bullies - demoswalter for assistance with drafting; common cause legal interns peter klym and jesse...

Bulliesat the Ballot Box

Protecting the Freedom to Vote against Wrongful Challenges

and Intimidation

by: l I z k e n n e dy, S t e P h e n S Pau l d I n g , t o Va Wa n g ,

J e n n y F l a n a g a n and

a n t h o n y k a m m e r

100 dĒ moS BrIeF | August 2012

D ē m o s is a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization founded in 2000. Headquartered in New York City, Demos works with policymakers around the country in pursuit of four overarching goals—a more equitable economy with widely shared prosperity and opportunity; a vibrant and inclusive democracy with high levels of voting and civic engagement; an empowered public sector that works for the common good; and responsible U.S. engagement in an interdependent world.

C o m m o n C a u s e is a nonpartisan nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest. Gardner announced the formation of Common Cause in newspaper ads asking Americans to join the organization. Within six months, more than 100,000 people responded. Now with nearly 400,000 members and supporters and 38 state organizations, Common Cause remains the nation’s largest organization committed to honest, open and accountable government, as well as encouraging citizen participation in democracy.

a C k n o w l e D g e m e n t sThe authors would like to thank Demos Vice President for Legal Strategies Brenda Wright for her indefatigable support and extensive contributions; Director of National Voting Integrity Campaign Common Cause Susannah Goodman, Demos Vice President of Policy & Research Tamara Draut, Common Cause Vice President for State Operations Karen Hobert Flynn, and Common Cause Vice President for Programs Arn Pearson for input on drafts; Common Cause Staff Counsel Nick Surgey and Common Cause Legal Intern Zachary Walter for assistance with drafting; Common Cause Legal Interns Peter Klym and Jesse Overall for research assistance; Demos Communications Associate Anny Pycior, Mary Boyle, Common Cause Vice President for Communications & Dale Eisman, Common Cause Senior Researcher. for communications outreach. This report benefitted from research generously provided by Project Vote. This report relied in part on the generous support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open Society Foundations, and the Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund.

The authors thank the following individuals for their assistance and input. Of course, these acknowledgements do not reflect the endorsement of any particular individual or governmental entity.

Chris Cate, Office of the Florida Department of StateRichard Coolidge, Office of the Colorado Secretary of StateCraig Forbes, Office of the Ohio Secretary of StateScott Gilles, Office of the Nevada Secretary of StateRichard Lamb, Office of the Missouri Secretary of StateDonald Palmer, Virginia State Board of ElectionsAlicia Phillips Pierce, Office of the Texas Secretary of StateDon Wright, North Carolina State Board of Elections

Joan Ashwell, League of Women Voters of New HampshireJulie Ebenstein, American Civil Liberties Union of FloridaMaureen Haver, Common Cause TexasElena Nunez, Executive Colorado Common CauseBob Phillips, Common Cause North CarolinaElizabeth Steele, Just Vote! Colorado Election Protection, Colorado Common CauseCatherine Turcer, Common Cause Ohio

taBle oF ContentsexeCutive summary 1Overview 1Findings 2

glossary 3

introDuCtion 4Wrongful Challenges and Intimidation in 2012: Reasons for Concern 4Voter Intimidation and Harassment Is Illegal 5History of Wrongful Challenges and Intimidation 6

state l aws on Challenging registereD voters BeForeeleCtion Day & voter Caging PraCtiCes 8 Colorado 8 North Carolina 13 Florida 9 Ohio 14 Missouri 10 Pennsylvania 15 Nevada 11 Texas 16 New Hampshire 12 Virginia 16r e C o m m e n d at I o n SF o r a d d r e S S I n g C a g I n g & P r e-e l e C t I o n d ay C h a l l e n g e S 17

state l aws on Challenging registereD voterson eleCtion Day & Poll watCher Behavior 18 Colorado 18 North Carolina 22 Florida 19 Ohio 23 Missouri 19 Pennsylvania 24 Nevada 20 Texas 25 New Hampshire 21 Virginia 26r e C o m m e n d at I o n S F o r a d d r e S S I n g e l e C t I o n d ay C h a l l e n g e S a n d P o l l Wat C h e r S 26

state l aws aDDressing voter intimiDation,insiDe & outsiDe the Polls 28 Colorado 28 North Carolina 29 Florida 28 Ohio 29 Missouri 28 Pennsylvania 30 Nevada 29 Texas 30 New Hampshire 29 Virginia 30r e C o m m e n d at I o n Sr e l at e d t o S tat e V o t e r I n t I m I d at I o n l aW S 30

ConClusion 32

Side BarsKicking You Off the Rolls: Florida 2012 Purge 10 Kicking You When You’re Down: Targeting voters in foreclosure proceedings 12 Kicking You When You’re Young: Targeting student voters 13 After Trouble: Ohio makes improvements 14 After Trouble: Missouri tries to get it right 20 Trouble in Texas: The need for enforcement 25Trouble in North Carolina: The need for enforcement 29 Appendices1. State Laws Governing Pre-Election Day Challenges 33 2. State Laws Governing Election Day Challenges 38 3. State Laws Governing Poll Watchers and Poll Observers 44 4. State Laws Addressing Voter Intimidation, Inside and Outside the Polls 51

Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012

September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 1

exeCutIVe Summary

P rotecting the freedom to vote for all eligible Americans is of fundamental importance in a democracy founded upon the consent of the governed. One of the most serious threats to the protection of

that essential right is the increase in organized efforts, led by groups such as the Tea Party affiliated True the Vote and others, to challenge voters’ eligibility at the polls and through pre-election challenges. Eligible Americans have a civic duty to vote, and government at the federal, state, and local level has a responsibility to protect voters from illegal interference and intimidation. As we approach the 2012 elections, every indication is that we will see an unprecedented use of voter challenges. Organizers of True the Vote claim their goal is to train one million poll watchers to challenge and confront other Americans as they go to the polls in November. They say they want to make the experience of voting “like driving and seeing the police following you.”1 There is a real danger that voters will face overzealous volunteers who take the law into their own hands to target voters they deem suspect. But there is no place for bullies at the ballot box. Even in states with clear legal boundaries for challengers and poll watchers, too often these boundaries are crossed. Laws intended to ensure voting integrity are instead used to make it harder for eligible citizens to vote – particularly those in communities of color. Moreover, the laws of many

states fall short when it comes to preventing improper voter caging and challenges. This should concern anyone who wants a fair election with a legitimate result that reflects the choices of all eligible Americans. Clear rules that protect voters from improper removal from the rolls by voter caging and challenging, as well as from intimidating behavior at the polls, can help prevent interference with voter rights. This report describes the threat posed by potential voter challenges in the 2012 elections, and assesses the extent to which ten key states — Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia — are prepared to protect the rights of eligible voters to cast a ballot in the face of such challenges. The ten states examined here include states where races are expected to be competitive, which makes voters in those states particularly vulnerable to challenges. We also survey states where a history of aggressive voter challenge programs in recent elections threatened to intimidate voters or interfere with their access to the ballot.

o v e r v i e wThis report first provides background on the current threat of overly aggressive voter challenge tactics and the history of such efforts in previous elections. The report then details what is permissible and legal when it comes to challenging a voter’s eligibility, both before and on Election Day and inside and outside the polling place. We analyze laws in ten states governing:

they say they want to make the experience of voting “like driving and seeing the police following you.”

2 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012

•The process for challenging a registered voter’s right to vote before Election Day and the use of voter caging lists;•The process for challenging a registered voter’s right

to vote on Election Day;•The behavior of poll watchers or observers at the

polls on Election Day; and•Protections for voters against intimidation, outside

and inside the polls.

The report measures the extent to which each state’s laws protects voters’ rights in these areas, and assesses them in a set of comparative charts as satisfactory, mixed, or unsatisfactory. Each section includes recommendations for best practices in each of the areas we examine.2

F i n D i n g sIn examining the ten states’ laws governing challenges to voters’ right to vote before Election Day, including the use of voter lists created through caging or other unreliable practices, we find Colorado, Nevada, and Ohio are satisfactory, North Carolina and Texas are mixed, and Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia - five out of the ten states - unsatisfactory.3

In assessing these states’ laws governing challenges to voter’s right to vote on Election Day, and procedures for determining those challenges, we find that while some of the ten states have practices that protect voters’ rights, other states need improvement.4

•Texas does not allow for any voter challenges on Election Day, and Ohio only allows challenges by election officials; Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina also have satisfactory protections for voters from improper Election Day challenges.•Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia have laws that are

mixed, with some provisions that protect voters’ rights but also room for improvement.•Florida and Pennsylvania have laws with

unsatisfactory protections to guard against inappropriate Election Day challenges to voter eligibility.

Our analysis of these states’ laws governing poll watchers or observers and their conduct at the polls shows they are also mixed in the extent to which they protect voters’ rights. The laws of Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia are satisfactory; Florida, Missouri, and New Hampshire are mixed. However, Pennsylvania and Texas allow behavior by poll observers or poll watchers that could endanger voting rights.5

We also summarize these states’ laws protecting voters from intimidation, both outside and inside the polls. State and federal laws barring intimidation of voters can be used to protect voters from harassment.6 However, the efficacy of these protections depends on robust enforcement by election administrators and law enforcement officials. We call upon election administrators and officials with the Department of Justice to take steps in advance of and during the elections to protect voters from bullying at the ballot box. Our intent is to help minimize the level of activity that moves from positive civic engagement to voter intimidation and suppression. There must be zero tolerance for bullying behavior that stands between an eligible voter and her ballot.


gloSSary

Caging – the practice of compiling a list of voters based on returned mail for the purpose of challenging their eligibility to vote. A caging list is compiled by conducting a mass-mailing and collecting the names of voters where the mail was returned. Lists may also be built by comparing different databases. Although many caging lists contain inaccuracies or are based on unreliable data, the list is often used to purge voters from registration rolls, or to challenge voters’ eligibility.

Challenge – a formal assertion that a person is not eligible to vote. Depending on the state, challenges may be made during a pre-election period or made in person on Election Day. States vary in terms of who may challenge a voter’s eligibility and the process for determining a voter’s eligibility once it is challenged. The potential for abusing voter challenges is high, particularly where organized groups seek electoral gain.

Challenger – anyone who challenges a voter’s eligibility to vote, whether on or before Election Day. Many states allow any registered voter in the appropriate jurisdiction to serve as a challenger, whereas other states have specific criteria and an official process for designating challengers.

DeCePtive PraCtiCes – the intentional dissemination of false or misleading information about the voting process in order to prevent an eligible voter from casting a ballot, such as by providing misinformation about when or where to vote.

eleCtioneering – the act of campaigning for a particular candidate, issue, or party. Most states prohibit electioneering on Election Day in the area near the entrance to the polling place.

Poll watCher – a person, generally appointed by a candidate or a political party, authorized to observe the implementation of Election Day procedures at a polling place. In some jurisdictions, poll watchers are referred to as poll monitors or observers. States have different rules governing what these individuals can and can’t do inside the polling place.

Provisional Ballot – a ballot used to record a vote when election officials cannot determine a voter’s eligibility or qualifications to vote on Election Day. A provisional ballot will be counted only if the voter’s eligibility or qualifications are verified within a prescribed time after Election Day, through a process that may vary from state to state. In some states, individuals who are challenged on Election Day may be required to use provisional ballots. Provisional ballots often are not counted.

Purging – when done properly, purging is the process of removing dead or ineligible voters from the voter roll so as to comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Sometimes, purging leads to eligible voters being improperly removed from the registration rolls, for instance by using caging lists to remove names based on flawed data and inaccurate procedures.

voter intimiDation – the use of threats, coercion, harassment or other improper tactics to interfere with the free exercise of the right to vote. Violence or the threat of violence is universally recognized as illegal forms of voter intimidation. There are significant differences across states as to which forms of non-physical voter confrontation and challenges rise to the level of intimidation or are otherwise unlawful. Many states prohibit private citizens or poll watchers from confronting or challenging voters within the polling place and/or making video, audio, and photographic recordings of voters within or around the polling place, or, more generally, from interfering with the proper conduct of the election.


IntroduCtIon

e lections in America should be free, fair, and accessible. Eligible Americans should not have to overcome burdensome barriers to cast their ballots. Unfortunately voters in recent elections have encountered wrongful

challenges and intimidation as partisan groups have launched organized efforts in key battleground states and targeted counties. Given the high stakes, voter challenges also are expected to be a major tool used by partisans in the November 2012 elections. Unwarranted challenges to voters’ eligibility can lead to problems at the polls for everyone seeking to cast a ballot by depleting resources, distracting election administrators and leading to longer lines for voters. Such activities present a real danger to the fair administration of elections and to the fundamental freedom to vote.

w r o n g F u l C h a l l e n g e s a n D i n t i m i D at i o n i n 2012: r e a s o n s F o r C o n C e r nAlthough voter challenges have been used for decades by partisans seeking electoral advantage,7 a new threat emerged in 2010 when an organized and well-funded Texas-based organization with defined partisan interests, the King Street Patriots, through its project True the Vote, was observed intimidating voters at multiple polling locations serving communities of color during early voting in Harris County.8 Members of this

Tea Party-affiliated group reportedly interfered with voters — allegedly watching them vote, “hovering over” voters, blocking lines, and engaging in confrontational conversations with election workers.9 Under Texas law, poll watchers are not allowed even to speak to a voter. These activities have not been limited to Texas. In a 2011 special election in Massachusetts, a Tea Party group was reported to have harassed Latino voters and others at the polls in Southbridge, Massachusetts. The Southbridge town clerk protested these actions, reporting that targeted voters left saying, “I’ll never vote again,” while a retired judge witnessed “citizens coming from their voting experience shaken or in tears.”10

In the June 2012 Wisconsin recall election, many students reported being challenged by True the Vote poll watchers, as the organization even mocked the students on Twitter.11 The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board issued a statement saying “in recent elections we have received disturbing reports and complaints about unacceptable, illegal behavior by observers. Voters expect a calm setting in which to exercise their right to vote.”12

Now active in 30 states, True the Vote has made it clear that it intends to ratchet up its activities in 2012.13 The group is coordinating efforts throughout the country to purge the voter rolls, issue citizen challenges to registrations based on its own criteria and

“In recent elections we have received disturbing reports and complaints about unacceptable, illegal behavior by observers.”


recruit poll watchers for Election Day. At its annual 2012 conference, leadership of the group announced that it “anticipates training 1 million poll watchers around the country for this year’s election.”14 In itself the training of poll watchers might not be worrisome, but the inflammatory language used to inspire this group of volunteer activists makes it so. For instance, True the Vote’s founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, has said “we see again with this administration . . . it’s just stunning the assault on our elections that we’re watching gain steam with every passing day, so we found ourselves to be unwittingly on the front lines of an issue that I think will be the inflection point for this election.”15 A reporter attending True the Vote’s Colorado State Summit described how one speaker told the crowd that “they should enjoy bullying liberals because they were doing God’s work. ‘Your opposition are cartoon characters. They are. They are fun to beat up. They are fun to humiliate,’ he intoned. ‘You are on the side of the angels. And these people are just frauds, charlatans and liars.’”16

King Street Patriots has sponsored sweeping and unsubstantiated claims questioning the legitimacy of democratic participation by low-income persons and communities of color. For example, in 2011, King Street Patriots hosted a $100 plate dinner featuring Matthew Vadum, who has penned articles opining that it is un-American to register the poor to vote, writing, “how else can you justify a law that mandates that welfare recipients be given — be encouraged — to vote when they’re there in the cheese line picking up their check?...You shouldn’t be encouraging people to destroy the country, you shouldn’t be encouraging people to vote themselves benefits from the government.”17 Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a close partner of True the Vote, said “I fear the Obama gang is setting themselves up to steal the election” with the “illegal alien vote”18 and also accused the president of wanting “to register the food stamp army to vote for him.”19 In a letter sent to “Friends” this August he wrote “[a]s the scope of the Left’s efforts to corrupt and steal the 2012 elections become even more clear, it is absolutely vital that lawful voters like you and thousands of other patriots

have the tools at hand to blow the whistle on voter fraud.”20 With comments about the “illegal alien vote” and “the food stamp army,” King Street Patriots and

v o t e r i n t i m i D at i o n& h a r a s s m e n t i s i l l e g a l

To be clear, activities that intimidate voters are against the law. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act prohibits intimidation, threats, or coercion with respect to the exercise of the right to vote, whether or not such intimidation or coercion is shown to be racially targeted.27 Voter intimidation, coercion or threats interfering with the right to vote are also criminal offenses.28 Sections 203 and 208 of the Voting Rights Act also protect the rights of language minorities, disabled persons or other individuals to receive assistance at the polls if needed to exercise the right to vote.29 Even in states whose challenge procedures or poll watcher restrictions are lax and thus most vulnerable to abuse, the federal protections against intimidation and harassment can stand as a bulwark against abusive practices. Many states have their own legal prohibitions on voter intimidation or harassment.30

In the end, unfounded challenges and acts of harassment at the polls by politically motivated organizations threaten to disenfranchise eligible Americans. Such activities on a wide scale can impact election results and damage the integrity of our democracy and election institutions. Election administrators and law enforcement officials should carefully monitor such activities and bring enforcement actions when needed to protect against abuses. Anyone experiencing or witnessing bullying of voters can call 1-866-OUR-VOTE, a hotline operated by a coalition of non-profit, non-partisan organizations, to report such incidents and request assistance or referrals. Complaints about such activities may also be reported to the U.S. Department of Justice by contacting the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at 1-800-253-3931. n

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fhouston-texas&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Tom+Fitton%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fhouston-texas&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Judicial+Watch%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fhouston-texas&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Judicial+Watch%22


their allies have created a climate of fear that voter fraud is rampant in minority precincts and used that fear to justify their discriminatory targeting of poll-watching efforts – again, without evidence to support the targeting.21

As recently as July 31, 2012, True the Vote reportedly mailed letters to 160 counties alleging that they were not compliant with the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) for failing to conduct voter registration list maintenance programs in advance of the November elections.22 A True the Vote spokesperson stated that the organization did not “expect these [notices] to go ignored” and that it “expects the counties to take proper action to clean their voter rolls well before Election Day in November.”23 True the Vote demanded proof of compliance with their demand for vote-cleaning prior to the election otherwise they would commence litigation.24

There is nothing wrong with wanting accurate voter rolls. However, True the Vote’s notices are at odds with the very statute they claim to be enforcing, because the NVRA requires that any general list maintenance program resulting in the systematic removal of names of ineligible voters must be completed no later than 90 days before Election Day.25 The reason such list maintenance programs must be completed at least 90 days before the election is to ensure that removal notices do not confuse eligible voters about their registration status so soon before an election. To be clear, election officials in the counties where True the Vote “expects to take proper action … well before Election Day in November” would violate the NVRA should they conduct a purge within 90 days of the election.26

The repeated use of caging in recent election cycles, the emergence of private groups that organized to target communities of color for voter challenges in 2010, the avowed plans of the King Street Patriots and True the Vote to massively expand these activities in 2012, and the high stakes of the upcoming presidential election, all provide clear warning that pre-election and polling place challenges may see unprecedented use in this election year. No matter who is organizing or leading the charge, it is important that all participants

understand the rules and respect the right of all Americans to vote free of intimidation or obstruction.

h i s t o r y o F w r o n g F u l C h a l l e n g e s a n D i n t i m i D at i o nThe practice of individuals challenging the rights of voters to cast a ballot at the polling place has a troubled history in American elections.31 There was a serious resurgence of the practice in the 2004 election, and, in 2010, the confrontational approach of certain parts of the Tea Party movement moved dangerously into the polling areas. The following examples illustrate that all too often plans to challenge voters that are implemented in the name of voting integrity are really tactics meant to seek electoral advantage by manipulating the voter pool. In 1982 the Democratic National Committee (DNC) alleged in a lawsuit against the Republican National Committee (RNC) that the RNC was engaging in discriminatory voter caging and voter intimidation efforts focused on predominantly African American and Latino neighborhoods.32 The parties eventually entered into a consent decree, important parts of which remain in effect today, which forbade the national RNC from engaging in voter caging operations.33

