inadequate and, as designed, will favor white, affluent voters.

Keep reading...Show less

Trump Voter Fraud Commission Is Sued - by One of Its Own Commissioners

A Democratic member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity filed suit against the commission in federal court in Washington, D.C. on Thursday morning, alleging that its Republican leadership has intentionally excluded him from deliberations and violated federal transparency laws. The commission has been sued more times (eight, including the new filing) than it has officially convened for meetings (two times).

Keep reading...Show less

The Voter Fraud Commission Wants Your Data - But Experts Say They Can’t Keep It Safe

The voter-fraud-checking program championed by the head of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity suffers from data security flaws that could imperil the safety of millions of peoples’ records, according to experts.

Keep reading...Show less

Did a Psychiatric Hospital Lock Up People for Profit?

The investigation started modestly enough — with documents anyone could have seen. Buried amid the public financial records of Universal Health Services, the largest psychiatric hospital chain in America, was a disclosure to its investors: It was under federal investigation.

Keep reading...Show less

Creeping Authoritarianism Alert: Trump's Bogus Commission on Election Integrity Is Now Demanding States' Voter Roll Data

On Wednesday, all 50 states were sent letters from Kris Kobach — vice chair for the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity — requesting information on voter fraud, election security and copies of every state's voter roll data.

Keep reading...Show less

Trump Administration Quietly Rolls Back Civil Rights Efforts Across Federal Government

For decades, the Department of Justice has used court-enforced agreements to protect civil rights, successfully desegregating school systems, reforming police departments, ensuring access for the disabled and defending the religious.

Keep reading...Show less

Donald Trump Is Close to Naming a Right-Wing Talk Show Host to One of the Country's Top Science Posts

The USDA’s research section studies everything from climate change to nutrition. Under the 2008 Farm Bill, its leader is supposed to serve as the agency’s “chief scientist” and be chosen “from among distinguished scientists with specialized or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics.”

Keep reading...Show less

Why More Black Parents Are Homeschooling Their Children

Marvell Robinson was in kindergarten when a classmate poured an anthill on him at the playground. After that, the gibes became sharper: “Why are you that color?” one boy taunted at the swing set, leaving Marvell scared and speechless. The slow build of racial bullying would push his mother, Vanessa Robinson, to pull him from public school in favor of homeschooling.

Keep reading...Show less
BRAND NEW STORIES
@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.