by Jodi L. Miller
Running America’s elections—whether it’s a presidential election, a mid-term election or an off-year election—is a lot of work. Yet, every Election Day election officials and poll workers work diligently to make elections across the country run smoothly.
According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent government agency that serves as a resource for election administration, more than 150,000 polling places across the country were open for the 2022 mid-term elections. Those locations were staffed by more than 600,000 poll workers.
While 600,000 seems like a lot of poll workers, that number is down from previous elections. According to the EAC, 900,000 poll workers were employed for the 2016 presidential election. The number dipped for the 2020 presidential election to 775,000 poll workers when many states had less or no in-person voting mostly because of the impacts from the Covid-19 pandemic. The increase in threats hurled at poll workers and election officials also accounts for the diminished numbers, according to the EAC, and they say those threats are hindering efforts to recruit and retain poll workers for the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
What do poll workers do?
Harrison Clewell, an election law attorney in Newark, New Jersey who focuses his practice on state and local elections, advocacy efforts, and voter protection, explains that election officials and poll workers play important roles in ensuring elections run smoothly but have different responsibilities.
Election officials, Clewell says, help with the entire election process, including setting up and maintaining voting machines, addressing issues at voting locations, and counting votes. Poll workers, on the other hand, are a specific type of election worker, Clewell says, who are focused on tasks at the polling place, specifically on Election Day, such as greeting voters, checking voter information, ensuring voting machines are working properly, and tracking voter turnout.
“Both roles are crucial for maintaining a fair and efficient voting process,” says Clewell.
In some states, poll workers are volunteer positions. Other states pay their poll workers a nominal fee. For example, New Jersey pays its poll workers $300 to work any primary, general or special election. Nebraska is the only state that “drafts” poll workers in a similar system to that of jury duty—randomly drawing on a pool of registered voters to serve on Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
Forty-four states, including New Jersey and the District of Columbia, have Youth Poll Worker Programs, according to NCSL. These programs are intended to provide much needed help on Election Day, and to encourage young people to become engaged citizens and lifelong voters. New Jersey’s Youth Poll Worker Program allows 16-year-olds to serve as poll workers. Maryland’s program has the youngest age limit, allowing 14-year-olds to serve at the polls.
When poll workers are threatened
According to NCSL, states have had problems retaining and recruiting poll workers since 2018, citing inadequate pay and bipartisan balance requirements as reasons. Many states require those working at the polls to be represented equally among the two political parties—Republicans and Democrats. In New Jersey, for instance, the law states: “The members of any district board shall be equally apportioned between the two political parties.”
An NCSL report released in August 2023 stated that bipartisan requirements often hinder poll worker recruitment efforts.
“In some jurisdictions, local election officials can recruit plenty of willing poll workers but struggle to find enough from one party,” the report said. “This problem is felt in both rural communities (where Democrats may be hard to recruit) and large cities (where Republicans may be hard to recruit), especially as more Americans are choosing not to register with a party.”
Currently, independent voters—those not affiliated with either political party—are the largest group of voters in the United States. While independent voters can serve as poll workers, according to NCSL, they “can’t be promoted to supervisory positions,” therefore, “brand-new poll workers may be forced to work as supervisors.”
In a committee meeting in Kansas to discuss broadening the pool of eligible poll workers, one legislator said, “The best way to improve voter confidence is to have them be a poll worker. When you actually see how the process works and all the safeguards that are in place, it really does make you think there is no way to corrupt this. The more people we can get to participate the better.”
The NCSL report also acknowledged that the harassment of election officials and poll workers is contributing to the shortage of qualified applicants.
“During and after the 2020 election, poll workers and election officials were subjected to public and private harassment,” the NCSL report revealed. “As skepticism about the outcome of the presidential election spread among some supporters of then-President Donald Trump, poll workers were accused of crimes, received targeted threats, and had their private information revealed online. This harassment has continued, and local election officials report that it has caused experienced poll workers to quit and potential new recruits to view working the polls as dangerous.”
Clewell says that ensuring the safety and security of everyone involved in the election process is essential for maintaining a strong democracy.
“Safety concerns can deter people from volunteering as poll workers, leading to fewer workers and potential problems such as long lines and confusion on voting day,” he says. “If people feel unsafe or distrustful of the election process, they could lose faith in the system and be less likely to vote. This decrease in voter participation can weaken democracy by limiting the number of voices heard.”
Efforts to protect
According to a May 2024 Brennan Center for Justice poll, 38% of local election officials have “experienced threats, harassment, or abuse for doing their jobs.” In addition, the survey found that “more than one-third of local election officials know at least one person who resigned, at least in part, due to safety concerns.”
In June 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) created the Election Threats Task Force to address the rise in threats against election workers after the 2020 election. The Task Force works with state and local law enforcement, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to assess allegations and reports of threats against election and poll workers. Since its inception, the DOJ says the Task Force has received more than 2,000 reports of threats or harassment from the election community. It has prosecuted 17 cases, winning 13 convictions. Eight of those cases resulted in jail time.
In an article published in the Ohio Capital Journal, Jon Keller of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, said that the low number of convictions is due to free speech concerns.
“A true threat is a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence,” Keller said. “If they [those making the threat] don’t cross that line into invoking violence, they are generally not going to constitute a criminally prosecutable threat.”