In spite of the consent decree, Republicans were reportedly planning to use vote caging in 2004.34 A document developed in part by a lawyer for the Bush-Cheney campaign and distributed for use by state GOP officials provided a template for vote caging; an email from the same lawyer noted that Nevada was one of the states where caging was possible, because they had a list which could be used for that purpose.35 The effort to identify registered voters to challenge in states like Nevada was described by the Washington Post as “the most robust in recent history.”36 A former state Republican Party executive director attempted to cage and challenge over 17,000 voters in Nevada prior to Election Day, but election administrators rejected the mass challenge.37 After the 2004 election, detailed plans to challenge the eligibility of voters who were expected to support Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in key swing states were discovered in 43 pages


of email sent between RNC employees and the Bush-Cheney campaign.38 The emails showed that staffers had designed a plan to compile lists of voters to challenge, targeting likely-Democratic voters in New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.39 The RNC planned to send letters to newly registered voters to see whether voters still lived at their registered addresses. If the letter could not be delivered, the name was added to the list of voters to be challenged on Election Day.40 In emails that were made public, under the subject line “Voter Reg. Fraud Strategy conference calls,” RNC staffers referred to the plan as a “goldmine” and suggested that the plan should be expanded to more states.41 Another email, dated October 5, 2004, expressed concern that the plan ran the risk of having “GOP fingerprints”on it.42

In Ohio, the challenge list targeted predominantly minority, urban, and Democratic districts.43 It was estimated that “in Ohio, all of the precincts in about a dozen counties that contain 91 percent of the state’s black population—including urban areas like Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, and Akron” were targeted by Republican challengers.44

And in Wisconsin, the state Republicans “used the U.S. Postal Service software to scrutinize the addresses of over 300,000 registered voters”—but only in heavily Democratic Milwaukee.45 The party challenged 5,600 Milwaukee voters.46 After the Milwaukee city attorney reviewed the list, he found that many of the alleged nonexistent addresses actually did exist.47 While party officials claimed that this new level of scrutiny was needed to thwart possible fraud, at least one Republican strategist was more candid after Election Day, telling the New York Times that the challenges were “a big head fake,” a way to distract Democrats from getting out the vote at the crucial last hours.48

As discussed above and throughout the report, these problems have persisted in more recent election cycles. In 2010, Illinois GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirk was recorded talking about a massive poll watcher operation in minority communities.49 In September 2010 the organization “One Wisconsin Now” obtained audio recordings of Tea Party leaders

planning to work with the GOP to challenge voters on Election Day—largely in minority and student communities.50

In Minnesota, the Tea Party-backed “Election Integrity Watch” offered a $500 bounty to anyone who provides tips about fraud — perhaps encouraging already zealous activists to become over-zealous at the polls.51 They also advised volunteers to look for non-citizen voters. It is unclear, however, how a poll watcher would know a voter’s citizenship status — other than by judging a voter’s appearance or questioning them in violation of the law. 52 This same organization urged its volunteers to take pictures and videotape voters at the polls — tactics that sometimes have been used improperly to intimidate voters over the last several decades.53 The National Director for ResistNet, a Tea Party networking site, suggested that volunteers use concealed cameras; the site “admits that such tactics could be illegal but . . . suggests how activists might be able to skirt the rules: ‘It is illegal to video the polling place, but you can video the birds on top of the polling place or the dog sitting in front of it. If your video of birds or dogs happens to include voter vans, well...’”54

Although many of these examples have involved activities by Tea Party or Republican groups, there was also an allegation of voter intimidation in Philadelphia by two members of the New Black Panther Party in 2008. The Department of Justice obtained a default judgment against one of the defendants who allegedly brandished a nightstick and made intimidating statements, enjoining him from engaging in future acts of intimidation,55 but some critics have contended that the Department of Justice should have taken even stronger action and should not have dismissed claims against other defendants.56

In a high stakes political environment, the rules governing acceptable behavior at the polls need to be clearly understood by activists, by elections officials, and ultimately by voters. Eligible Americans who undertake to fulfill their civic duty of voting should have assurance that they will not be impeded in exercising their freedom to vote. n


State laWS on ChallengIng regIStered VoterS BeFore eleCtIon day and Voter CagIng PraCtICeS

I n this section, we examine how the laws in ten states apply to challenges to voter registration before Election Day, often on the basis of building lists of voters to challenge through caging, database comparisons, or list-combing

and comparisons to public records.57 Specifically, voter caging is the practice of sending non-forwardable mail to registered voters and using any returned mail as the basis for building lists of voters to challenge. Challengers, often motivated by a partisan interest in suppressing turnout of key constituencies, may rely on other dubious investigatory methods and data that are wholly inadequate (and inapplicable) to voter eligibility. True the Vote, for example, is reported to “allow[] volunteers to scour voter registration records for irregularities” by providing “a database to compare voter rolls with other public records.”58

True the Vote’s software and vetting standards “draw[] on the power of Internet organizing and Tea Party networks.”59 Participants look for inconsistencies between driver’s license databases and voter registration databases or even jury lists.60 Lists are compiled based on a number of reasons – “[i]f they don’t like the way a person’s signature varies from form to form, it is flagged as suspicious. If they see that too many voters are registered at an address, it is flagged.”61 True the Vote’s national research director explained that “[w]hen you find 80 [registered] at an

empty lot, you push a button and all 80 people get challenged.”62 One volunteer told reporters that she has used the database with her own state “election integrity” group, and has used social media and websites like whitepages.com and peoplefinders.com to research voters.63 Such tactics prompted one county election official to say that she is “not sure that this group does understand state law . . . . Because a group comes out and says these individuals (should be off the rolls) based on research from Facebook and LinkedIn, that’s just not an acceptable source.”64 As noted in the examples of described above, abusive caging and list-building practices can improperly disenfranchise eligible voters when these lists are used to target voters for removal from the voting rolls. This section summarizes each state’s laws that regulate challenges to voters’ eligibility before Election Day. It points out areas that may need clarification or improvement in order to protect voters’ rights and improve the fairness of the process.

C o l o r a D oColorado’s procedures for challenging registered voters include some of the most specific statutory protections of the ten states we examined. Importantly, pre-Election Day challenges to voter registration must be filed with the county clerk and recorder no later than sixty days before any election.65 This

one county election official said that she is “not sure that this group does understand state law . . . . Because a group comes out and says these individuals (should be off the rolls) based on research from Facebook andlinkedIn, that’s just not an acceptable source.”


should guard against extensive last-minute scrambles in the few weeks before Election Day.66 Grounds for challenge include citizenship, residency, and age.67 Challenges must be made in writing and include the basis for the challenge, the supporting facts, and “some documentary evidence to support the basis for the challenge.”68 This requirement is helpful because it requires more than mere allegations, thereby decreasing the risk that frivolous challenges will affect too many voters. However, anyone registered to vote in Colorado is entitled to challenge any person whose name appears in a county registration record.69 This is problematic, because it could allow large-scale challenges by a few coordinated actors state-wide. Hearings are required in Colorado, which provides important protections for challenged voters. No later than thirty days after filing the challenge, the county clerk and recorder must hold a hearing at which the challenged registrant is entitled to appear.70 Critically, the challenger is required to appear and bears the burden of proof of the allegations in the written challenge.71 Within five days of the hearing, the county clerk and recorder must make a decision based on the sufficiency of the evidence to reject the challenge, accept the challenge and cancel the elector’s name from the registration book or mark the voter as “inactive,” which triggers Colorado’s procedures concerning voters who fail to vote in a general election.72 Marking the voter “inactive” occurs if the county clerk and recorder “finds some evidence but not sufficient evidence to support the allegations in the challenge.”73

Colorado’s law protects the rights of voters by requiring that the person who brings the challenge show up and prove his or her allegations before the challenged voter is kicked off the registration rolls. It is also laudable that challenges are not all-or-nothing, and that insufficient evidence does not result in automatic cancellation of a voter’s registration.74 However, there is room within Colorado law to clarify what it means for a county clerk to “find[] some evidence but not sufficient evidence to support” allegations, particularly if the remedy for that situation is marking the voter as “inactive.”75 Colorado should also restrict the people that can make pre-Election Day

challenges to only voters registered within the same precinct. LATE DEVELOPMENT: Just as this report was being finalized, we understand that Colorado Secretary of State Gessler has proposed a new rule, Rule 52 “VERIFICATION AND HEARING PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUALS IDENTIFIED AS NON-CITIZENS” [ http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/rule_making/files/2012/20120824_Election_NoticePublicMeetingDraftNewRule5 ], which appears inconsistent with the protections in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-9-101 “Challenge of illegal or fraudulent registration.” Under this new rule, if data from the federal citizenship database indicates that a registered voter is not a citizen, the voter will receive written notice that a hearing will be held and asking the voter for proof of citizenship. Verbal reports indicate that the Secretary intends to hold hearings in local counties to pursue challenges against allegedly ineligible persons and that the Secretary of State will continue to bear the burden of proof in providing evidence that a registered voter is not a citizen. However, questions of procedural fairness are raised since a deputy Secretary of State may be both the presenter and the decider at these hearings. In addition, this new rule does not contain the same protections found in the law, such as requiring challenges to be filed 60 days before the elections. Laws muF l o r i D aSince 2000, Florida remains a prominent battleground state. Florida also has the highest foreclosure inventory after the financial crisis of 2008.76 The subsequent changes in residency makes Florida particularly fertile ground for challenges to voter registration based on residency. Unfortunately, Florida’s procedures for voter eligibility challenges before Election Day are insufficiently voter protective. Florida law requires pre-Election Day voter challenges by private citizens to be filed no sooner than 30 days before an election.77 Any registered elector in Florida may challenge the right of a person to vote, but they may only challenge other voters registered in the same county, which is an important limitation.78 Further, the challenge must be in writing and contain an oath that is specifically prescribed by the statute

to Bill Internicola, a 91-year-old World War II veteran and bronze star recipient who has been voting in Florida for fourteen years, it was “like an insult” to be told he had 30 days to prove he was a citizen or he would be removed from the voting rolls.”


governing voter challenges, including the reasons for which the challenger believes a registered voter is “attempting to vote illegally.”79 Florida law provides that making a frivolous challenge to any person’s right to vote is a first degree misdemeanor, which carries the potential for prison time and fines.80 The grounds for challenge are not explicitly outlined under Florida law other than that the challenger must give a valid “reason” the voter is “attempting to vote illegally.”81 The clerk must then deliver to the challenged voter a copy of the oath and reasons for challenge.82 However, there is no requirement that hearings be held, and no specific provision ensuring that the registered voter is presumed to be eligible unless proven ineligible. The processes for resolving a pre-election voter challenge should be clarified. A challenged voter retains the right to vote provisionally.83 Unfortunately, for that provisional ballot to count, a voter must deliver evidence supporting their eligibility to the supervisor of elections within two days of the Election. This process unduly burdens the rights of eligible voters. A voter who is challenged on the basis of her residence only has the chance to prove her eligibility at the polls – which would allow her to vote a regular ballot - in order to vote a regular ballot under very limited circumstances, i.e., she moved precincts within the original county of registration or is a uniformed military voter.84 These limited circumstances are far too narrow and restrictive, and could force many challenged voters to vote provisionally.

m i s s o u r iUnlike other states discussed in this report, Missouri law does not provide a step-by-step process for adjudicating pre-Election Day challenges to voter registration status. Instead, a broadly worded statute grants election authorities a blanket right to “investigate the residence or other qualifications of any voter at

k i C k i n g yo u o F Ft h e v o t i n g r o l l s : Florida Purge 2012

Recently, Florida Governor Rick Scott has used motor vehicle databases to compile lists of voters that were suspected of being non-citizens, and threatened to remove them from these voters from the registration rolls unless they can prove their citizenship.85 As the Miami Herald reported, the motor vehicle databases “had limited and often-outdated citizenship information that carried a high risk of making lawful voters look like noncitizens.”86 Initially the list had over 180,000 voters, and 87% of those targeted to be removed from registration lists were people of color.87 Some fear that this is a repeat of the 2000 presidential election, in which then Secretary of State Katherine Harris oversaw a purge of purported felons that disenfranchised thousands of eligible voters in an election that is on the books as having been decided by 537 votes.88

Then-Secretary of State Kurt Browning “didn’t feel comfortable” utilizing this process and said that “[s]omething was telling me this isn’t going to fly. We didn’t have our I’s dotted and T’s crossed.”89 He refused to release the lists to county supervisors because he “wanted to make sure the data was good if it went out under [his] name.”90 That did not stop Browning’s successor, however, from continuing the purge. Secretary of State Ken Detzner sent a list of 2,700 suspected non-citizens to county election supervisors and asked them to verify citizenship.91 County election officials were asked to send letters to the suspected non-citizen registrants and give them 30 days to verify citizenship or their names would then be dropped from voter rolls.92 Alarmed by the unreliable data that the State relied upon to establish its lists, Florida’s 67 county election supervisors stopped moving forward with the purge.93 Miami-Dade County, for example, determined that 514 of the listed individuals were, in fact, citizens.94 To Bill Internicola, a 91-year-old World War II veteran and bronze star recipient who has been voting in Florida for fourteen years, it was “like an insult” to be told he had 30 days to prove he was a citizen or he would be removed from the voting rolls.95


any time it deems necessary.”104 Election officials are required to investigate challenges to voter qualifications if the challenges are brought more than ten days before an election; investigations “may” be deferred to after an election if they are raised within ten days of Election Day.105 The law requires election authorities to investigate “material affecting any voter’s qualifications brought to [their] attention from any source.” Importantly, implicit in the statute is a requirement that challengers must provide more than mere lists of voters, because the law requires election officials to investigate “material” concerning a voter’s qualifications provided by any source. Authorities should consider strengthening this requirement to something like the supporting “documentary evidence” requirement in Colorado. They should also require hearings before cancelling registrations, and require challenges to be brought in writing, under oath, and based on personal knowledge of the challenger. Missouri law should make clear that the burden of proving ineligibility lies on the challenger, not the registered voter, and there should be penalties for frivolous challenges. Legislation banning the practice of using caging lists to strike voters from the registration rolls was introduced in Missouri in 2008106 and 2009107, but did not become law.

n e va D aNevada law generally does a good job protecting registered voters from improper pre-Election Day challenges. In Nevada, a voter may only challenge the registration status of any other voter registered to vote in the same precinct.108 This jurisdictional requirement of precinct-level commonality between the challenger and the challenged voter is an important safeguard against widespread voter challenge campaigns that lack precinct-level organization. There is also a narrow six-day window for written challenges to take place before Election Day. Written challenges must be signed by the challenger, include the grounds for challenge, and must be based on personal knowledge.109 This provision could be improved by requiring that challenges be made under oath. Within 5 days

In June 2012, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the State of Florida and Florida’s Secretary of State asserting that Florida is violating federal law with a voter purge.96 Because of the timing of the purge, DOJ asserted that this process violated federal law and that any systematic purging program within the 90-day quiet period before an election for federal office violates Section 8 of National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).97 Further, the DOJ alleged that the compiled lists of voters are based on inaccurate and unreliable data, in violation of Section 8(b)(1) of the NVRA, which requires that verification procedures be “uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”98 Although the court denied the DOJ’s motion for a temporary restraining order in part because the program had been halted, it found that “[t]here were major flaws in the program” including the Secretary’s compilation of “the list in a manner certain to include a large number of citizens.”99 Federal litigation is ongoing. Florida has sued the federal government for denying Florida access to its citizen database.100 Voting rights advocates, including the Advancement Project, Fair Elections Legal Network, Project Vote, Latino Justice, ACLU, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law have all sued Florida for violating the Voting Rights Act.101

Ultimately, this is a government-sponsored purge – a coordinated effort instigated by the Governor’s administration, rather than by overzealous citizen activists. But private actors may also build lists of voters based on unreliable data and challenge voters’ registration status, as there is no law in Florida that explicitly prohibits voter caging. Their actions could be far more discrete than a statewide purge and targeted at specific counties. These efforts have a greater chance of flying under the radar, but would still jeopardize the voting rights of eligible, registered Americans. Election administration officials must be as cognizant of unreliable data used by private citizens in challenging voters as they were in resisting Governor Scott’s state-sponsored voter purges. n


of a challenge being filed, the county clerk must mail a notice to the person whose right to vote is challenged.110 Fortunately, Nevada law requires the clerk to include the following sentence in the mailed notice: “Even though your right to vote has been challenged, you are still registered and eligible to vote. Please contact this office immediately for information concerning how you may respond to the challenge.”111 This is an extremely good provision, as it makes clear that a failure to respond will not result in automatic cancellation. If the person fails to appear “within the required time” or doesn’t cast a vote by the end of the

second general election after the notice is mailed, the clerk is required to cancel the person’s registration.112 This provision is protective of voters’ rights, because it allows voters the opportunity to cure a challenge at the polls within two subsequent general elections, which is a generous period of time. Challenges in Nevada may be based on a variety of grounds, including identity and residence.113 To overcome a challenge and vote a regular ballot at the polls, the challenged voter must swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, information concerning her eligibility to vote.114 For certain non-residence challenges, the voter can affirm her identity and vote a regular ballot.115 However, if the challenge concerns the residence of a registered voter, that registered voter may not vote a regular ballot unless she “furnishes satisfactory identification which contains proof of the address at which the person actually resides.”116 Otherwise she must vote at a “special polling place.”117 Many voters may lack the “satisfactory identification” to quickly restore their status as duly-registered voters.

n e w h a m P s h i r eIn New Hampshire, the law governing pre-Election Day challenges is problematic. There are two procedures that could be used. First, any citizen may file a complaint in superior court stating that another citizen is “illegally” on a voter roll.118 Then a judge must order that a copy of the complaint be served upon the town election supervisors and challenged citizen with a time and place for “an immediate hearing.”119 The judge hearing the case can then order the name removed from the checklist “as justice requires” after the hearing.120 Alternatively, New Hampshire allows anyone to submit a “request for correction of the checklist [voter roll] to the supervisors of the checklist or to the town or city clerk based upon evidence that a person listed on the checklist is not qualified as a voter in the town or ward.”121 Then, election supervisors (elected individuals responsible for maintaining voter rolls) must “determine whether or not it is more likely than not that the person’s qualifications are in doubt.”122 If so, the supervisors must send a notice to the challenged voter granting 30 days to “provide

k i C k i n g yo u w h e n yo u’r e D o w n:Targeting voters in foreclosure proceedings

The 2008 presidential election came in the midst of the Great Recession, when foreclosure proceedings were on the rise. At that time, Missouri was the subject of a New York Times story concerning foreclosure and voter registration, with confusion over changing residences stoking fear that “many voters [would] be disqualified at the polls because, in the tumult of their foreclosure, they neglected to tell their election board of their new address,” which would lead to “poor voters [being] singled out.”102 In Michigan, Democrats filed a lawsuit seeking a court order barring Republicans from using lists of people facing mortgage foreclosure proceedings as a basis for challenging their voting eligibility. Michigan Republicans denied using foreclosure lists to cast doubt about voters’ qualifications. And in Ohio, then Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner advised county election boards that foreclosure lists should not be considered proof that voters have changed residences, saying “Ohioans faced with the pain and turmoil of a home foreclosure should not be targeted by the forces of disenfranchisement on Election Day.”103 n


proof” of qualifications to vote.123 Failure to respond to the 30-day-notice or failure to provide proof results in removal from the checklist.124 There is no requirement that the challenger be from the same town or district, or even from New Hampshire, which could give rise to frivolous challenges from out-of-state challengers. There is also no requirement that the notice be sent by forwardable first-class mail, so there is a risk that a challenged voter might not even properly have notice that his or her registration was challenged. Finally, there is no statutory requirement for a hearing before a voter is removed from the rolls; instead, the burden of proof shifts entirely to the challenged voter to provide evidence as to why they should remain on the rolls. New Hampshire law has weak protections for voters facing pre-Election Day challenges. A lot of discretion lies with the election supervisors who make the determination as to whether any individual challenge meets the standard that it is “more likely than not” that a voter’s eligibility is in doubt. 125 Elections supervisors should have high standards for what is acceptable “evidence” that a registered voter “is not qualified as a voter,” particularly in the case of mass challenges based on caging lists.

n o r t h C a r o l I n aIn North Carolina, the law provides strong protection for voting against improper pre-Election Day challenges. Any registered voter of a county may challenge the registration of any other voter in the county, but there are important safeguards against abuse.132 No challenges are allowed after the 25th day before an election (other than on Election Day itself).133 Challenges must be in writing, under oath, and must specify the reasons why someone should not be entitled to remain registered to vote.134 These are important protections for voters, as these procedural requirements will make it harder for frivolous challenges to create havoc. Grounds for challenge include residency, age, felony conviction, citizenship, or that the person is not who he or she appears to be.135 Once challenged, the board of election must schedule a hearing and take testimony under oath concerning the challenge.136 Importantly, the burden of proof is on the challenger.137 Fortunately, North Carolina law specifies

that “[c]hallenges shall not be made indiscriminately” and the challenge must be substantiated by affirmative proof.138 This is particularly important because having substantiated proof, instead of simply making a claim as to why a voter should be challenged, places accountability on the challenger and prevents many frivolous challenges at an early stage. What is unfortunate, however, is North Carolina’s statutes specify that the “presentation of a letter mailed by

k i C k i n g yo u w h e n yo u’r e yo u n g :Targeting student voters

Students are often singled out to have their voting rights attacked. Last year the Speaker of the House in New Hampshire explained that he wanted to make it more difficult for students to register and vote because young people are “foolish,” lack “life experience” and “just vote their feelings” - “voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do.”126 In 2004, the RNC sent letters to students of Edward Waters College, a historically black college in Jacksonville, Florida.127 The letters were sent during the summer when there was little chance that any of them would be received. A number of the letters bounced back and thirty-one students were listed as potentially ineligible voters.128 Similarly, many letters sent to men and women serving in the United States military were undeliverable, presumably because the recipients were overseas on military duty.129 In 2008, the County Clerk of El Paso, Colorado’s most populous county, sent incorrect information to Colorado College administrators, to be distributed to students, falsely stating that many of them were not eligible to register to vote or to vote in Colorado. Democratic officials accused the clerk of attempting to disenfranchise college students who disproportionately supported Obama; the clerk merely deemed it a mistake.130 The clerk was also accused of planning to challenge every new voter’s registration in an effort to disenfranchise Democrats.131 n


returnable first-class mail … and returned because the person does not live at the address shall constitute prima facie evidence that the person no longer resides in the precinct.”139 While there are procedural protections in place, including hearings, this particular provision of North Carolina law renders voters vulnerable to caging.140

o h i oIn Ohio, a state at the heart of caging controversies in 2004, any registered voter may challenge another voter’s right to vote prior to the nineteenth day before the election.141 Although this is not ideal, there are formalities that a challenger must follow that make frivolous challenges more difficult. The challenge may be made in person or by a letter addressed to the board of elections, must state the ground upon which the challenge is made, and must be signed by the challenger giving the challenger’s address and voting precinct.142 In August 2012, the Ohio Secretary of State issued a new directive providing valuable guidance for administering Ohio’s pre-Election Day challenge statutes.143 It largely mirrors a 2008 directive.144 Accordingly, hearings are required before cancelling a voter’s registration.145 Further, the directive grants election boards discretion over whether challenges are “facially sufficient” enough to hold a hearing in the first place.146 This is important because it provides at

a F t e r t r o u B l e :Ohio makes improvements

In 2004, the Ohio Republican Party challenged 35,000 newly registered voters just two weeks before the election.150 Most of the voters lived in urban, Democratic-leaning neighborhoods.151 The 35,000 names were identified through a classic caging operation: the Party used mail returned as undeliverable as the basis for challenge.152 Two individual voters and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit, alleging that the pre-Election Day challenges violated the National Voter Registration Act and the Due Process Clause.153 The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, finding that the voters’ constitutional rights were indeed in danger of being abridged by the challenges and the lack of opportunity for a hearing in the immediate run-up to the election.154 Additionally in 2004 a last minute court decision allowed partisan poll watchers inside Ohio polling places to challenge voters’ eligibility at the polls on Election Day.155 The large numbers of challengers in Ohio was one of many problems that caused massive wait times for voters in many urban districts.156

Because Ohio experienced such serious difficulties with challenges at the polling places on Election Day in 2004 the legislature amended the law to require that any challenge to a registered elector’s right to vote had to be made at least 20 days prior to an election.157 Only election officials are allowed to challenge voter eligibility on Election Day. 158 Challenges must be made in writing, “signed under penalty of election falsification.”159 Under current law, if the board of elections is unable to determine the outcome of a challenge, a hearing must be held within 10 days of the challenge, and a notice must be sent to the registered voter at least three days prior to the hearing.160 If the challenge is filed within 30 days of an election, the board has the option of postponing the hearing until after the election, though the voter may have to cast a provisional ballot which will only be counted if the subsequent hearing determines they were eligible.161 Ohio also changed its law so that any individual who declares that they desire to vote and that they are eligible to vote, but whose name “does not appear on the list of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote” shall be allowed to cast a provisional ballot.162 In the 2004 election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell attempted to limit provisional ballot access severely, in contravention of federal law, because Ohio regulations allowed for such limits.163 It should be noted that provisional ballots are not a cure-all. Ohio in particular has had a high rate of not counting provisional ballots. A recent court decision requiring Ohio to count provisional ballots that are cast in the wrong precinct due solely to poll worker error will lead to a higher rate of provisional ballots being counted.164 n


least one additional screen from frivolous challenges by requiring an initial assessment by the boards of elections. Furthermore, the directive states that mail returned as “undeliverable” is insufficient grounds to grant a challenge.147 The directive also states that evidence of a foreclosure action is also insufficient to grant a challenge.148 These are outstanding and important safeguards against voter caging, because they explicitly prohibit the use of undeliverable mail to challenge voter rights. Widespread caging campaigns frequently use this technique, which can produce inaccurate and flawed results. These protections safeguard the rights of voters facing foreclosures in the wake of the largest recession in a generation. Unfortunately, the 2012 directive failed to carry over language from the 2008 directive that explicitly required the challenger to bear the burden of proving why the challenge is justified with “clear and convincing evidence.”149 Also, the challenger should be required to make the challenge under oath.

P e n n s y lva n i aThe laws in Pennsylvania are problematic and among the worst examined for this report. First, Pennsylvania law has two procedures. One allows pre-Election Day challenges by affidavit, and the other by petition.165 As for the affidavit procedure, the law is silent as to when the challenge must be made.166 This could lead to serious administrative burdens if mass voter challenges are filed in the immediate run-up to Election Day. For challenges by petition, those must be filed no later than 10 days before the election.167 In both cases, Pennsylvania law is challenger-friendly and does not adequately protect the rights of those challenged inappropriately. Any voter in Pennsylvania may be challenged through an affidavit by a “commissioner, registrar or clerk or by a qualified elector of the municipality.”168 The challenger is required to file the affidavit explaining the “reason” for that challenge but is under no obligation to provide any documentary evidence or anything to substantiate the allegations.169 This is problematic because it could lead to indiscriminate and flimsy reasons for a challenge even though the complaint takes the form of an affidavit. Moreover,

once an affidavit challenge is made the burden shifts to the challenged voter to justify why she should stay on the rolls. The challenged voter must respond in a written, sworn statement, and must produce “such other evidence as may be required to satisfy the registrar or commissioner as to the individual’s qualifications as a qualified elector.”170 This is highly problematic. While the challenger is under no obligation to provide any documentary evidence to support an allegation that a voter is improperly registered other than an affidavit, a challenged voter must produce evidence over and above an affidavit to satisfy a government official that she is lawfully registered. This could provide onerous for voters who are targets of caging or other frivolous challenges, with little to no burden on the challenger. Only if the “challenged individual establishes to the satisfaction of the commission” her right to be registered is the matter is resolved in favor of remaining registered.171 Otherwise, the registration shall be cancelled.172 Similarly, for challenge by petition, any qualified elector may petition the commission to cancel or suspend the registration of any other elector but must do so under oath or affirmation.173 The petition must set forth “sufficient grounds for the cancellation,” and include either a) notice of the time and place when the petition would be given personally to the challenged elector at least 24 hours prior to filing; or b) a statement that the challenged voter “could not be found” at the challenged voter’s residence and listing the person that lives at that residence who “has declared that the person was well acquainted” with the name of everyone living at the residence and the challenged voter no longer resided at that address.174 Then, upon receipt of the petition, the commission is required to cancel or suspend the registration “unless the registered elector so registered appears and shows cause why this action should not be taken.”175 Again, this is highly problematic and rife with opportunities for disenfranchisement. It is good that personal service or a sworn oath attesting to hearsay about an individual’s residence is required to be made in the petition. However, automatic cancellation procedures and shifting the burden of proof to the challenged voter, are unacceptable. These procedures may lead a


voter to be kicked off the rolls without an opportunity to be heard.

t e x a sIn Texas, any registered voter may challenge the registration of another voter of the same county at a hearing before the registrar.176 If the grounds for challenge is based on residence, it must be filed at least 75 days before the election otherwise the registrar will wait to follow the challenge procedures until after the election (unless the challenged voter submitted a registration application after the 75th day and prior to the 30th day before the election, in which case this deadline does not apply).177 For other grounds, Texas law provides no set timetable for when a challenge must be filed. The challenger must file a sworn statement that states the specific qualification for registration that the challenged voter has not met.178 The challenge must be “based on the personal knowledge of the voter desiring to challenge the registration,” which could reduce the number of challenges by widespread caging campaigns so long as “personal knowledge” does not become a pro forma statement based on a cursory review of unreliable data.179 Unfortunately, whether a voter may attend a hearing before having her name removed from the rolls depends on the grounds for challenge. If the challenge is based on residence, the registrar is required to send a confirmation notice to the challenged voter.180 If the voter fails to send a response back to the registrar, the registrar is mandated to place the challenged voter on the “suspense list” that may ultimately result in a voter’s removal from the voter registration rolls for failing to vote in subsequent elections.181 If the challenge is based on any ground other than residence, the registrar must hold a hearing on the challenge.182

v i r g i n i aVirginia’s law is problematic in many respects as it applies to pre-Election Day challenges. First, challenges are based on whether a voter is “improperly registered.”183 The law is not clear about what makes a registration improper but fortunately does exclude residency from a reason for challenge.184 This significantly reduces the risk of challenges that rely

solely on challenges to residency, which are usually a product of flawed caging operations, but it does not prevent challenges based on categories such as citizenship, age, or identity. The voter registration challenge process requires either the general registrar, or “any three qualified voters of the county or city” to make the challenge.185 Ordinarily, in an election system without sophisticated caging and challenge operations taking place in the state, this might present an important brake on the process, because it requires three voters to make the challenge, lessening the risk of one sole bad actor challenging in bad faith. However, as voter caging becomes more sophisticated, with organizations building caging teams that rely on unreliable data in choosing whom to challenge,186 Virginia could be faced with many three-person challengers. Once challenged, the registrar is required by Virginia law to post at the courthouse or publish in a county or city newspaper the name of registered voters that are to be cancelled by the general registrar. The list of names must be certified by the registrar and delivered to the county or city chair of political parties. Fortunately, Virginia law requires the registrar to send the challenged voter, by mail, the reasons for cancellation, facts upon which the cancellation is based, and a time the registrar will hear testimony for or against the right of a challenged voter to remain on the rolls. The hearing must be during regular hours and cannot occur earlier than ten days after mailing the notice and “in no event within sixty days of the general election in November or within thirty days of any other election in the county or city.”187 Unfortunately, a registered voter’s failure to appear and “defend his right to be registered” results in automatic cancellation of the voter’s registration.188 This is highly problematic. Virginia should establish failsafe mechanisms that do not result in automatic cancellation based solely on a registered voter’s failure to appear at a pre-ordained hearing for which they may not have received adequate notice or may legitimately not be able to attend.


r e C o m m e n d at I o n S F o r a d d r e S S I n g C a g I n g & P r e-e l e C t I o n d ay C h a l l e n g e SPre-Election Day challenges are rife with opportunities for mischief that will disenfranchise voters. States considering an overhaul to their pre-Election Day challenge regimes should require the challenger to maintain the burden of proof throughout any administrative hearing process and should require the challenger to provide documentary evidence supporting the specific grounds for challenge. Such challenges should be based on first-hand personal knowledge and be written sworn statements. Making frivolous challenges should be a misdemeanor, and a voter should only be able to challenge the rights of another voter registered in the same precinct. Moreover, jurisdictions should consider requiring “preliminary” reviews of challenges to determine if a hearing is even required. Most jurisdictions appear to require automatic hearings when challenges are filed with no requirement to conduct a cursory review of a challenge to determine if it is with merit before scheduling a hearing. In other words, the grounds for challenge must be plausible before a hearing takes place and election officials should be granted the discretion to determine when a hearing appears warranted. Jurisdictions should also require challenges to be filed within a specific period of time before an election, such as 60 or more days before an election. This will ensure that the administrative burdens of challenge hearings are not arduous and will lead to the orderly administration of the election. The immediate run-up to an election is fertile grounds for deceptive election practices that aim to confuse voters about the time, place, manner, or qualifications of voting, and election officials must have the resources and capability to respond to those sorts of activities without being distracted by strategically timed mass voter challenges. Finally, voters should be given an opportunity to appear at a hearing before their registration is cancelled. Voters should also have the opportunity to vote regular or provisional ballots if failure to appear at a hearing results in automatic cancellation of

registration and an opportunity to cure a challenge at the polls. Returned mail should not be considered prima facie evidence to sustain a challenge.


State laWS on ChallengIng regIStered VoterS on eleCtIon day and Poll WatCher BehaVIor

t his section discusses the interactions of people inside the polling place on Election Day who are neither election officials nor there simply to cast a vote. We analyze the laws regarding who can be at the polls and

who can challenge voters and the process by which a challenge can be made and the validity of the challenge is decided. Some states allow poll watchers to be present inside the polls to observe the election but do not allow poll watchers to interact with voters. Other states allow any registered voter to challenge another voter’s eligibility when he or she shows up at the poll to vote. A voter’s eligibility to vote can be challenged on Election Day in Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio (but only by an election official) Pennsylvania, and Virginia, but not in Texas. We also make recommendations for best practices in regulating Election Day challenges. States must protect voters’ rights in the face of organized attempts to police polling places in ways that may intimidate eligible voters or unfairly target particular groups of voters for exclusion.

C o l o r a D oColorado’s laws preventing improper Election Day challenges are excellent. In Colorado, voter challenges are permitted on Election Day by any poll watcher, election judge, or eligible elector of the same precinct.189 Challenges must be must be made in the presence of the person being challenged190 and must be made in writing, under oath and signed by the challenger under penalty of perjury.191 The challenger must set forth the specific factual basis for the challenge. 192 Under Colorado law, the bases for a challenge are citizenship, age, residency, and “all other questions to the person

challenged as may be necessary to test the person’s qualifications as an eligible elector.”193 Depending on the basis for a challenge, a voter challenged on Election Day may be asked questions as prescribed by law.194 If the challenged voter answers satisfactorily and signs an oath attesting to her eligibility to vote, the voter may vote a regular ballot. If the voter does not answer the questions he may still vote a provisional ballot.195 Colorado law is pro-voter because the law provides for stringent requirements for challenges that provide some accountability. It is helpful that the law is specific about the process for determining the challenge. It sets out the questions to be asked of the voter, and by answering these questions under oath any eligible voter may cast a ballot that will be counted. In Colorado, any eligible elector other than a candidate who has been designated by appropriate party officials can serve as a poll watcher.196 A poll watcher doesn’t have to be a resident of the county in which he is designated as long as he is an eligible elector in the Colorado.197 Poll watchers and persons other than the election officials and those admitted for the purpose of voting are not permitted within the immediate voting area or within six feet of the voting equipment or voting booths and the ballot box, except by authority of the election judges or election officials and then only when necessary to enforce the law.198 Poll watchers are not allowed to have cell phones, cameras, recording devices, laptops, or PDAs (Palm Pilot, Blackberry, etc.) in the polling place.199

In addition to poll workers, poll watchers, and voters, the only other people who may be present in the polling station are an Official Observer, who is appointed by the Secretary of State or the federal government and approved by the Secretary of State,


and a media observer with valid media credentials.200 Political party attorneys are not permitted in the polling place unless they have been duly appointed as poll watchers. Poll watchers must swear an oath that they are eligible electors whose name has been submitted to the designated election official, and they must present the election judges or designated official a certificate of appointment.201 Poll watchers have the right to maintain a list of eligible electors who have voted, to witness and verify each step in the election’s conduct, to challenge ineligible electors, and to assist in correcting discrepancies.202 Poll watchers may observe polling place voting, early voting, and the processing and counting of ballots. It is a misdemeanor intentionally to interfere with a poll watcher discharging her duties.203 Poll watchers may not disrupt or interrupt any stage of the election or interfere with the election’s orderly conduct.204 They may track the names of electors who have cast ballots by using their previously maintained lists, but they may not write down any ballot numbers or any other identifying information about the electors. The watchers may not handle the poll books, official signature cards, ballots, or ballot envelopes, or voting or counting machines. Poll watchers may not interact with election officials or election judges, except that the designated election official in each precinct shall name at least one person at each polling place to whom watchers may direct questions.205 Poll watchers who commit, encourage, or connive in any fraud in connection with their duties, who violate any of the election laws or rules, who violate their oath, or who interfere with the election process may be removed by the designated election official.206

F l o r i D aFlorida law permits any elector or poll watcher in his or her county to challenge the right of any voter to vote on Election Day in writing and under oath.207 The challenge must be filed with the clerk or inspector at the polls and describe why the challenger believes the voter is attempting to vote illegally.208 Importantly, Florida law provides for a penalty for a voter or poll watcher who files a frivolous charge –

any one filing a challenge not in good faith commits a first degree misdemeanor.209 Unfortunately, a voter who is challenged must vote provisionally, and their provisional ballot will only be counted if the voter provides written proof that she is entitled to vote by five o’clock two days following the election.210 This requirement is overly burdensome and may endanger an eligible voter’s ability to vote. Florida law requires that all watchers be allowed to enter and watch polls in all polling rooms and early voting areas in the counties where they have been designated, so long as each political party and each candidate has only one watcher in each polling room or early voting area at any time during the election.211 Each poll watcher must be a qualified and registered elector of the county in which she is appointed.212 No law enforcement officer may serve as a designated poll watcher.213 Designations must be made by a political party or candidate in writing on an official form to the supervisor of elections.214 The designation must be in writing, on an official form, submitted before the second Tuesday preceding the election, and poll watchers must be approved by the supervisor of elections on or before the Tuesday before the election.215 Florida could improve its law by adopting specific rules governing the behavior of poll watchers within the polls. For example, poll watchers should not be allowed to communicate with voters, and should be prohibited from videoing or taking photos. Florida should also specify that elections officials have grounds to eject any poll watchers that are interfering with the orderly conduct of the election or otherwise harassing voters.

m i s s o u r iMissouri allows voter challenges on Election Day. Only a registered voter who has been designated by the chair of the county committee of a political party named on the ballot may challenge a voter’s identity or voting qualifications.216 The designee must also be registered in the jurisdiction in which he or she will work as a challenger.217 The grounds for challenges include citizenship status, residency, age, incapacity, and certain categories of felon status.218 If a voter is challenged, it is up to a majority of the election


judges at a polling place to determine whether she will be allowed to vote a regular ballot.219 The voter may be required to execute an affidavit affirming her voting qualifications.220 Making false statements in the affidavit is punishable by fine or imprisonment.221 Voters are entitled to cast a provisional ballot upon executing an affidavit, even if election authorities determine a voter is ineligible.222 Unfortunately, the law does not provide specificity regarding the manner in which election judges are to determine whether a challenged voter should be allowed to vote. The law is pro-voter in that it only allows designated challengers to make a challenge when he believes the state election laws have been or will be violated.223 However, there do not appear to be requirements that challenges be made in written form, nor does there appear to be any method of accountability for challenges made in bad faith.224

In Missouri, each political party may designate a watcher for each place votes are counted, and watchers must be registered voters in the jurisdiction where the watcher will serve.225 However, no watcher may be substituted for another on Election Day.226 Watchers are authorized to observe the counting of votes and to report any election law violations or complaints of irregularity to the election judges or the election authority if not satisfied with the decision of the election judges.227 Watchers are prohibited from reporting the name of any person who has or has not voted to anyone.228