According to the NCSL report, 18 states have enacted laws that address protections for election officials and poll workers. Maine, for instance, requires election workers to take classes in de-escalation tactics. Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington allow election officials to make their addresses confidential. In addition, 10 states criminalize intimidation and/or interference with election workers, with a conviction garnering either a fine or jail time.
An incident in Georgia
The most high-profile case of election workers being threatened occurred in Georgia after the 2020 presidential election. After the election had been called for then candidate Joe Biden, former President Donald J. Trump and members of his inner circle, including his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, began spreading unfounded rumors that massive voter fraud had occurred during the election. In particular, they targeted the vote count in the Peach State where Biden had won by a thin margin—around 12,000 votes. Two separate recounts still had Biden winning the state.
Then, a video of Fulton County, Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss doing their jobs started making the rounds on the internet. The Trump campaign, particularly Giuliani, contended that the video showed the mother and daughter handling “a suitcase full of fraudulent ballots” and “exchanging a USB drive” which he said was proof that they were manipulating votes.
After an investigation, it was determined that Freeman and Moss had not done anything wrong and there was no voter fraud committed in Georgia. The “suitcase” was a state-issued ballot box that was used every year, and the “USB drive” was actually a ginger mint that Freeman had given to Moss to soothe her sore throat.
The conspiracy theory took hold nonetheless and was perpetuated by Giuliani even after the investigation turned up nothing. The mother and daughter, as well as other family members, received threats on Facebook, via email and by phone. Their addresses were posted online, and people showed up at their homes to harass them.
Freeman received more than 400 threats, including an email that said, “We are coming for you and your family. Ms. Ruby, the safest place for you right now is in prison. Or you will swing from trees.” She was forced to flee her home for two months after FBI agents told her she was no longer safe. Hours after Freeman fled, a mob surrounded her home. The date was January 6, 2021—the same day that Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol.
In December 2023, Freeman and Moss sued Giuliani for defamation and won. The jury ordered Giuliani to pay more than $33 million in defamation damages, $40 million in damages for infliction of emotional distress, and $75 million in punitive damages for a total of $148 million.
Discussion Questions
- Why do you think there has been an uptick in threats to election workers? Do you think the DOJ is doing enough to protect them? Explain your answer.
- What do you think about bipartisan balance requirements at polling places? What are the benefits and drawbacks of having such requirements?
- Should independent voters be allowed to serve in supervisory positions if qualified? Why or why not?
- Read the sidebar When Poll Watching Leads to Voter Intimidation. The role of poll watcher dates back to the 1800s when voting was not private and voter fraud was rampant. Do you think that poll watchers are still needed today? Why or why not.
BONUS CONTENT
When Poll Watching Leads to Voter Intimidation
What is the difference between a poll worker and a poll watcher? According to Harrison Clewell, an election law attorney in Newark, a poll worker assists voters at polling places, ensuring they can vote easily.
“In contrast, poll watchers observe the voting process to ensure it is conducted fairly and without any cheating,” Clewell says. “Poll watchers, also known as ‘challengers,’ play a significant role in election integrity by making sure rules are followed.”
In New Jersey, Clewell says, poll watchers must be authorized by a candidate, political party, or political organization. They must stay in a designated area where they can observe without interfering and report any issues they see to the proper authorities, such as the election official in charge.
In general, poll watchers are appointed by political parties or specific candidates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures; however, the requirements vary by state. For instance, in New Jersey political parties may appoint two challengers per election district. A New Jersey candidate may also serve as a challenger/poll watcher or appoint two challengers for each district.
History of poll watchers
According to a video titled Poll Watchers and the Long History of Voter Intimidation, produced by The New Yorker, poll watchers have played a part in U.S. elections since the 1800s.
In the video, Gideon Cohn-Postar, a fellow with the Mitchell Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of Pennsylvania, explains that in America during the 19th Century voting took place out in the open. “Everyone could see who you were voting for and in that environment, the polls became a really raucous place,” Professor Cohn-Postar said in the video. “Violence and intimidation at the polls ranged from verbal threats to outright gunplay and stabbings.”
That’s when poll watchers came into play. According to Professor Cohn-Postar, official poll watchers were appointed to make sure that no fraud or intimidation was taking place; however, unofficial poll watching also took place and developed into voter intimidation.
“There is one famous case where a group of people, white intimidators, came out to a predominantly black area, stood around the polls with guns and claimed that they were deputy U.S. marshals there to ensure the safety of the polls,” Professor Cohn-Postar recounts in the video. “They threatened and scared off about 175 Black voters.”
Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California who also participated in the video, said when poll watching is done right, it serves an important function.
“We want our elections to be transparent. We want to know that eligible voters will not be disenfranchised, that ineligible voters are not being allowed to vote,” Professor Hasen said. “This [poll watching] is a regular thing in all elections throughout the world. The problem is when it crosses the line into intimidation and harassment.”—Jodi L. Miller
Glossary Words
bipartisan — supported by two political parties.
conviction— the result of a criminal trial where the accused or defendant is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
defamation — a deliberate false statement, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another person’s reputation.
disenfranchise — to deprive of a privilege or right.
punitive damages—damages that exceed simple compensation and usually awarded to punish a defendant in a civil case.
true threat—a threatening communication that can be prosecuted under the law.
This article originally appeared in the Special 2024 Election Edition of The Legal Eagle.