If any watcher or challenger interferes with the orderly process of voting, or is guilty of misconduct or any law violation, the election judges shall ask the watcher or challenger to leave the polling place or cease the interference.229 If the interference continues, the election judges shall notify the election authority, which shall take such action as it deems necessary, and it is the duty of the police, if requested by the election authority or judges of election, to exclude any watcher or challenger from the polling place or the place where votes are being counted.230

n e va D aIn Nevada, a voter may be challenged on Election Day by another voter registered in the same precinct.236 A

challenger must submit a signed affirmation stating the basis for the challenge and that the challenge is based on personal knowledge.237 The requirements that challenges be made by voters within the precincts, in writing, and based on personal knowledge may discourage abuse of the challenge system by deterring large scale mass challenges. Unfortunately, once a voter has been

a F t e r t r o u B l e :Missouri Tries to Get It Right

There is recent history of what would seem to have been partisan voter challenges in Missouri. In 2004, a Republican official challenged numerous voters in at least one predominantly black precinct in Boone County. This resulted in significant delays for other voters at that precinct.231 Robin Carnahan, the Missouri Secretary of State, encouraged local election officials to increase the number of poll workers to deal with Election Day challenges in 2008 in order to avoid the delays experienced in 2004, but this did little to address voter caging practices in the state.232 Legislation was introduced in Missouri in 2009 and 2010 to address the issues of voter caging and challenges, but it did not pass either year. The 2009 bill would have prohibited the use of voter caging lists (discussed in the proceeding section) and would have required that challengers be registered voters in the precinct in which the challenge is made.233 It also would have implemented best practices on voter challenge procedures by requiring that the challenges be written, made under oath, and supported by personal, first-hand knowledge of the grounds for ineligibility.234 The 2010 legislation would require that any challenge to a voter’s qualifications be made in writing and include a statement as to which qualification the challenged voter was lacking, which has to be based on personal knowledge of the challenger.235 n


challenged, the process for determining the challenge is excessively burdensome for the voter, potentially confusing for poll workers, and could result in eligible registered voters being denied their right to vote. In all cases the challenged voter must execute an oath or affirmation of his eligibility to vote,238 but the exact procedure depends on the grounds on which the voter was challenged.239 A person challenged on residency grounds must also show “satisfactory identification which contains proof of the address at which he actually resides.”240

A person challenged on the basis that he is not the person he claims to be must show official photo identification or have a person vouch for the challenged voter’s identity; the vouching person must themselves be at least 18 years old and have photo identification, though there is not a requirement that they be registered.241 This is very problematic, as many people will lack the necessary identification, or not have it with them at the poll. As a result, many eligible voters may not be able to cast a vote that will be counted, unless they are vouched for successfully, under oath, by someone else over the age of 18.242 If a voter is successfully challenged on grounds of residency, he or she may only vote at a “special polling place” in the county clerk’s office or at such other locations as the county clerk deems necessary during each election.243 Such persons may only submit a vote for a limited subset of offices and questions.244 Moreover, these lengthy procedures are likely to result in longer wait times in precincts where voters are being challenged, imposing burdens on the other voters in the precinct. Nevada also allows members of the general public to observe the conduct of voting at a polling place.245 Members of the general public are not permitted to photograph the conduct of voting at a polling place, nor may they make audio or video recordings of photograph the conduct of voting.246 Before any person will be permitted to observe the conduct of voting, he or she must sign a form stating that, during the conduct of voting, the person:

•may not talk to voters within the polling place;•may not use a mobile phone or computer within the

polling place;

•may not advocate247 for or against a candidate, political party or ballot question;

•may not argue for or against or challenge any decisions made by county election personnel;•may not interfere with the conduct of voting; and•may be removed from the polling place by the

county clerk for violating the election laws or any of the above.248

Nevada’s laws prohibiting observers from speaking with voters in the polling place are clear and are protective of voters’ rights and privacy. A person observing the conduct of voting may remain in a designated area to observe activities conducted at the polling place so long as he or she does not interfere with voting.249 The designated area must allow for meaningful observation but may not be located anywhere that would infringe on the privacy of a voter’s ballot.250

n e w h a m P s h i r eNew Hampshire’s laws are very protective of voting rights. In New Hampshire, any voter may be challenged by an election official, a designated challenger, or any other voter registered in the town or ward in which the election is held.251 Challengers may be designated either by the attorney general,252 or by a state, city, or town committee of a political party.253 A statement signed by either the attorney general or the appropriate chairman of a political committee is sufficient evidence of the authority of any such challenger.254 Challengers are “assigned by the moderator or other election officer presiding at the polling place to such position or positions within the polling place as will enable him to see and hear each voter as he offers to vote.”255 The New Hampshire statutes that regulate the appointment of challengers are clear that an appointed challenger may not be deprived of his or her authority to challenge a voter.256

All challenges, whether from designated challengers, officials, or members of the public, must be signed, under oath, and submitted in writing to a moderator.257 Upon receipt of a written challenge, the moderator must determine if the challenge to the ballot is well grounded.258 If the moderator determines that


the challenge is well grounded, the moderator must reject the vote of the person challenged unless the voter submits an affidavit affirming, under penalty of voter fraud, that he is whoever he represents himself to be and that he is a duly qualified voter and resident of the appropriate town or ward.259 If the moderator determines that the challenge is not well grounded, the moderator must permit the voter to proceed to vote.260 However, no voter or designated challenger is permitted to challenge a person’s qualifications to be a voter at the election day voter registration table,261 which affords some protection to voters seeking to use the state’s Same Day Registration program. New Hampshire does not give poll watchers or observers special legal status, but individuals are allowed inside the polls to observe the conduct of the vote.262 However, no person not authorized by law may stand or sit within 6 feet of the ballot clerk for purposes of observing the check-in of voters without the express permission of the moderator.263 Additionally, New Hampshire prohibits any person from interfering with any voter when the voter is “within the guardrail,” and violations are a misdemeanor.264 To improve its laws, New Hampshire should specifically prohibit watchers or observers from communicating with or recording voters.

n o r t h C a r o l i n aNorth Carolina also has strong laws on its books to protect voters. In North Carolina, only an individual registered to vote in a precinct may challenge a voter at that precinct on Election Day.265 This is helpful in that it limits the ability to launch large-scale voter challenge operations. Grounds for challenges on Election Day include: residency, citizenship, ineligibility due to felony conviction, whether a voter has already voted in the election, or whether the voter is not who she claims to be.266 North Carolina law requires that challenges “shall not be made indiscriminately,” and a challenge can only be made if a challenger “knows, suspects, or reasonably believes [the challenged individual] not to be qualified and entitled to vote.”267 Each challenge must be made separately, in writing, under oath and on forms prescribed by the State Board of Elections, and the challenge must specify the reasons why the

challenged voter should not be entitled to register.268 Once a challenge proceeding is initiated, elected officials are empowered to administer oaths to any person testifying as to the qualifications of the challenged voter, which could include the challenger at the discretion of the official.269 Challenges must be heard and decided by judges of election in the precinct before the polls close.270 Officials must explain the qualifications for voting and may then examine the voter and his or her qualifications.271 A challenged voter must make an oath or affirmation regarding her eligibility to vote; otherwise the challenge will be sustained.272 However, even once a challenger has done so, the elections officials may still refuse to allow the individual to vote a regular ballot “unless they are satisfied that the challenged registrant is a legal voter.”273 In all challenges, the presumption is that the voter is properly registered, and any challenge must be supported by affirmative proof.274 While it is good that the voter may proceed to vote upon swearing an affidavit, elections officials ought to have clear standards upon which they base their decision. The fact that the presumption is that the voter is properly registered and that the challenger has the burden of proof is very protective of voters. Moreover, mail returned as undeliverable is not admissible as evidence in a challenge hearing on Election Day.275 This is an important protection as undeliverable mail is notoriously unreliable as evidence of lack of qualification to vote and has been used in many partisan and racially motivated voter caging and challenge operations in the past. Officially designated observers may also be present at the polling location on Election Day. Observers must be registered voters of the county for which they are appointed and must have “good moral character.”276 The chair of each political party in the county shall have the right to designate two observers to attend each voting place.277 The chair or the judges for each affected precinct may, however, reject any appointee for cause and require another be appointed.278 Observers must be appointed in writing to the county board of elections five days before the election.279

Observers may not electioneer at the voting


place.280 They may not impede the voting process, nor may they interfere or communicate with or observe any voter casting a ballot.281 This prohibition on communicating with voters is helpful. Observers are also not allowed to videotape voters. According to a former North Carolina Attorney General, that would be “outside the permissible activities and inconsistent with the constitutional and statutory principles insuring unfettered elections for voters.”282 Subject to these restrictions, the chief judge and judges shall permit the observer to “make such observation and take such notes as the observer may desire.”283 Each observer is entitled to obtain a list of persons who have voted in the precinct so far that day at times specified by the State Board of Elections.284 The chief judge and judges of election may eject any challenger or witness for violation of any provisions of the election laws.285 These are excellent protections for voters on Election Day.

o h i oIn Ohio, only judges of the election may challenge a registered voter on Election Day.286 This prohibition on Election Day challenges by individuals other than election officials, which was established in 2006, is an important protection for Ohio voters. It prevents partisan or biased challenges and avoids confusion and delay at the polls. Challenges can be based on age, citizenship, or residency.287 Depending on the grounds for challenge, the official asks certain questions and request identification and documentation.288 The grounds for presenting a challenge include: (1) The person is not a citizen of the United States; (2) The person is not a resident of the state for thirty days immediately preceding election; (3) The person is not a resident of the precinct where the person offers to vote; (4) The person is not of legal voting age.289 Voters who are able to provide the election official with proof or documentation of their eligibility may vote a regular ballot.290 Others must vote by provisional ballot.291 In Ohio, a poll observer must be a qualified elector in the state but not necessarily in the county in which she serves.292 Observers must be appointed either by a political party, a group of five or more candidates, or a ballot issue committee.293 The Board of Elections

shall be notified of the names and addresses of the appointed observers and the precincts in which they will serve.294 The initial appointments must be made on official forms not less than eleven days before the election, and those forms may be amended until the afternoon before the election.295 Observers must present their certificates of appointment to the presiding judge of the precinct the night before or at the precinct on Election Day. Upon filing a certificate, the person named as observer in the certificate shall take an oath, to be administered by one of the election judges. The observer shall be permitted to be in and about the polling place for the precinct during the casting of the ballots and shall be permitted to watch every proceeding of the judges of elections from the time of the opening until the closing of the polls.296 Observers may move about within a precinct polling place “to the extent they do not disrupt or interfere with the election, take any action so as to intimidate voters, or put themselves in any position that could violate either the secrecy of the ballot or a voter’s privacy.”297 This is very protective of voters. Observers who serve during the casting of the ballots are only permitted to watch and listen to the activities conducted by the precinct election officials and the interactions between precinct election officials and voters. Observers may only watch as long as they do not delay election officials in conducting their official duties or “cause any delay to persons offering to vote.”298 Observers are permitted to take notes of their observations but may not make any photographic, video, or audio recordings that impede, interfere with, or disrupt an election, or in any way intimidate a voter or risk violating the secrecy of the ballot or voter privacy.299

No observer who serves during voting may interact with any precinct election official or voter while inside the polling place, within the area between the polling place and the small flags leading to the polling place, or within ten feet of any elector in line waiting to vote. An observer does not violate this section as a result of an incidental interaction with a voter or a precinct election official, such as an exchange of greetings.300An observer violating this rule must be warned once, and the presiding judge at that


polling place may remove an observer for subsequent violations.301 If an observer is removed from the polling place, the presiding judge may request the observer’s certificate of appointment and return it to the Board of Elections indicating that the observer was removed from the polling location. 302

P e n n S y lVa n I aIn Pennsylvania, election judges, “overseers of election,” election officers, and qualified electors may challenge a registered voter.303 A person can be challenged if attempting to vote outside the election district in which he or she resides, if he or she is not properly registered in the election district (except by court order).304 Pennsylvania’s laws do not contain sufficient protections for eligible registered voters. The law states that if a voter is challenged as to his identity or residence, the voter must present a witness – who is a qualified elector of the district – to swear to the voter’s qualifications.305 While a voter who is challenged is allowed to vote provisionally,306 this does not alleviate the concern that many voters will not go to the polls in pairs. The lack of restrictions on who may challenge a voter’s eligibility is also troublesome. Pennsylvania should improve its laws to limit the number of people who can challenge a voter’s eligibility, and improve the process for determining a challenge so that it is less burdensome and less likely to disenfranchise eligible registered Pennsylvanians. Each candidate at any election may appoint two watchers for each election district in which he or she is running, and each political party that has nominated candidates may appoint three watchers at any general, municipal or special election for each election district in which its candidates are competing.307 Each watcher must be a qualified registered elector of the county in the election district.308 It is not required that a watcher be a resident of the election district for which he or she is appointed.309 Only one watcher for each candidate at primaries and for each party at general, municipal or special elections may be present in the polling place, from the time the election officers meet until the counting of votes is complete and the district register and voting checklist are sealed.310 All watchers present are required to remain outside the enclosed space.311

After the close of the polls, while the ballots are being counted or the voting machine is being canvassed, all the watchers are permitted in the polling place, as long as they remain outside the enclosed space. Each watcher receives a certificate from the county board of elections, stating his name and the name of the candidate, party or political body he represents and is required to show the certificate upon request.312 Watchers may keep a list of voters and shall be entitled to challenge any prospective voter and to require proof of his or her qualifications to vote.313 The judge of elections must permit watchers to inspect (but not mark) the voting check list and either of the numbered lists of voters maintained by the county board.314 Pennsylvania also has a category of people allowed at the polls in an official capacity called “overseers of election” who supervise the proceedings of election officers, as well as poll watchers.315 Overseers of the election are appointed, following a petition of five or more registered electors of any election district, or by the court of common pleas of the proper county.316 That court is authorized to appoint two “judicious, sober and intelligent electors” of the district belonging to different political parties to supervise the proceedings of election officers. These overseers must be qualified to serve on election boards and must be sworn or affirmed by the judge of election.317 Overseers have the right to be present with the election officers during the entire time the election is held and to observe the votes counted and returns made out and signed by the election officers. Overseers may keep a list of voters.318 Overseers may also challenge any person attempting to vote, examine the voter’s papers, and ask the voter and the voter’s witnesses, under oath, about his or her right to vote in that election, and they are responsible for signing election returns.319 Whenever the members of an election board differ in opinion, the overseers may decide the question if they are in agreement.320 Election officers are required to provide overseers with “every convenience and facility for the discharge of their duties.”321

It is a problematic feature of Pennsylvania’s law, that watchers and overseers can challenge voters


and request proof of eligibility. Giving the watcher the discretion to initiate challenges on the basis of a voter list poses a large risk of discriminatory challenges. Particularly in light of Pennsylvania’s newly passed Voter ID law, the power to examine a voter’s papers and otherwise interrogate voters gives watchers and overseers a lot of power in an interaction with a voter, which could prove troublesome.

t e x a sTexas law does not allow a person to challenge a person’s registration or ability to vote at a polling place on Election Day.322 In Texas, poll watchers can be appointed to observe the conduct of election.323 To be eligible to serve as a watcher, a person must be a qualified voter of the county and political subdivision in which he or she will serve in a statewide election.324 Candidates, chairs of political parties, or, in the case of a write-in candidate, a group of registered voters may appoint two watchers for each voting location.325 The appointment must be in writing, and the appointing officials or voters must issue a certificate of appointment to the appointee and obtain an affidavit stating that the appointee will not have possession of a device capable of recording images or sound or that the appointee will disable or deactivate the device while serving as a watcher.326 This provision is good. The watcher must deliver the certificate of appointment to the presiding judge at the polling place and must counter-sign it to verify that the watcher is the same person who signed the certificate. A watcher is entitled to be near the election officers at the polls, and members of the counting team when votes are being counted, inspect the returns, and make written notes while on duty.327An election judge at a central counting station must allow watchers to perform the activities described in the Texas Election Code, but the judge also has the authority to limit excessive or disruptive activity.328 A watcher is entitled to observe any activities conducted at the location he or she is serving, except that the watcher may not be present at the voting station when a voter is preparing a ballot without assistance from an election officer.329 However,

watchers are entitled to be present at the voting station when a voter is being assisted by an election officer and are entitled to examine the ballot before it is deposited in the ballot box to determine whether it is prepared in accordance with the voter’s wishes.330 This is very problematic. This inspection requirement endangers the secrecy of a voter’s ballot. While on duty, a watcher may not converse with an election officer regarding the election, except to call attention to an irregularity or violation of law, nor may they converse with voters or communicate in any manner with a voter regarding the election.331 It is protective of voting rights to prohibit voter communication by the poll watchers. Of course, for this provision to be effective, enforcement is critical. As noted, troubling allegations about poll watcher behavior in Harris County, Texas makes this obvious.332 A watcher may bring any occurrence that the watcher believes to be an irregularity or violation of law to the attention of an election officer.333 The watcher may discuss the matter with the officer, and the officer may refer the watcher to the presiding officer at any point in the discussion.334 In that case, the watcher may no longer discuss the occurrence with the

t r o u B l e i n t e x a s :The need for enforcement

In 2010, reports surfaced that “[p]oll watchers in Harris County … were accused of ‘hovering over’ voters, ‘getting into election workers’ faces’ and blocking or disrupting lines of voters who were waiting to cast their ballots.”339 The county attorney’s office and the county clerk’s office took no action beyond initial investigations.340 Fortunately, other reports indicate that the Department of Justice was investigating the matter, including witness interviews.341 In a public statement, the Department’s Civil Rights Division confirmed its efforts to gather information about Harris County poll watcher intimidation, but charges were never brought.342 n


subordinate officer unless the presiding officer invites the discussion.335 It is a Class A misdemeanor offense for an official to knowingly prevent an authorized watcher from observing an activity the watcher is entitled to observe.336 And it is a third-degree felony for any person in a polling place for any purpose other than voting to knowingly communicate any information obtained at the polling place about how a voter has voted to a third person.337 It is also illegal for poll workers or watchers to reveal any information about the results or the names of who has and has not voted at any time before the polls have closed.338

v i r g i n i aIn Virginia, any qualified voter may challenge another voter at the polls on Election Day, which leaves the voters of Virginia at the mercy of anyone who may want to show up at the polls and be disruptive. However, at least any challenge must be in writing. The challenger must fill out a form, subject to penalties, stating that the challenged voter is not a citizen, a resident, of age, has already voted elsewhere, is disqualified by the state (e.g. due to a felony conviction), or is not who she represents herself to be.343 The challenged voter can sign a statement that she is eligible and may then vote a regular ballot.344 However, if the challenged voter refuses to sign the statement, he or she won’t be able to vote even using a provisional ballot.345 The Virginia legislature improved its law in 2007 by requiring any Election Day challenges to be on a written form. This is protective of voting rights as it creates a measure of accountability for someone making a challenge. However, Virginia should improve its laws further by requiring an stronger evidentiary basis for a challenge. Election officials must permit at least one authorized representative for each political party or candidate in the room in which the election is being conducted at all times. Election officials have the discretion to permit as many as three representatives of each political party or independent candidate to remain in the room in which the election is being conducted.346 Authorized representatives must be qualified Virginia voters. Each authorized representative must present to the officers of election a written statement (or copy),

signed by the party chairman or candidate, designating him as the party’s or candidate’s representative.347 Authorized representatives are allowed to use wireless communications devices, but they are not permitted to use the camera or video function on those devices.348 The officers of election may prohibit the use of cellular telephones or other handheld wireless communications devices if such use will unlawfully impede, influence, or intimidate voters.349 Authorized representatives must be allowed, whether in a regular polling place or central absentee voter precinct, to be close enough to the voter check-in table to be able to hear and see what is occurring.350 However, such observation shall not violate the secrecy of the ballot protected by the Virginia state constitution.351 Thus, they may move about the polling place to observe the election so long as they do not “hinder or delay a qualified voter or the officers of election, provide or exhibit campaign materials, attempt to influence a person voting, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of the election.”352 Officers of election have the authority to remove any representative who does not adhere to the applicable guidelines.353 It is good that Virginia has a statutory basis for removing representatives that are disturbing the orderly conduct of elections.

r e C o m m e n d at I o n S F o r a d d r e S S I n g e l e C t I o n d ay C h a l l e n g e S a n d P o l l Wat C h e r SBy allowing individuals to challenge voters’ eligibility to vote at the polls on Election Day, states run the risk that challenges will be used as a suppressive tactic for partisan gamesmanship. Challenges have been deployed against specific populations, often communities of color, in a way that is truly un-American and hearkens back to some of our country’s darkest days. Moreover, when voters face challenges at the polls, it can slow down the process for everyone else at the polling place. Although some states’ laws are better than others, many are too vague and unclear and make it too easy for baseless challenges which throw up barriers to the voting rights of eligible, fully qualified registered voters. In order properly to protect voters’ rights to be able to cast their vote free of inappropriate


challenges, rules governing the challenge process should be very clear and procedural safeguards should be in place. As a general recommendation, challenges should not be allowed on Election Day. If they are, then ideally, only elections officials should have the authority to challenge a voter’s eligibility. Any challenge should be in writing and include the basis for the challenge and the facts supporting the challenge. States should also require some documentary evidence supporting the challenge as well. At minimum, there should be a standard requiring the challenger to have personal knowledge of the facts upon which the challenge is being made. Properly implemented, this requirement would prevent wholesale voter challenges based on speculation or possibly incorrect lists. A challenger should have to sign an oath under penalty of perjury, which will deter frivolous or ill-intentioned efforts. The grounds for challenge should be limited to citizenship, residency, identity, and age. There should be a penalty for filing a frivolous challenge. Procedurally, the burden of proof must be on the challenger to show by clear and convincing evidence that the person challenged is ineligible to vote. The benefit of the doubt must go to the duly registered voter. This is very important – it should be the person doing the challenging who must prove that the voter is ineligible, not the other way around. The challenged voter should be able to vote a regular ballot if she answers the poll workers questions regarding eligibility or signs an affidavit affirming her eligibility. Returned mail should not be considered prima facie evidence to sustain a challenge. Provisional ballots should not be deemed an adequate substitute for casting a regular ballot if a challenge is not supported by personal knowledge, evidence, and a process that provides full protection to duly registered voters. States should adopt laws that protect voters from inappropriate behavior by poll watchers. Poll watchers should be prohibited from communicating with voters. They should not be allowed to videotape or photograph voters. The privacy of voters should be protected by prohibiting poll watchers from watching voters vote. Under no circumstance should a poll watcher be able to observe a voter’s ballot. Poll

watchers should not impede the voting process or interfere or communicate with or observe any voter casting a ballot. Because rules around poll watchers do not afford enough protections against inappropriate behavior, only eligible voters in the same precinct should be able to serve as poll watchers in that district. Whether individuals are designated as challengers, poll watchers, or poll observers, elections officials should have statutory authority to eject anyone interfering with the orderly conduct of elections.


State laWS addreSSIng Voter IntImIdatIon, InSIde and outSIde the PollS

t his section focuses on activities that occur in the areas surrounding polling places on Election Day and broader laws concerning voter intimidation. Over the past few years, there has been concern about a number of

groups who send volunteers to the polls to challenge the eligibility of voters under the guise of preventing electoral fraud who have no official status but simply appear outside polling sites. Many of the states that we surveyed for this report have laws on the books prohibiting voter intimidation. As referenced in the introduction, the Voting Rights Act bars intimidation in the voting process in any state. Law enforcement can and should apply these statutes to behavior at the polling places that has the effect of intimidating voters about their eligibility to vote, including outside of polling locations. There is still room for legislators in these states to better protect voters from intimidation tactics by passing stronger legislation and increasing the penalties for those engaging in voter intimidation. However, as a starting point, the laws discussed below should be used if confrontations around poll site locations, such as those conducted by True the Vote in Harris County in 2010, occur again.

C o l o r a D oColorado has voter intimidation statutes, but the laws are written narrowly and ambiguously. Colorado law contains a voter intimidation statute that only explicitly references voter intimidation in the title, as opposed to the text, of the statute.354 Colorado law makes it a misdemeanor “for any person directly or indirectly . . . to impede, prevent, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of the elective franchise.”355 It is also unlawful for any person to attempt to induce any voter to show how he marked his ballot.356

F l o r i D aFlorida law has two statutes that directly address voter intimidation. First, Florida law makes it unlawful for any person, acting under color of law or otherwise, to

“

intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or not to vote as that person may choose.357 Second, Florida’s “Voter Protection Act” makes it unlawful for any person to “directly or indirectly use or threaten to use intimidation or any tactic of coercion or intimidation to induce or compel an individual to vote or refrain from voting, vote or refrain from voting for any particular individual or ballot measure, refrain from registering to vote, or refrain from acting as a legally authorized election official or poll watcher.”358 Florida law also includes some important protections for voters at the polling place itself. It specifically prohibits individuals – including groups or organizations – from “solicit[ing]” voters within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place or early voting site.359 Soliciting is defined to include “seeking or attempting to seek any vote, fact, opinion, or contribution,” and is therefore broader than a prohibition on electioneering. It would also appear to prohibit the harassing conduct experienced in recent elections, such as hovering over voters.

m I S S o u r IA number of surveyed states do not have laws that explicitly address voter intimidation, although these states have broad voting laws that might be sufficient to cover such practices. Missouri, for example, prohibits using or threatening to use “force, violence or restraint . . . in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting at any election.”360 Missouri also prohibits “impeding or preventing, or attempting to impede or prevent, by abduction, duress or any fraudulent device or contrivance, the free exercise of the franchise of any voter.”361 While this statute addresses certain problematic Election Day activities, the statute is written in a way that makes its exact scope unclear. For example, the statute does not explain what constitutes a “fraudulent device or contrivance.” Missouri law also prohibits a number of other specific election related offenses, such as


tampering with a voter’s ballot, providing inducements to voters, creating a breach of the peace, preventing one’s employees from voting, or otherwise interfering or attempting to interfere with any voter inside a polling place.362

n e va D aNevada law prohibits the use or threat of use of “force, intimidation, coercion, violence, restrain or undue influence” in connection with any election.363 And as described above, it is unlawful for members of the general public to photograph or record people who are in the process of voting.364 It is a felony under Nevada law to interfere with the conduct of an election or otherwise remove, receive, or display any ballot that has been prepared by a voter before the polls are closed.365

n e w h a m P s h i r eNew Hampshire law makes it unlawful to “use or threaten force, violence, or any tactic of coercion or intimidation to knowingly induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting, vote or refrain from voting for any particular candidate or ballot measure, or refrain from registering to vote.”366 New Hampshire also makes it a misdemeanor for individuals to knowingly interfere or attempt to interfere with a voter in the space within the guardrail. This prohibition includes any effort to induce a voter to show how he marks or has marked his ballot before he or she has voted.367

n o r t h C a r o l i n aNorth Carolina law is strong. First, it makes it illegal for any person to interfere with or attempt to interfere with any voter when inside the voting enclosure or when marking his ballots.368 One possible shortcoming with this law is that it relies on narrow definitions of “voting place” and “voting enclosure.”369 North Carolina law does, however, specify that each county board of elections must specify a “buffer zone” around the polling place where it is prohibited to hinder or harass voters and where no electioneering activities may occur.370 The buffer zone may not be more than 50 feet or less than 25 feet from the entrance of the

polling place.371 This is a commendable statute and one that other states should consider adopting. Further, North Carolina requires the chief judge and judges of election to “enforce peace and good order in and about the place of registration and voting,” including keeping “open and unobstructed the place at which voters or persons seeking to register or vote have access to the place of registration and voting.”372 North Carolina officials interpret “in and about” very broadly.373 These officials are charged with “prevent[ing] and stop[ping] improper practices and attempts to obstruct, intimidate, or interfere with any person in registering or voting.”374

o h i oOhio law makes it illegal for any person to “attempt by intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means to induce such delegate or elector to register or refrain from registering or to vote or refrain from voting at a primary, convention, or election for a particular person, question, or issue.”378 It is also prohibited under Ohio law to remove or deface property that

t r o u B l e i n n o r t h C a r o l i n a :The Need for Enforcement

Examples of voter intimidation in North Carolina illustrate the importance of these strong statutes. For example, in 2008 supporters of Barack Obama were heckled and harassed at an early voting center in Fayetteville, North Carolina by a group of protesters as they went in to vote. 375 Others report that protesters from both sides escalated this matter into a shouting match, although there were no reports of physical violence.376 One journalist noted that nearly all of the early voters were black and that nearly all of the protesters were white. 377 Harassment of this sort must be addressed, as it is likely to intimidate and possibly disenfranchise voters. North Carolina law enforcement has the tools to stop this voter intimidation, but they must be used to protect voters. n


relates to the conducting of an election from a polling place, and it is illegal to intimidate an election officer or otherwise interfere with the conduct of an election.379 Ohio law is also explicit that no person may “loiter” or “congregate” “within the area between the polling place and the small flags” that officials place 100 feet from the polling place.380 Finally, in Ohio is illegal to “hinder or delay an elector in reaching or leaving” the polling place.”381

P e n n s y lva n i aPennsylvania law prohibits any manner of intimidation or coercion in order to induce or compel persons to vote or refrain from voting at any election.382 Pennsylvania’s anti-intimidation statute specifically prohibits restraining, threatening, or using any force that interferes with any person’s efforts to cast a ballot.383 The law also makes it illegal to use any fraudulent device that interferes with voters or induces a voter to give his or her vote for or against any particular person at any election.384 Any individual or corporation, whether for profit or not for profit, who violates these provisions faces a fine of up to $5000 and up to two years of imprisonment.385

t e x a sTexas law prohibits a person from indicating to a voter in a polling place “by word, sign, or gesture how the person desires the voter to vote or not vote.”386 It is a misdemeanor in Texas to loiter or electioneer for or against any candidate, measure, or political party during the voting period within 100 of an outside door.387 It is also a misdemeanor for a person not engaged in activities specifically permitted by the Election Code to be in the polling place “from the time the presiding judge arrives there on Election Day to make the preliminary arrangements until the precinct returns have been certified and the election records have been assembled for distribution following the election.”388

v i r g i n i aVirginia makes it a crime for any person (i) to loiter or congregate within 40 feet of any entrance of any polling place; (ii) within such distance to give, tender,

or exhibit any ballot, ticket, or other campaign material to any person or to solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any person in casting his vote; or (iii) to hinder or delay a qualified voter in entering or leaving a polling place.389 Virginia law further prohibits attempts to influence a person’s vote by “threats, bribery, or other means in violation of the election laws.”390 It is a misdemeanor for any person to hinder or delay a qualified voter or election officer, to give a ballot, ticket, or other campaign material to any person, to solicit or influence any person in casting his vote, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of the election. 391

r e C o m m e n d at I o n S r e l at e d t o S tat e V o t e r I n t I m I d at I o n l aW SMany state laws discussed above are clearly applicable to a wide range of intimidation tactics, including “True the Vote”-like tactics of “hovering” around voters and disrupting voting lines snaking around outside of polling places.392 There are, however, a number of things that can be done to provide even more protection from harassment masquerading as citizen law enforcement. We recommend that legislators take steps to provide more clarity with regard to rules relating to voter intimidation outside of the polling place. Many of the surveyed laws are broadly drafted, rendering their application to certain behaviors ambiguous. We might consider analogizing these practices to electioneering. Electioneering generally involves handing out campaign materials, displaying signs, and otherwise advocating for the support or defeat of a candidate by using the candidate’s name. All ten states surveyed for this report have laws prohibiting electioneering within specific distances of polling places on Election Day because the states believe that some solicitation-free zones are necessary to protect voters from confusion and undue influence and to preserve the integrity and dignity of the election process.393 These rules are consistently upheld by the courts, including when the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee electioneering law that prohibited electioneering within one hundred feet of a polling place.394

Another analogy to consider are the laws that


restrict protests within a certain area surrounding medical facilities that provide abortions, in order to protect doctors and patients from intimidation and harassment by protesters.395 The Supreme Court recognized the government’s interest in protecting the “privacy interest in avoiding unwanted communication” and the right of individuals “to be let alone.”396 The Court reasoned that “the First Amendment does not demand that patients at a medical facility undertake Herculean efforts to escape the cacophony of political protests.”397 We might think about polling places as a similar harassment free zone to guard against voter intimidation and harassment at the polls. Specifically, voter intimidation laws could create a protected zone around polling places in which non-official inquiries into or challenges of a voter’s qualifications or ability to vote would be prohibited – just as electioneering is prohibited within certain distances of polling places – in order to ensure the integrity of the election. Statutes that provide zones of protection would help address situations where voters are asked by people other than election officials whether they have valid identification or where voters are told that voters with outstanding traffic tickets could be arrested if they try to vote. Intimidating and disruptive behavior should be curtailed by laws that prohibit people from impeding the orderly conduct of the election within these protected areas.


ConCluSIon

t he state laws analyzed in this report vary in the protections they afford voters. In too many states, voters are vulnerable to removal from the rolls or not having their ballots counted because challengers

can base their charges on unreliable data. Too many jurisdictions fail to provide challenged voters with the full protections they should be afforded, such as a right to a hearing and a presumption of compliance with the laws governing qualifications. Jurisdictions still have time to implement policies and procedures that will more adequately protect voters during this upcoming election without the need for legislation, such as the directive issued by Ohio’s Secretary of State that specifically prohibits justifying a voter challenge on returned mail alone.398 Another critical step states can take between now and the elections is to make sure their poll workers and elections officials are well-versed in their procedures and effectively trained to protect voters from wrongful challenges and intimidation. State leaders and advocates should work to strengthen their laws in upcoming legislative sessions as well. Federal legislation has been introduced to address standards for voter challenges and to guard against insidious voter caging practices. The Voter Empowerment Act would, among other things, prohibit voter caging and improper challenges.399 It would protect eligible voters from being denied the right to register or vote based on the fact that mail was returned as undeliverable.400 The bill would also require that any voter challenge be backed up by independent evidence, and if someone other than an election official challenges a registered voter’s right to vote their challenge must be made on the basis of personal knowledge.

The Department of Justice should engage in vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and other protections against discrimination and intimidation. The Department of Justice should monitor developments leading up to the election and at the polls on Election Day and stand ready to step in to protect voters from intimidation. We strongly encourage election officials and state law enforcement to be aware of possible voter intimidation activity at the polls and aggressively enforce anti-intimidation laws to ensure all eligible voters can vote without interference. We must all remain vigilant and allow zero tolerance for bullying at the ballot box.

33 •

aPP

end

Ix 1

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pre

-Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

aPPendICeSSt

ate

Wh

o C

an C

hal

len

ge

BeFo

re e

leC

tIo

n d

ay?

Wh

at m

uSt

a C

hal

len

ger

d

o t

o F

Ile

a C

hal

len

ge?

ho

W IS

th

e C

hal

len

ge

reSo

lVed

?aS

SeSS

men

t:

are

Vote

rS P

rote

Cte

d?

Co

lora

do

Any

one

regi

ster

ed t

o vo

te in

C

olor

ado

can

chal

leng

e an

y pe

rson

who

se n

ame

appe

ars

in a

cou

nty

regi

stra

tion

re

cord

.C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§

1-9-

101(

1)(a

)

Mus

t be

in w

riti

ng, i

nclu

de t

he

basi

s fo

r ch

alle

nge,

and

incl

ude

docu

men

tary

evi

denc

e.

File

d w

ith

the

coun

ty c

lerk

and

re

cord

no

late

r th

an 6

0 da

ys

befo

re e

lect

ion.

CO

LO

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

1-9

-101

(1)

(a)

A h

eari

ng m

ust

take

pla

ce n

o la

ter

than

30

days

aft

er a

cha

lleng

e is

file

d.C

halle

nged

vot

er is

ent

itle

d to

app

ear.

The

cha

lleng

er is

req

uire

d to

app

ear

and

bear

s th

e bu

rden

of

proo

f.C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

-9-1

01(1

)(a)

.A

dec

isio

n to

be

issu

ed w

ithi

n fiv

e da

ys o

f th

e he

arin

g.C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

-9-1

01(1

)(b)

SatI

SFaC

tory

Col

orad

o la

w h

as s

ome

exce

llent

pr

ovis

ions

– f

or e

xam

ple,

it r

e-qu

ires

the

cha

lleng

e to

be

in w

rit-

ing

acco

mpa

nied

by

docu

men

tary

ev

iden

ce, h

eari

ngs,

and

it r

equi

res

the

chal

leng

er t

o be

ar t

he b

urde

n of

pro

of.

Col

orad

o co

uld

impr

ove

its

law

s by

req

uiri

ng c

halle

nger

s to

file

un

der

oath

and

indi

cate

per

sona

l kn

owle

dge

of t

he a

llege

d de

fi-ci

ency

.

Flo

rId

aA

ny r

egis

tere

d vo

ter

in F

lor-

ida

can

chal

leng

e an

othe

r vo

ter’

s el

igib

ility

to

vote

, pr

ovid

ing

the

chal

leng

er is

fr

om t

he s

ame

coun

ty.

FLA

. ST

AT.

§ 1

01.1

11(1

)(a)

Mus

t be

wri

tten

und

er o

ath,

sp

ecif

ying

the

rea

son

for

the

chal

-le

nge.

M

ust

be fi

led

wit

hin

30 d

ays

im-

med

iate

ly b

efor

e an

ele

ctio

n.A

vot

er c

an b

e ch

alle

nged

on

any

grou

nd, p

rovi

ding

the

re is

rea

son

to b

elie

ve t

he c

halle

nged

vot

er is

vo

ting

“ill

egal

ly.”

FLA

. ST

AT.

§ 1

01.1

11(1

)A

nyon

e th

at fi

les

a “f

rivo

lous

ch

alle

nge”

com

mit

s a

first

deg

ree

mis

dem

eano

r. FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101.

111(

2)

The

cha

lleng

ed v

oter

mus

t be

pro

vide

d w

ith

a co

py o

f th

e ch

alle

nge.

FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101

.111

For

chal

leng

es b

ased

on

a qu

esti

on o

f re

side

n-cy

, the

cha

lleng

ed v

oter

can

cas

t a

regu

lar

bal-

lot

by p

rovi

ng r

esid

ency

at

the

polls

onl

y if

she

is

a m

embe

r of

the

act

ive

unif

orm

ed s

ervi

ces

or m

ovin

g w

ithi

n th

e sa

me

coun

ty.

FLA

. ST

AT.

§ 1

01.0

45(2

)(b)

Oth

erw

ise,

the

vot

er m

ay c

ast

a pr

ovis

iona

l ba

llot.

FLA

. ST

AT.

§ 1

01.1

11(2

)(c)

For

a pr

ovis

iona

l bal

lot

to b

e co

unte

d, w

ritt

en

evid

ence

sup

port

ing

elig

ibili

ty m

ust

be p

re-

sent

ed t

o th

e su

perv

isor

of

elec

tion

s by

5 p

.m.

on t

he 2

nd d

ay a

fter

the

ele

ctio

n.FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101

.048

(1)

un

SatI

SFaC

tory

Flor

ida

coul

d im

prov

e it

s la

ws

by

requ

irin

g he

arin

gs a

nd b

y lim

itin

g ch

alle

nges

in t

he d

ays

imm

edia

tely

pr

ior

to t

he e

lect

ion.

Fu

rthe

r, ot

her

than

for

uni

form

ed

serv

ice

mem

bers

and

tho

se w

ho

have

mov

ed w

ithi

n th

e sa

me

coun

ty, t

he o

nly

aven

ue t

o cu

re a

ch

alle

nge

is t

o vo

te p

rovi

sion

ally

an

d th

en s

eek

to h

ave

the

prov

i-si

onal

bal

lot

coun

ted.

The

bur

den

of p

roof

sho

uld

inst

ead

rest

on

the

chal

leng

er.

Flor

ida

has

one

exem

plar

y pr

ovi-

sion

, spe

cify

ing

that

fri

volo

us

chal

leng

es a

re fi

rst

degr

ee m

isde

-m

eano

rs.

1. st

ate

law

s g

ove

rnin

g P

re-e

leCt

ion

Day

Ch

alle

ng

es

34 •

aPP

end

Ix 1

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pre

-Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

Stat

e W

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e Be

Fore

ele

CtI

on

day

?W

hat

mu

St a

Ch

alle

ng

er d

o

to F

Ile

a C

hal

len

ge?

ho

W IS

th

e C

hal

len

ge

reSo

lVed

?aS

SeSS

men

t:

are

Vote

rS P

rote

Cte

d?

mIS

Sou

rIE

lect

ion

auth

orit

ies

are

requ

ired

to

inve

stig

ate

mat

eria

l bro

ught

to

thei

r at

-te

ntio

n “f

rom

any

sou

rce”

.R

EV

. ST

AT.

MO

. § 1

15.1

91

Mis

sour

i law

lack

s a

step

-by-

step

pr

oces

s fo

r pr

e-el

ecti

on c

halle

nges

.H

owev

er, e

lect

ion

auth

orit

ies

have

br

oad

auth

orit

y to

inve

stig

ate

resi

-de

nce

or o

ther

qua

lifica

tion

s of

any

vo

ter

at a

ny t

ime.

RE

V. S

TA

T. M

O. §

115

.191

Mis

sour

i law

lack

s a

step

-by-

step

pro

cess

for

pr

e-el

ecti

on c

halle

nges

.L

ocal

ele

ctio

n au

thor

itie

s ar

e re

quir

ed t

o in

-ve

stig

ate

vote

r qu

alifi

cati

on m

ater

ial b

roug

ht

to t

heir

att

enti

on a

t an

y ti

me

in a

ny m

anne

r th

e lo

cal e

lect

ion

auth

orit

y di

rect

s. I

nves

tiga

-ti

ons

“may

” be

def

erre

d un

til a

fter

an

elec

tion

if

rai

sed

wit

hin

ten

days

of

Ele

ctio

n D

ay.

RE

V. S

TA

T. M

O. §

115

.191

un

SatI

SFaC

tory

Mis

sour

i sho

uld

adop

t pr

ovis

ions

to

prot

ect

vote

rs f

rom

wro

ngfu

l pre

-E

lect

ion

Day

cha

lleng

es. T

hey

shou

ld

requ

ire

chal

leng

es t

o be

in w

riti

ng,

unde

r oa

th, s

uppo

rted

by

evid

ence

an

d ba

sed

on p

erso

nal k

now

ledg

e.

Hea

ring

s sh

ould

be

requ

ired

bef

ore

a re

gist

rati

on in

can

celle

d, w

ith

the

burd

en o

f pr

oof

on t

he c

halle

nger

. V

oter

s sh

ould

be

able

to

vote

aft

er

affir

min

g th

eir

qual

ifica

tion

s at

th

e po

lls. F

iling

a f

rivo

lous

cha

rge

shou

ld b

e a

mis

dem

eano

r.

neV

ada

Any

reg

iste

red

vote

r m

ay

chal

leng

e th

e re

gist

rati

on

stat

us o

f an

y ot

her

regi

s-te

red

vote

r, pr

ovid

ed b

oth

indi

vidu

als

are

regi

ster

ed t

o vo

te in

the

sam

e pr

ecin

ct.

NE

V. R

EV

. ST

AT.

AN

N.

§§ 2

93.3

03, 2

93.5

47

Cha

lleng

es m

ust

be in

wri

ting

, si

gned

by

the

chal

leng

er, i

nclu

de t

he

grou

nds

for

chal

leng

e an

d m

ust

be

base

d on

“pe

rson

al k

now

ledg

e.”

Wri

tten

cha

lleng

es m

ust

be s

ubm

itte

d af

ter

the

30th

day

but

not

late

r th

an

the

25th

day

bef

ore

any

elec

tion

.N

EV

. RE

V. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 2

93.5

47

Wit

hin

5 da

ys o

f a

filed

cha

lleng

e, t

he c

ount

y cl

erk

mus

t m

ail a

not

ice

to t

he c

halle

nged

vo

ter.

The

vot

er m

ay s

till

vote

in t

he u

pcom

ing

elec

-ti

on, b

ut a

fai

lure

to

resp

ond,

and

a f

ailu

re t

o vo

te b

efor

e th

e se

cond

gen

eral

ele

ctio

n af

ter

the

noti

ce is

mai

led,

will

res

ult

in t

he r

egis

tra-

tion

bei

ng c

ance

lled.

NE

V. R

EV

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

293

.547

If t

he c

halle

nge

conc

erns

res

iden

cy, t

hen

proo

f of

res

iden

ce m

ust

be d

emon

stra

ted

to b

e ab

le

to c

onti

nue

to v

ote.

Oth

er c

halle

nges

req

uire

th

e vo

ter

to s

wea

r or

affi

rm, u

nder

pen

alty

of

perj

ury,

info

rmat

ion

conc

erni

ng t

heir

elig

ibil-

ity

to v

ote.

NE

V. R

EV

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

293

.303

SatI

SFaC

tory

Nev

ada

law

is g

ood

in t

hat

the

chal

-le

nges

mus

t be

sig

ned

and

in w

riti

ng,

and

base

d on

per

sona

l kno

wle

dge.

A

lso,

not

ice

to t

he c

halle

nged

vo

ter

is r

equi

red.

It

is v

ery

good

tha

t ch

alle

nged

vot

ers

can

reso

lve

thei

r ch

alle

nge

at t

he p

olls

and

vot

e up

on

affir

min

g th

eir

qual

ifica

tion

s.N

evad

a la

ws

coul

d be

impr

oved

by

requ

irin

g ch

alle

nger

s to

sub

mit

the

ir

clai

ms

unde

r oa

th, a

nd m

akin

g fr

ivo-

lous

cha

lleng

es a

mis

dem

eano

r.

35 •

aPP

end

Ix 1

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pre

-Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

Stat

e W

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e Be

Fore

ele

CtI

on

day

?W

hat

mu

St a

Ch

alle

ng

er d

o

to F

Ile

a C

hal

len

ge?

ho

W IS

th

e C

hal

len

ge

reSo

lVed

?aS

SeSS

men

t:

are

Vote

rS P

rote

Cte

d?

neW

ham

PSh

Ire

Any

vot

er c

an c

halle

nge

any

othe

r vo

ter

that

is r

egis

tere

d in

the

tow

n or

war

d in

w

hich

the

ele

ctio

n is

hel

d.

N.H

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

659

:27

The

re a

re t

wo

proc

edur

es:

1 –

Cha

lleng

er fi

les

a co

mpl

aint

in

supe

rior

cou

rt s

tati

ng t

hat

anot

her

citi

zen

is “

illeg

ally

” on

a v

oter

rol

l.N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 6

54.4

22

– C

halle

nger

file

s a

wri

tten

req

uest

w

ith

the

supe

rvis

ors

of t

he c

heck

list

or t

o th

e to

wn

or c

ity

cler

k, p

rovi

d-in

g ev

iden

ce t

hat

a pe

rson

is n

ot

qual

ified

.N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 6

54:3

6-a

1 –

Com

plai

nt in

sup

erio

r co

urt:

The

com

-pl

aint

is s

erve

d on

the

tow

n el

ecti

on s

uper

vi-

sors

and

cha

lleng

ed v

oter

, wit

h a

tim

e an

d pl

ace

for

“an

imm

edia

te h

eari

ng”.

The

judg

e he

arin

g th

e ca

se m

ay o

rder

the

na

me

rem

oved

fro

m t

he c

heck

list

“as

just

ice

requ

ires

”.N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 6

54.4

22

- W

ritt

en r

eque

st w

ith

the

supe

rvis

ors

of t

he

chec

klis

t: E

lect

ion

supe

rvis

ors

mak

e a

dete

r-m

inat

ion

whe

ther

it is

“m

ore

likel

y th

an n

ot”

that

a v

oter

s qu

alifi

cati

ons

are

in d

oubt

. If

so,

the

supe

rvis

ors

mus

t gi

ve a

wri

tten

30-

day

noti

ce f

or t

he v

oter

to

prov

ide

proo

f. F

ailu

re

to r

espo

nd o

r to

pro

vide

pro

of r

esul

ts in

the

vo

ter

bein

g re

mov

ed f

rom

the

che

cklis

t.T

he b

urde

n of

pro

of is

on

the

chal

leng

ed v

oter

to

dem

onst

rate

the

ir e

ligib

ility

.N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 6

54:3

6-a

un

SatI

SFaC

tory

New

Ham

pshi

re c

ould

impr

ove

its

law

s by

req

uiri

ng c

halle

nger

s to

su

bmit

cha

lleng

es u

nder

oat

h, a

nd

requ

irin

g th

at t

he c

halle

nger

bea

r th

e bu

rden

of

proo

f.

no

rth

Car

olI

na

Any

reg

iste

red

vote

r of

a

coun

ty m

ay c

halle

nge

the

regi

stra

tion

of

any

othe

r vo

ter

in t

he s

ame

coun

ty.

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. A

NN

. §

163

85

Cha

lleng

es m

ust

be in

wri

ting

, be

sign

ed u

nder

oat

h, a

nd in

clud

e sp

e-ci

fic r

easo

ns w

hy t

he v

oter

’s r

egis

tra-

tion

is c

halle

nged

.N

o ch

alle

nges

allo

wed

aft

er t

he 2

5th

day

befo

re a

n el

ecti

on.

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 1

63 8

5

The

boa

rd o

f el

ecti

on m

ust

sche

dule

a h

eari

ng

and

take

tes

tim

ony

unde

r oa

th. T

he b

urde

n of

pr

oof

is o

n th

e ch

alle

nger

.Pr

esen

tati

on o

f a

retu

rned

und

eliv

erab

le le

tter

m

aile

d to

a v

oter

, sha

ll “c

onst

itut

e pr

ima

faci

e ev

iden

ce t

hat

the

pers

on n

o lo

nger

res

ides

in

the

prec

inct

.”N

.C. G

EN

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

163

85

mIx

edN

orth

Car

olin

a ha

s re

lati

vely

pr

otec

tive

cha

lleng

er la

ws,

in t

hat

it

requ

ires

tha

t ch

alle

nges

be

in w

riti

ng

and

sign

ed u

nder

oat

h, r

equi

res

hear

-in

gs, a

nd t

he b

urde

n of

pro

of is

on

the

chal

leng

er.

How

ever

, its

pro

visi

on a

llow

ing

unde

liver

able

mai

l as

prim

a fa

cie

evi-

denc

e th

at a

per

son

no lo

nger

res

ides

in

a p

reci

nct

coul

d gi

ve r

ise

to v

oter

ca

ging

and

sho

uld

be c

hang

ed.

Stat

e W

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e Be

Fore

ele

CtI

on

day

?W

hat

mu

St a

Ch

alle

ng

er d

o

to F

Ile

a C

hal

len

ge?

ho

W IS

th

e C

hal

len

ge

reSo

lVed

?aS

SeSS

men

t:

are

Vote

rS P

rote

Cte

d?

mIS

Sou

rIE

lect

ion

auth

orit

ies

are

requ

ired

to

inve

stig

ate

mat

eria

l bro

ught

to

thei

r at

-te

ntio

n “f

rom

any

sou

rce”

.R

EV

. ST

AT.

MO

. § 1

15.1

91

Mis

sour

i law

lack

s a

step

-by-

step

pr

oces

s fo

r pr

e-el

ecti

on c

halle

nges

.H

owev

er, e

lect

ion

auth

orit

ies

have

br

oad

auth

orit

y to

inve

stig

ate

resi

-de

nce

or o

ther

qua

lifica

tion

s of

any

vo

ter

at a

ny t

ime.

RE

V. S

TA

T. M

O. §

115

.191

Mis

sour

i law

lack

s a

step

-by-

step

pro

cess

for

pr

e-el

ecti

on c

halle

nges

.L

ocal

ele

ctio

n au

thor

itie

s ar

e re

quir

ed t

o in

-ve

stig

ate

vote

r qu

alifi

cati

on m

ater

ial b

roug

ht

to t

heir

att

enti

on a

t an

y ti

me

in a

ny m

anne

r th

e lo

cal e

lect

ion

auth

orit

y di

rect

s. I

nves

tiga

-ti

ons

“may

” be

def

erre

d un

til a

fter

an

elec

tion

if

rai

sed

wit

hin

ten

days

of

Ele

ctio

n D

ay.

RE

V. S

TA

T. M

O. §

115

.191

un

SatI

SFaC

tory

Mis

sour

i sho

uld

adop

t pr

ovis

ions

to

prot

ect

vote

rs f

rom

wro

ngfu

l pre

-E

lect

ion

Day

cha

lleng

es. T

hey

shou

ld

requ

ire

chal

leng

es t

o be

in w

riti

ng,

unde

r oa

th, s

uppo

rted

by

evid

ence

an

d ba

sed

on p

erso

nal k

now

ledg

e.

Hea

ring

s sh

ould

be

requ

ired

bef

ore

a re

gist

rati

on in

can

celle

d, w

ith

the

burd

en o

f pr

oof

on t

he c

halle

nger

. V

oter

s sh

ould

be

able

to

vote

aft

er

affir

min

g th

eir

qual

ifica

tion

s at

th

e po

lls. F

iling

a f

rivo

lous

cha

rge

shou

ld b

e a

mis

dem

eano

r.

neV

ada

Any

reg

iste

red

vote

r m

ay

chal

leng

e th

e re

gist

rati

on

stat

us o

f an

y ot

her

regi

s-te

red

vote

r, pr

ovid

ed b

oth

indi

vidu

als

are

regi

ster

ed t

o vo

te in

the

sam

e pr

ecin

ct.

NE

V. R

EV

. ST

AT.

AN

N.

§§ 2

93.3

03, 2

93.5

47

Cha

lleng

es m

ust

be in

wri

ting

, si

gned

by

the

chal

leng

er, i

nclu

de t

he

grou

nds

for

chal

leng

e an

d m

ust

be

base

d on

“pe

rson

al k

now

ledg

e.”

Wri

tten

cha

lleng

es m

ust

be s

ubm

itte

d af

ter

the

30th

day

but

not

late

r th

an

the

25th

day

bef

ore

any

elec

tion

.N

EV

. RE

V. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 2

93.5

47

Wit

hin

5 da

ys o

f a

filed

cha

lleng

e, t

he c

ount

y cl

erk

mus

t m

ail a

not

ice

to t

he c

halle

nged

vo

ter.

The

vot

er m

ay s

till

vote

in t

he u

pcom

ing

elec

-ti

on, b

ut a

fai

lure

to

resp

ond,

and

a f

ailu

re t

o vo

te b

efor

e th

e se

cond

gen

eral

ele

ctio

n af

ter

the

noti

ce is

mai

led,

will

res

ult

in t

he r

egis

tra-

tion

bei

ng c

ance

lled.

NE

V. R

EV

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

293

.547

If t

he c

halle

nge

conc

erns

res

iden

cy, t

hen

proo

f of

res

iden

ce m

ust

be d

emon

stra

ted

to b

e ab

le

to c

onti

nue

to v

ote.

Oth

er c

halle

nges

req

uire

th

e vo

ter

to s

wea

r or

affi

rm, u

nder

pen

alty

of

perj

ury,

info

rmat

ion

conc

erni

ng t

heir

elig

ibil-

ity

to v

ote.

NE

V. R

EV

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

293

.303

SatI

SFaC

tory

Nev

ada

law

is g

ood

in t

hat

the

chal

-le

nges

mus

t be

sig

ned

and

in w

riti

ng,

and

base

d on

per

sona

l kno

wle

dge.

A

lso,

not

ice

to t

he c

halle

nged

vo

ter

is r

equi

red.

It

is v

ery

good

tha

t ch

alle

nged

vot

ers

can

reso

lve

thei

r ch

alle

nge

at t

he p

olls

and

vot

e up

on

affir

min

g th

eir

qual

ifica

tion

s.N

evad

a la

ws

coul

d be

impr

oved

by

requ

irin

g ch

alle

nger

s to

sub

mit

the

ir

clai

ms

unde

r oa

th, a

nd m

akin

g fr

ivo-

lous

cha

lleng

es a

mis

dem

eano

r.

36 •

aPP

end

Ix 1

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pre

-Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

Stat

eW

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e Be

Fore

ele

CtI

on

day

?W

hat

mu

St a

Ch

alle

ng

er d

o

to F

Ile

a C

hal

len

ge?

ho

W IS

th

e C

hal

len

ge

reSo

lVed

?aS

SeSS

men

t:

are

Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

oh

IoA

ny r

egis

tere

d vo

ter

may

ch

alle

nge

any

othe

r pe

rson

’s

righ

t to

vot

e.

OH

. RE

V. C

OD

E A

NN

. §

3505

.19

A c

halle

nge

may

be

mad

e in

per

son

or in

wri

ting

, mus

t st

ate

the

grou

nds

upon

whi

ch t

he c

halle

nge

is m

ade,

an

d m

ust

be s

igne

d by

the

cha

lleng

er

givi

ng t

heir

ow

n ad

dres

s an

d vo

ting

pr

ecin

ct.

OH

. RE

V. C

OD

E A

NN

. § 3

505.

19C

halle

nges

mus

t be

“si

gned

und

er

pena

lty

of e

lect

ion

fals

ifica

tion

.”O

HIO

RE

V. C

OD

E A

NN

. §

3503

.24.

Ele

ctio

n bo

ards

hav

e di

scre

tion

ove

r w

heth

er

to h

ear

a ch

alle

nge,

but

hea

ring

s ar

e re

quir

ed

befo

re c

ance

lling

a v

oter

’s r

egis

trat

ion.

M

ail r

etur

ned

as “

unde

liver

able

”, o

r ev

iden

ce

of a

for

eclo

sure

act

ion,

are

bot

h in

suffi

cien

t gr

ound

s by

the

mse

lves

to

gran

t a

chal

leng

e an

d ca

ncel

a v

oter

’s r

egis

trat

ion.

D

irec

tive

201

2-30

: Pre

Ele

ctio

n V

oter

C

halle

nges

SatI

SFaC

tory

Ohi

o is

exe

mpl

ary

in r

equi

ring

hea

r-in

gs b

efor

e ca

ncel

ling

a re

gist

rati

on,

and

spec

ifyi

ng t

hat

retu

rned

mai

l and

ev

iden

ce f

rom

for

eclo

sure

pro

ceed

-in

gs is

insu

ffici

ent

by t

hem

selv

es t

o w

arra

nt a

cha

lleng

e.A

ltho

ugh

Ohi

o ha

s m

ade

grea

t st

ride

s in

its

elec

tion

adm

inis

trat

ion,

pa

rtic

ular

ly c

once

rnin

g pr

e-E

lect

ion

Day

cha

lleng

es, i

t sh

ould

cla

rify

th

at t

he b

urde

n of

pro

of r

emai

ns

on t

he c

halle

nger

. Its

200

8 di

rect

ive

(200

8-79

) re

quir

ed t

he c

halle

nger

to

bear

the

bur

den

of p

roof

to

just

ify

a ch

alle

nge

“by

clea

r an

d co

nvin

cing

ev

iden

ce.”

Ohi

o sh

ould

res

tore

thi

s re

quir

emen

t.

Pen

nSy

lVan

IaA

ny q

ualifi

ed v

oter

may

ch

alle

nge

a vo

ter

by p

eti-

tion

.25

PA

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

150

9O

nly

a co

mm

issi

oner

, re

gist

rar,

cler

k or

a q

ualifi

ed

elec

tor

in t

he s

ame

mu-

nici

palit

y as

the

vot

er, m

ay

chal

leng

e by

affi

davi

t.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 1

329

The

re a

re t

wo

proc

edur

es:

1 -

Cha

lleng

e by

pet

itio

n: T

he

chal

leng

er s

ubm

its

unde

r oa

th o

r af

firm

atio

n, a

pet

itio

n th

at s

ets

fort

h “s

uffic

ient

gro

unds

” fo

r th

e ca

ncel

-la

tion

of

a vo

ter’

s re

gist

rati

on. M

ust

be fi

led

no la

ter

than

10

days

pri

or t

o th

e el

ecti

on. T

his

mus

t in

clud

e ei

ther

a)

a n

otic

e of

whe

n an

d w

here

the

pe

titi

on w

ill b

e pe

rson

ally

giv

en t

o th

e ch

alle

nged

vot

er b

y th

e ch

alle

ng-

er, w

ithi

n 24

hou

rs p

rior

to

filin

g; o

r b)

a s

tate

men

t th

at t

he c

halle

nged

vo

ter

“cou

ld n

ot b

e fo

und”

at

the

chal

leng

ed v

oter

’s r

ecor

ded

resi

denc

e,

and

that

the

y no

long

er li

ve a

t th

at

addr

ess.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 1

509

2 -

Cha

lleng

e by

affi

davi

t: T

he c

hal-

leng

er is

req

uire

d to

file

an

affid

avit

ex

plai

ning

the

“re

ason

” fo

r th

e ch

al-

leng

e, b

ut is

und

er n

o ob

ligat

ion

to

prov

ide

any

docu

men

tary

evi

denc

e.

The

law

doe

s no

t se

t a

pre-

elec

tion

fil

ing

dead

line.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 1

329.

1 -

Cha

lleng

e by

pet

itio

n: U

pon

rece

ipt

of t

he

peti

tion

, the

com

mis

sion

is r

equi

red

to c

ance

l or

sus

pend

the

reg

istr

atio

n “u

nles

s th

e re

gis-

tere

d el

ecto

r so

reg

iste

red

appe

ars

and

show

s ca

use

why

thi

s ac

tion

sho

uld

not

be t

aken

.”25

PA

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

150

9.

2 -

Cha

lleng

e by

affi

davi

t: T

he c

halle

nged

vo

ter

mus

t re

spon

d in

a w

ritt

en, s

wor

n st

ate-

men

t, a

nd m

ust

prod

uce

“suc

h ot

her

evid

ence

as

may

be

requ

ired

to

sati

sfy

the

regi

stra

r or

co

mm

issi

oner

as

to t

he in

divi

dual

’s q

ualifi

ca-

tion

s as

a q

ualifi

ed e

lect

or.”

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 1

329

un

SatI

SFaC

tory

Penn

sylv

ania

’s la

ws

do n

ot a

dequ

ate-

ly p

rote

ct a

n el

igib

le r

egis

tere

d vo

ter

from

bei

ng w

rong

fully

kic

ked

off

the

voti

ng r

olls

. cou

ld im

prov

e it

s la

ws

by r

equi

ring

hea

ring

s fo

r ch

alle

nges

by

affi

davi

t. I

t sh

ould

req

uire

the

ch

alle

nger

, not

the

vot

er, t

o be

ar t

he

burd

en o

f pr

oof.

37 •

aPP

end

Ix 1

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pre

-Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

Stat

e W

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e Be

Fore

ele

CtI

on

day

?W

hat

mu

St a

Ch

alle

ng

er d

o

to F

Ile

a C

hal

len

ge?

ho

W IS

th

e C

hal

len

ge

reSo

lVed

?aS

SeSS

men

t:

are

Vote

rS P

rote

Cte

d?

texa

SA

ny r

egis

tere

d vo

ter

may

ch

alle

nge

the

regi

stra

tion

of

anot

her

vote

r of

the

sam

e co

unty

.T

EX

. EL

EC

. CO

DE

AN

N.

§ 16

.091

The

cha

lleng

er m

ust

file

a sw

orn

wri

tten

sta

tem

ent,

sta

ting

the

spe

cific

qu

alifi

cati

ons

not

met

by

the

chal

-le

nged

vot

er. M

ust

be b

ased

on

“per

-so

nal k

now

ledg

e” o

f th

e ch

alle

nger

.T

EX

. EL

EC

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

16.

092

If c

halle

nge

is b

ased

on

resi

denc

e, it

m

ust

be fi

led

at le

ast

75 d

ays

befo

re

the

elec

tion

(w

ith

exce

ptio

ns f

or

vote

r ap

plic

atio

ns a

fter

thi

s da

te).

T

EX

. EL

EC

. CO

DE

AN

N.

§ 16

.092

1.Fo

r ot

her

grou

nds,

Tex

as la

w

prov

ides

no

set

tim

etab

le f

or fi

ling

a ch

alle

nge.

For

chal

leng

es b

ased

on

resi

denc

e, t

he c

hal-

leng

ed v

oter

will

rec

eive

a n

otic

e fr

om t

he

regi

stra

r. Fa

ilure

to

resp

ond

to t

his

will

res

ult

in t

he v

oter

bei

ng in

clud

ed o

n th

e “s

uspe

nse

list.

” T

his

may

ult

imat

ely

resu

lt in

a v

oter

’s

rem

oval

fro

m t

he v

oter

reg

istr

atio

n ro

lls f

or

faili

ng t

o vo

te in

sub

sequ

ent

elec

tion

s.

If t

he c

halle

nge

is b

ased

on

any

grou

nd o

ther

th

an r

esid

ence

, the

reg

istr

ar m

ust

hold

a h

ear-

ing

on t

he c

halle

nge.

TE

X. E

LE

C. C

OD

E A

NN

. § 1

6.09

3.

mIx

edTe

xas

coul

d im

prov

e it

s la

ws

by r

e-qu

irin

g ch

alle

nges

bas

ed o

n gr

ound

s ot

her

than

res

iden

cy t

o be

mad

e fu

rthe

r in

adv

ance

of

Ele

ctio

n D

ay.

Als

o, T

exas

sho

uld

mak

e it

cle

ar t

hat

the

chal

leng

er, n

ot t

he v

oter

, bea

rs

the

burd

en o

f pr

oof.

Te

xas

law

is g

ood

in r

equi

ring

ch

alle

nger

s to

file

sw

orn

stat

emen

ts

base

d on

per

sona

l kno

wle

dge.

VIrg

InIa

The

gen

eral

reg

istr

ar, o

r an

y th

ree

vote

rs o

f th

e co

unty

or

cit

y ca

n ch

alle

nge

a vo

ter’

s el

igib

ility

. V

A. C

OD

E A

NN

. §

24.2

-429

.

Not

pre

scri

bed

wit

hin

the

stat

ute.

The

reg

istr

ar m

ust

post

at

the

cour

thou

se

or p

ublis

h in

a c

ount

y or

cit

y ne

wsp

aper

th

e na

mes

of

regi

ster

ed v

oter

s th

at a

re t

o be

ca

ncel

led.

Reg

istr

ar w

ill m

ail a

not

ice

to t

he c

halle

nged

vo

ter,

indi

cati

ng t

he r

easo

ns f

or c

ance

llati

on,

the

fact

ual b

asis

, and

det

ails

for

the

hea

ring

. A

t le

ast

ten

days

not

ice

of t

he h

eari

ng m

ust

be

prov

ided

. No

hear

ings

in t

he 6

0-da

y pe

riod

pr

ior

to t

he g

ener

al e

lect

ion,

or

in t

he 3

0-da

y pe

riod

bef

ore

othe

r el

ecti

ons.

Fai

lure

to

atte

nd

the

hear

ing

will

res

ult

in a

utom

atic

can

cella

-ti

on o

f th

e vo

ter’

s re

gist

rati

on.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-42

9

un

SatI

SFaC

tory

Vir

gini

a’s

law

s do

not

ade

quat

ely

prot

ect

vote

rs’ r

ight

s. A

vot

er’s

reg

is-

trat

ion

shou

ld n

ot b

e au

tom

atic

ally

ca

ncel

led

if s

he m

isse

s a

hear

ing.

Vir

-gi

nia

shou

ld p

rovi

de m

ore

guid

ance

fo

r ho

w c

halle

nges

are

adj

udic

ated

, an

d re

quir

e th

e ch

alle

nger

to

bear

the

bu

rden

of

proo

f.

38 •

aPP

end

Ix 2

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

Stat

eW

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e

on

ele

CtI

on

day

?le

gal

BaS

IS F

or

Ch

alle

ng

Ing

a

Vote

r’S

elIg

IBIl

Ity

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r m

akIn

g a

nd

d

eter

mIn

Ing

Val

IdIt

y o

F C

hal

len

geS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

Co

lora

do

Any

pol

l wat

cher

, ele

ctio

n ju

dge,

or

elig

ible

ele

ctor

of

the

sam

e pr

ecin

ct.

CO

LO

. RE

V. S

TA

T.

§ 1

9 20

1

Gro

unds

for

cha

lleng

ing

incl

ude:

U.S

. ci

tize

nshi

p, a

ge, r

esid

ency

wit

hin

the

prec

inct

for

mor

e th

an 3

0 da

ys, a

nd

“all

othe

r qu

esti

ons

to t

he p

erso

n ch

alle

nged

as

may

be

nece

ssar

y to

te

st t

he p

erso

n’s

qual

ifica

tion

s as

an

elig

ible

ele

ctor

.”C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

9 2

03

Cha

lleng

es m

ust

be m

ade

in w

riti

ng, u

nder

oa

th a

nd s

igne

d by

the

cha

lleng

er u

nder

pe

nalt

y of

per

jury

and

mus

t co

ntai

n a

“spe

cific

fa

ctua

l bas

is f

or t

he c

halle

nge.

”C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

9 2

02C

halle

nges

mus

t be

mad

e in

the

pre

senc

e of

th

e pe

rson

who

se r

ight

to

vote

is c

halle

nged

.C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

9 2

01A

cha

lleng

ed v

oter

may

be

aske

d fo

llow

-up

ques

tion

s pr

escr

ibed

by

law

. If

the

chal

leng

ed

vote

r an

swer

s sa

tisf

acto

rily

and

sig

ns a

n oa

th

atte

stin

g to

her

elig

ibili

ty t

o vo

te, t

he v

oter

m

ay v

ote

a re

gula

r ba

llot.

If

the

vote

r do

es

not

answ

er t

he q

uest

ions

he

may

sti

ll vo

te a

pr

ovis

iona

l bal

lot.

C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

9 2

03

SatI

SFaC

tory

It is

exc

elle

nt t

hat

chal

leng

es m

ust

be m

ade

in w

riti

ng u

nder

oat

h, a

nd

that

vot

ers

have

an

oppo

rtun

ity

to

resp

ond.

Ano

ther

pro

tect

ive

feat

ure

of C

olor

ado

law

is t

hat

chal

leng

ed

vote

rs m

ay v

ote

a re

gula

r ba

llot

afte

r si

gnin

g an

affi

davi

t. C

olor

ado

also

lim

its

exce

ssiv

e ch

alle

nges

by

only

al

low

ing

indi

vidu

als

from

the

sam

e pr

ecin

ct t

o se

rve

as c

halle

nger

s.C

olor

ado

coul

d im

prov

e it

s la

ws

by

requ

irin

g th

at a

cha

lleng

e be

bas

ed

on p

erso

nal k

now

ledg

e, s

uppo

rted

by

doc

umen

tary

evi

denc

e, a

nd t

hat

the

burd

en o

f pr

oof

is o

n th

e ch

al-

leng

er. T

here

sho

uld

also

be

a pe

n-al

ty f

or m

akin

g a

friv

olou

s ch

alle

nge.

Flo

rId

aA

ny e

lect

or o

r po

ll w

atch

er

from

the

cou

nty

may

cha

l-le

nge

the

vote

r. FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101

.111

Gro

unds

for

cha

lleng

ing

an e

lect

or

incl

ude

age,

cit

izen

ship

, leg

al r

esi-

denc

e in

the

sta

te a

nd t

he a

ppro

pri-

ate

coun

ty, a

nd t

he v

oter

’s r

egis

tra-

tion

sta

tus.

FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101

.048

The

cha

lleng

e m

ust

be fi

led

wit

h th

e cl

erk

or

insp

ecto

r at

the

pol

ls. C

halle

nges

mus

t be

in

wri

ting

und

er o

ath

and

desc

ribe

why

the

cha

l-le

nger

bel

ieve

s th

e vo

ter

is a

ttem

ptin

g to

vot

e ill

egal

ly.

FLA

. ST

AT.

§ 1

01.1

11

The

re is

a p

enal

ty f

or a

vot

er o

r po

ll w

atch

er

who

file

s a

friv

olou

s ch

arge

. Se

e FL

A. S

TA

T. §

§ 10

4.01

1; 7

75.0

82;

775.

083;

775

.084

Cha

lleng

ed v

oter

s m

ay o

nly

vote

pro

visi

on-

ally

and

hav

e un

til t

wo

days

aft

er t

he e

lect

ion

to s

ubm

it e

vide

nce

of t

heir

elig

ibili

ty. T

he

chal

leng

ed v

oter

’s p

rovi

sion

al b

allo

t w

ill b

e co

unte

d un

less

the

can

vass

ing

boar

d de

ter-

min

es b

y a

prep

onde

ranc

e of

the

evi

denc

e th

at

the

pers

on w

as n

ot e

ntit

led

to v

ote.

FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101

.048

un

SatI

SFaC

tory

Flor

ida

has

som

e go

od p

rovi

sion

s:

only

ele

ctor

s fr

om t

he s

ame

coun

ty

may

cha

lleng

e; c

halle

nges

mus

t be

in

wri

ting

und

er o

ath;

and

the

re a

re

pena

ltie

s fo

r fil

ing

a fr

ivol

ous

char

ge.

How

ever

, it

is v

ery

prob

lem

atic

tha

t al

l cha

lleng

ed v

oter

s ar

e re

quir

ed

to v

ote

prov

isio

nally

. Thi

s co

uld

enda

nger

the

rig

hts

of a

ny c

halle

nged

Fl

orid

a vo

ter

from

cas

ting

a b

allo

t th

at w

ill b

e co

unte

d. C

halle

nged

vot

-er

s sh

ould

be

able

to

vote

a r

egul

ar

ballo

t up

on s

igni

ng a

n af

fidav

it

affir

min

g th

eir

qual

ifica

tion

s at

the

po

lls.

2. s

tate

law

s g

ove

rnin

g e

leCt

ion

Day

Ch

alle

ng

es

39 •

aPP

end

Ix 2

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

Stat

eW

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e

on

ele

CtI

on

day

?le

gal

BaS

IS F

or

Ch

alle

ng

Ing

a

Vote

r’S

elIg

IBIl

Ity

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r m

akIn

g a

nd

d

eter

mIn

Ing

Val

IdIt

y o

F C

hal

len

geS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

are

Vote

rS P

rote

Cte

d?

mIS

Sou

rIA

cha

lleng

er m

ust

be a

reg

-is

tere

d vo

ter

in t

he p

reci

nct

and

mus

t be

des

igna

ted

by

the

chai

r of

the

cou

nty

com

-m

itte

e of

a p

olit

ical

par

ty

nam

ed o

n th

e ba

llot.

MO

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

115

.105

Gro

unds

for

cha

lleng

ing

an e

lect

or

incl

ude

age,

cit

izen

ship

, leg

al r

esi-

denc

e in

the

sta

te a

nd t

he a

ppro

pri-

ate

coun

ty, a

nd t

he v

oter

’s r

egis

tra-

tion

sta

tus.

FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101

.048

The

gro

unds

for

cha

lleng

es in

clud

e ci

tize

nshi

p st

atus

, res

iden

cy, a

ge,

iden

tity

, inc

apac

ity,

and

cer

tain

cat

-eg

orie

s of

fel

on s

tatu

s.

MO

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

§ 11

5.42

9,

115.

133

Onc

e a

vote

r ha

s be

en c

halle

nged

, a m

ajor

ity

of t

he e

lect

ion

judg

es a

t a

polli

ng p

lace

mus

t de

term

ine

whe

ther

he

or s

he w

ill b

e al

low

ed

to v

ote

a re

gula

r ba

llot.

If

a de

cisi

on c

anno

t be

re

ache

d, t

he q

uest

ion

shal

l be

deci

ded

by a

n el

ecti

on a

utho

rity

. M

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

15.4

29(3

)T

he v

oter

may

be

requ

ired

to

exec

ute

an a

f-fid

avit

und

er p

enal

ty o

f pe

rjur

y af

firm

ing

her

voti

ng q

ualifi

cati

ons.

M

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

15.4

29(3

), (

5)V

oter

s ar

e en

titl

ed t

o ca

st p

rovi

sion

al b

allo

ts,

upon

exe

cuti

ng a

n af

fidav

it, e

ven

if e

lect

ion

auth

orit

ies

dete

rmin

e a

vote

r is

inel

igib

le.

MO

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

115

.430

mIx

edT

he r

equi

rem

ent

that

cha

lleng

ers

mus

t be

fro

m t

he s

ame

prec

inct

hel

ps

prev

ent

exce

ssiv

e ch

alle

nges

. It

is

also

goo

d th

at a

cha

lleng

ed v

oter

can

vo

te a

fter

affi

rmin

g he

r vo

ting

qua

li-fic

atio

ns t

hrou

gh a

n af

fidav

it.

How

ever

, Mis

sour

i sho

uld

impr

ove

its

law

by

requ

irin

g th

at c

halle

nges

be

in w

riti

ng u

nder

oat

h, b

ased

on

pers

onal

kno

wle

dge,

and

sup

port

ed

by e

vide

nce.

Mis

sour

i sho

uld

also

pr

ovid

e gu

idan

ce a

s to

how

ele

ctio

n ju

dges

sho

uld

reso

lve

chal

leng

es. I

t sh

ould

be

clar

ified

tha

t th

e bu

rden

of

pro

of is

on

the

chal

leng

er, a

nd a

vo

ter

who

sig

ns a

n af

fidav

it a

ffirm

-in

g he

r qu

alifi

cati

ons

is a

ble

to v

ote

a re

gula

r ba

llot.

neV

ada

Any

oth

er v

oter

reg

iste

red

in t

he s

ame

prec

inct

. N

EV

. RE

V. S

TA

T.

§ 29

3.30

3

A v

oter

may

be

chal

leng

ed o

n th

e fo

llow

ing

grou

nds:

the

vot

er d

oes

not

belo

ng t

o th

e po

litic

al p

arty

des

ig-

nate

d up

on t

he r

egis

ter

or t

he p

arty

w

hich

the

y cl

aim

to

belo

ng t

o; t

he

vote

r do

es n

ot r

esid

e at

the

add

ress

lis

ted

as h

is o

r he

r re

side

nce

in t

he

elec

tion

boa

rd r

egis

ter;

the

vot

er

prev

ious

ly v

oted

a b

allo

t fo

r th

e el

ec-

tion

; or

the

vote

r is

not

the

per

son

he

or s

he c

laim

s to

be.

N

EV

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

293

.303

A c

halle

nger

mus

t su

bmit

a s

igne

d af

firm

atio

n st

atin

g th

e ba

sis

for

the

chal

leng

e an

d th

at t

he

chal

leng

e is

bas

ed o

n pe

rson

al k

now

ledg

e.

NE

V. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 2

93.3

03T

he c

halle

nged

vot

er m

ust

exec

ute

an o

ath

or

affir

mat

ion

of h

is o

r he

r el

igib

ility

to

vote

.N

EV

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

293

.303

T

he e

xact

pro

cedu

res

will

dep

end

on t

he

grou

nds

on w

hich

the

vot

er w

as c

halle

nged

. Fo

r in

stan

ce, a

per

son

chal

leng

ed o

n th

e ba

sis

that

he

is n

ot t

he p

erso

n he

cla

ims

to b

e m

ust

show

offi

cial

pho

to id

enti

ficat

ion

or h

ave

a pe

rson

vou

ch f

or t

he c

halle

nged

vot

er’s

iden

-ti

ty; t

he v

ouch

ing

pers

on m

ust

them

selv

es b

e at

leas

t 18

yea

rs o

ld a

nd h

ave

phot

o id

enti

fica-

tion

, tho

ugh

ther

e is

not

a r

equi

rem

ent

that

th

ey b

e re

gist

ered

. N

EV

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

293

.303

If a

vot

er is

suc

cess

fully

cha

lleng

ed o

n gr

ound

s of

res

iden

cy, h

e or

she

may

onl

y vo

te a

t a

“spe

cial

pol

ling

plac

e” in

the

cou

nty

cler

k’s

offic

e or

at

such

oth

er lo

cati

ons

as t

he c

ount

y cl

erk

deem

s ne

cess

ary

duri

ng e

ach

elec

tion

. T

he c

halle

nged

vot

er m

ust

also

sta

te u

nder

oa

th t

hat

they

hav

e sa

tisfi

ed t

he a

ppro

pria

te

elig

ibili

ty r

equi

rem

ents

.N

EV

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

293

.303

mIx

edIt

is g

ood

that

Nev

ada

requ

ires

pe

rson

al k

now

ledg

e an

d an

affi

davi

t fr

om c

halle

nger

s.

The

det

aile

d pr

ovis

ions

for

res

pond

-in

g to

cha

lleng

es a

re v

ery

thor

ough

. H

owev

er, t

hese

rul

es a

re p

oten

tial

ly

burd

enso

me

for

vote

rs a

nd c

onfu

sing

fo

r po

ll w

orke

rs. T

his

com

plex

ity

coul

d re

sult

in e

ligib

le, r

egis

tere

d vo

ters

bei

ng d

enie

d th

eir

righ

t to

vo

te.

40 •

aPP

end

Ix 2

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

Stat

eW

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e o

n e

leC

tIo

n d

ay?

leg

al B

aSIS

Fo

r C

hal

len

gIn

g

a Vo

ter’

S el

IgIB

IlIt

yPr

oC

edu

reS

For

mak

Ing

an

d

det

erm

InIn

g V

alId

Ity

oF

Ch

alle

ng

eSaS

SeSS

men

t:ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

neW

ham

PSh

Ire

A r

egis

tere

d vo

ter

in t

he

tow

n or

war

d in

whi

ch t

he

elec

tion

is h

eld,

an

elec

tion

of

ficia

l, or

a c

halle

nger

de

sign

ated

by

the

atto

rney

ge

nera

l or

a po

litic

al p

arty

st

ate,

cit

y, o

r to

wn

com

-m

itte

e.

N.H

. RE

V. S

TA

T.

§§ 6

59:2

7; 6

66:4

Gro

unds

for

cha

lleng

ing

a vo

ter

incl

ude

the

follo

win

g: t

he p

erso

n se

ekin

g to

vot

e is

not

the

indi

vidu

al

who

se n

ame

he o

r sh

e ha

s gi

ven;

th

e pe

rson

has

alr

eady

vot

ed in

the

el

ecti

on; t

he p

erso

n se

ekin

g to

vot

e is

di

squa

lified

for

vio

lati

ng t

he e

lect

ions

la

ws;

the

per

son

is u

nder

18

year

s of

ag

e; t

he p

erso

n se

ekin

g to

vot

e is

not

a

Uni

ted

Stat

es C

itiz

en; t

he p

erso

n se

ekin

g to

vot

e is

not

dom

icile

d in

th

e to

wn

or w

ard

whe

re h

e or

she

is

seek

ing

to v

ote;

the

per

son

seek

-in

g to

vot

e do

es n

ot r

esid

e at

his

or

her

liste

d ad

dres

s; t

he p

erso

n is

an

inca

rcer

ated

con

vict

ed f

elon

who

is

curr

entl

y se

nten

ced

to in

carc

erat

ion;

th

e pe

rson

is n

ot a

dec

lare

d m

embe

r of

the

par

ty h

e or

she

cla

ims

to b

e af

-fil

iate

d w

ith

(in

a pr

imar

y on

ly);

the

pe

rson

is in

elig

ible

to

vote

bec

ause

of

a s

tate

or

fede

ral l

aw o

r co

nsti

tu-

tion

al p

rovi

sion

.N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 6

59:2

7-a

All

chal

leng

es, w

heth

er f

rom

des

igna

ted

chal

-le

nger

s, o

ffici

als,

or

mem

bers

of

the

publ

ic,

mus

t be

sig

ned,

und

er o

ath,

and

sub

mit

ted

in

wri

ting

to

a m

oder

ator

. N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§§

659:

27; 6

59:2

7-a

No

vote

r or

des

igna

ted

chal

leng

er is

per

mit

-te

d to

cha

lleng

e a

pers

on’s

qua

lifica

tion

s to

be

a vo

ter

at t

he E

lect

ion

Day

vot

er r

egis

trat

ion

tabl

e.N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§§

659:

27T

he m

oder

ator

mus

t de

term

ine

if t

he c

halle

nge

is w

ell g

roun

ded.

If

the

mod

erat

or d

eter

min

es

the

chal

leng

e is

wel

l gro

unde

d, t

he m

oder

ator

m

ust

reje

ct t

he v

ote

of t

he p

erso

n ch

alle

nged

un

less

the

vot

er s

ubm

its

an a

ffida

vit

affir

min

g hi

s or

her

iden

tity

and

qua

lifica

tion

s un

der

pena

lty

of v

oter

fra

ud. I

f th

e m

oder

ator

det

er-

min

es t

hat

the

chal

leng

e is

not

wel

l gro

unde

d,

the

mod

erat

or m

ust

perm

it t

he v

oter

to

pro-

ceed

to

vote

. N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§§

659:

27; 6

59:3

0; 6

59:3

1

SatI

SFaC

tory

New

Ham

pshi

re h

as e

xem

plar

y re

quir

emen

ts t

hat

chal

leng

es b

e m

ade

in w

riti

ng u

nder

oat

h. I

t is

ver

y go

od

that

cha

lleng

ed v

oter

s ca

n vo

te a

s lo

ng a

s th

ey s

ubm

it a

n af

fidav

it a

f-fir

min

g th

eir

qual

ifica

tion

s. T

his

is

very

pro

tect

ive

of v

oter

s an

d al

low

s el

igib

le v

oter

s to

ens

ure

thei

r vo

te is

co

unte

d.N

ew H

amps

hire

cou

ld im

prov

e it

s la

ws

by a

dopt

ing

a pe

nalt

y fo

r fr

ivo-

lous

cha

lleng

es a

nd r

equi

ring

tha

t th

ey b

e m

ade

on t

he b

asis

of

pers

onal

kn

owle

dge.

41 •

aPP

end

Ix 2

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

Stat

eW

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e

on

ele

CtI

on

day

?le

gal

BaS

IS F

or

Ch

alle

ng

Ing

a

Vote

r’S

elIg

IBIl

Ity

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r m

akIn

g a

nd

d

eter

mIn

Ing

Val

IdIt

y o

F C

hal

len

geS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

no

rth

Car

olI

na

Any

indi

vidu

al r

egis

tere

d to

vo

te in

the

pre

cinc

t.N

.C. G

EN

. ST

AT.

§ 1

63-8

7

Gro

unds

for

cha

lleng

es o

n E

lect

ion

Day

incl

ude

resi

denc

y, c

itiz

ensh

ip,

inel

igib

ility

due

to

felo

ny c

onvi

ctio

n,

whe

ther

a v

oter

has

alr

eady

vot

ed in

th

e el

ecti

on, o

r w

heth

er t

he v

oter

is

not

who

she

cla

ims

to b

e.N

.C. G

EN

. ST

AT.

§§

163-

85; 1

63 8

7

Eac

h ch

alle

nge

shal

l be

mad

e se

para

tely

, in

wri

ting

, und

er o

ath

and

on f

orm

s pr

escr

ibed

by

the

Sta

te B

oard

of

Ele

ctio

ns, a

nd s

hall

spec

ify

the

reas

ons

why

the

cha

lleng

ed v

oter

is

not

enti

tled

to

regi

ster

.N

.C. G

EN

. ST

AT.

§§

163-

85A

cha

lleng

e ca

n on

ly b

e m

ade

if a

cha

lleng

er

“kno

ws,

sus

pect

s, o

r re

ason

ably

bel

ieve

s [t

he

chal

leng

ed in

divi

dual

] no

t to

be

qual

ified

and

en

titl

ed t

o vo

te.”

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. §

§ 16

3-90

.1C

halle

nges

are

hea

rd a

nd d

ecid

ed b

y ju

dges

of

elec

tion

in t

he c

halle

nged

reg

istr

ant’s

pre

cinc

t be

fore

the

pol

ls a

re c

lose

d. T

hose

offi

cial

s m

ust

expl

ain

the

qual

ifica

tion

s fo

r re

gist

rati

on

and

voti

ng a

nd m

ay t

hen

exam

ine

the

vote

r as

to

his

or

her

qual

ifica

tion

s to

be

regi

ster

ed a

nd

to v

ote.

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. §

163

-88

A c

halle

nged

vot

er m

ust

mak

e an

oat

h or

af

firm

atio

n re

gard

ing

her

elig

ibili

ty t

o vo

te.

How

ever

, eve

n on

ce t

he v

oter

has

don

e so

, el

ecti

ons

offic

ials

may

sti

ll re

fuse

to

allo

w t

he

indi

vidu

al t

o vo

te a

reg

ular

bal

lot

“unl

ess

they

ar

e sa

tisfi

ed t

hat

the

chal

leng

ed r

egis

tran

t is

a

lega

l vot

er.”

The

pre

sum

ptio

n is

tha

t th

e vo

ter

is p

rope

rly

regi

ster

ed, a

nd a

ny c

halle

nge

mus

t be

sup

port

ed b

y af

firm

ativ

e pr

oof

for

it t

o be

su

stai

ned.

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. §

163

-88

A le

tter

or

post

al c

ard

mai

led

by r

etur

nabl

e m

ail a

nd r

etur

ned

by t

he U

nite

d St

ates

Pos

tal

Serv

ice

purp

orte

dly

beca

use

the

pers

on n

o lo

n-ge

r liv

es a

t th

at a

ddre

ss o

r be

caus

e a

forw

ard-

ing

orde

r ha

s ex

pire

d sh

all n

ot b

e ad

mis

sibl

e ev

iden

ce in

a c

halle

nge.

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. §

163

-88

SatI

SFaC

tory

Nor

th C

arol

ina’

s la

ws

are

exem

-pl

ary:

cha

lleng

es m

ust

be in

wri

ting

un

der

oath

, and

bas

ed o

n pe

rson

al

know

ledg

e. I

t is

ver

y pr

otec

tive

of

vote

rs t

hat

evid

ence

is n

eede

d to

su

ppor

t a

chal

leng

e an

d th

at t

he p

re-

sum

ptio

n fa

vors

the

reg

istr

ant.

A

noth

er e

xcel

lent

pro

visi

on is

tha

t re

turn

ed m

ail c

anno

t be

use

d as

evi

-de

nce

for

a ch

alle

nge.

Thi

s pr

otec

ts

vote

rs f

rom

pot

enti

ally

fri

volo

us a

nd

burd

enso

me

chal

leng

es b

ased

on

cag-

ing

prac

tice

s.O

ne p

rovi

sion

is le

ss t

han

opti

mal

: el

ecti

on o

ffici

als

may

rej

ect

a ba

llot

even

aft

er a

vot

er t

akes

an

oath

. But

th

e pr

esum

ptio

n in

fav

or o

f th

e vo

ter

and

the

prov

isio

n re

quir

ing

affir

-m

ativ

e pr

oof

for

a ch

alle

nge

help

s m

itig

ate

this

wea

knes

s.

Stat

eW

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e o

n e

leC

tIo

n d

ay?

leg

al B

aSIS

Fo

r C

hal

len

gIn

g

a Vo

ter’

S el

IgIB

IlIt

yPr

oC

edu

reS

For

mak

Ing

an

d

det

erm

InIn

g V

alId

Ity

oF

Ch

alle

ng

eSaS

SeSS

men

t:ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

neW

ham

PSh

Ire

A r

egis

tere

d vo

ter

in t

he

tow

n or

war

d in

whi

ch t

he

elec

tion

is h

eld,

an

elec

tion

of

ficia

l, or

a c

halle

nger

de

sign

ated

by

the

atto

rney

ge

nera

l or

a po

litic

al p

arty

st

ate,

cit

y, o

r to

wn

com

-m

itte

e.

N.H

. RE

V. S

TA

T.

§§ 6

59:2

7; 6

66:4

Gro

unds

for

cha

lleng

ing

a vo

ter

incl

ude

the

follo

win

g: t

he p

erso

n se

ekin

g to

vot

e is

not

the

indi

vidu

al

who

se n

ame

he o

r sh

e ha

s gi

ven;

th

e pe

rson

has

alr

eady

vot

ed in

the

el

ecti

on; t

he p

erso

n se

ekin

g to

vot

e is

di

squa

lified

for

vio

lati

ng t

he e

lect

ions

la

ws;

the

per

son

is u

nder

18

year

s of

ag

e; t

he p

erso

n se

ekin

g to

vot

e is

not

a

Uni

ted

Stat

es C

itiz

en; t

he p

erso

n se

ekin

g to

vot

e is

not

dom

icile

d in

th

e to

wn

or w

ard

whe

re h

e or

she

is

seek

ing

to v

ote;

the

per

son

seek

-in

g to

vot

e do

es n

ot r

esid

e at

his

or

her

liste

d ad

dres

s; t

he p

erso

n is

an

inca

rcer

ated

con

vict

ed f

elon

who

is

curr

entl

y se

nten

ced

to in

carc

erat

ion;

th

e pe

rson

is n

ot a

dec

lare

d m

embe

r of

the

par

ty h

e or

she

cla

ims

to b

e af

-fil

iate

d w

ith

(in

a pr

imar

y on

ly);

the

pe

rson

is in

elig

ible

to

vote

bec

ause

of

a s

tate

or

fede

ral l

aw o

r co

nsti

tu-

tion

al p

rovi

sion

.N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 6

59:2

7-a

All

chal

leng

es, w

heth

er f

rom

des

igna

ted

chal

-le

nger

s, o

ffici

als,

or

mem

bers

of

the

publ

ic,

mus

t be

sig

ned,

und

er o

ath,

and

sub

mit

ted

in

wri

ting

to

a m

oder

ator

. N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§§

659:

27; 6

59:2

7-a

No

vote

r or

des

igna

ted

chal

leng

er is

per

mit

-te

d to

cha

lleng

e a

pers

on’s

qua

lifica

tion

s to

be

a vo

ter

at t

he E

lect

ion

Day

vot

er r

egis

trat

ion

tabl

e.N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§§

659:

27T

he m

oder

ator

mus

t de

term

ine

if t

he c

halle

nge

is w

ell g

roun

ded.

If

the

mod

erat

or d

eter

min

es

the

chal

leng

e is

wel

l gro

unde

d, t

he m

oder

ator

m

ust

reje

ct t

he v

ote

of t

he p

erso

n ch

alle

nged

un

less

the

vot

er s

ubm

its

an a

ffida

vit

affir

min

g hi

s or

her

iden

tity

and

qua

lifica

tion

s un

der

pena

lty

of v

oter

fra

ud. I

f th

e m

oder

ator

det

er-

min

es t

hat

the

chal

leng

e is

not

wel

l gro

unde

d,

the

mod

erat

or m

ust

perm

it t

he v

oter

to

pro-

ceed

to

vote

. N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§§

659:

27; 6

59:3

0; 6

59:3

1

SatI

SFaC

tory

New

Ham

pshi

re h

as e

xem

plar

y re

quir

emen

ts t

hat

chal

leng

es b

e m

ade

in w

riti

ng u

nder

oat

h. I

t is

ver

y go

od

that

cha

lleng

ed v

oter

s ca

n vo

te a

s lo

ng a

s th

ey s

ubm

it a

n af

fidav

it a

f-fir

min

g th

eir

qual

ifica

tion

s. T

his

is

very

pro

tect

ive

of v

oter

s an

d al

low

s el

igib

le v

oter

s to

ens

ure

thei

r vo

te is

co

unte

d.N

ew H

amps

hire

cou

ld im

prov

e it

s la

ws

by a

dopt

ing

a pe

nalt

y fo

r fr

ivo-

lous

cha

lleng

es a

nd r

equi

ring

tha

t th

ey b

e m

ade

on t

he b

asis

of

pers

onal

kn

owle

dge.

42 •

aPP

end

Ix 2

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

Stat

eW

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e

on

ele

CtI

on

day

?le

gal

BaS

IS F

or

Ch

alle

ng

Ing

a

Vote

r’S

elIg

IBIl

Ity

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r m

akIn

g a

nd

d

eter

mIn

Ing

Val

IdIt

y o

F C

hal

len

geS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

oh

IoO

nly

an e

lect

ions

judg

e m

ay

chal

leng

e a

regi

ster

ed v

oter

on

Ele

ctio

n D

ay.

OH

IO R

EV

. CO

DE

§

3505

.20

The

gro

unds

for

pre

sent

ing

a ch

al-

leng

e in

clud

e: (

1) T

he p

erso

n is

not

a

citi

zen

of t

he U

nite

d St

ates

; (2)

The

pe

rson

is n

ot a

res

iden

t of

the

sta

te

for

thir

ty d

ays

imm

edia

tely

pre

ced-

ing

elec

tion

; (3)

The

per

son

is n

ot

a re

side

nt o

f th

e pr

ecin

ct w

here

the

pe

rson

off

ers

to v

ote;

(4)

The

per

son

is n

ot o

f le

gal v

otin

g ag

e.O

HIO

RE

V. C

OD

E §

350

5.20

; B

oust

ani v

. Bla

ckw

ell,

460

F.Su

pp.2

d 82

2 (N

.D.O

hio,

200

6)

Dep

endi

ng o

n th

e gr

ound

s fo

r ch

alle

nge

and

vote

rs’ r

espo

nses

to

the

elec

tion

judg

es’ q

ues-

tion

s, e

lect

ion

judg

es a

re in

stru

cted

to

eith

er

ask

follo

w u

p qu

esti

ons

or r

eque

st d

ocum

enta

-ti

on, i

dent

ifica

tion

, or

a st

atem

ent

unde

r oa

th

from

the

vot

er a

ttes

ting

to

his

or h

er q

uali-

ficat

ions

. If

the

elec

tion

offi

cial

is u

nabl

e to

ve

rify

tha

t th

e vo

ter

qual

ifica

tion

s ha

ve b

een

met

, the

y m

ust

prov

ide

a pr

ovis

iona

l bal

lot,

w

hich

will

onl

y be

cou

nted

onc

e th

e bo

ard

of

elec

tion

s de

term

ines

tha

t th

e vo

ter

is p

rope

rly

regi

ster

ed a

nd e

ligib

le t

o vo

te.

OH

IO R

EV

. CO

DE

§ 3

505.

20V

oter

s w

ho a

re a

ble

to p

rovi

de t

he e

lect

ion

offic

ial w

ith

proo

f or

doc

umen

tati

on o

f th

eir

elig

ibili

ty m

ay v

ote

a re

gula

r ba

llot.

Tho

se

who

can

not

mus

t vo

te b

y pr

ovis

iona

l bal

lot.

OH

IO R

EV

. CO

DE

§ 3

505.

20

SatI

SFaC

tory

Ohi

o’s

law

s ar

e pr

otec

tive

of

vote

rs’

righ

ts b

ecau

se e

ligib

ility

may

onl

y be

cha

lleng

ed o

n E

lect

ion

Day

by

an

elec

tion

s ju

dge.

H

owev

er, O

hio

coul

d im

prov

e it

s la

ws

by s

peci

fyin

g th

at t

he b

urde

n of

pro

of is

not

on

the

vote

r, an

d by

al

low

ing

the

vote

r to

vot

e a

regu

lar

ballo

t on

ce s

he o

r he

sig

ns a

n af

-fir

mat

ion

that

she

or

he is

elig

ible

to

vote

.

Pen

nSy

lVan

IaE

lect

ion

judg

es, “

over

seer

s of

ele

ctio

n,”

elec

tion

of-

ficer

s, a

nd q

ualifi

ed e

lect

ors

may

cha

lleng

e a

regi

ster

ed

vote

r.25

PA

. ST

AT.

AN

N.

§§ 2

685;

305

0

A p

erso

n ca

n be

cha

lleng

ed if

at-

tem

ptin

g to

vot

e ou

tsid

e el

ecti

on

dist

rict

in w

hich

he

or s

he r

esid

es, i

f he

or

she

is n

ot p

rope

rly

regi

ster

ed in

th

e el

ecti

on d

istr

ict

(exc

ept

by c

ourt

or

der)

. 25

PA

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

305

0

If a

vot

er is

cha

lleng

ed a

s to

his

or

her

iden

tity

or

res

iden

ce, h

e or

she

sha

ll pr

oduc

e at

leas

t on

e qu

alifi

ed e

lect

or o

f th

e el

ecti

on d

istr

ict

as

a w

itne

ss, w

ho c

an m

ake

an a

ffida

vit

of h

is

or h

er id

enti

ty o

r co

ntin

ued

resi

denc

e in

the

el

ecti

on d

istr

ict.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 3

050

An

over

seer

may

cha

lleng

e an

y pe

rson

at-

tem

ptin

g to

vot

e. T

he o

vers

eer

may

“ex

am-

ine”

the

vot

er’s

pap

ers

and

ask

the

vote

r an

d th

e vo

ter’

s w

itne

sses

, und

er o

ath,

abo

ut h

is o

r he

r ri

ght

of t

o vo

te in

tha

t el

ecti

on.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 2

685

A v

oter

who

is c

halle

nged

or

who

is u

nabl

e to

pr

oduc

e pr

oof

of id

enti

ficat

ion

is p

erm

itte

d to

ca

st a

pro

visi

onal

bal

lot.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 3

050

un

SatI

SFaC

tory

It is

ext

rem

ely

burd

enso

me

that

cha

l-le

nged

vot

ers

mus

t ei

ther

pro

duce

pa

pers

or

a w

itne

ss o

r be

for

ced

to

vote

pro

visi

onal

ly.

Penn

sylv

ania

cou

ld a

lso

impr

ove

its

law

s by

lim

itin

g th

e nu

mbe

r of

peo

-pl

e w

ho c

an c

halle

nge

vote

rs’ e

ligib

il-it

y. P

enns

ylva

nia

shou

ld r

equi

re t

hat

a ch

alle

nge

be in

wri

ting

und

er o

ath,

ba

sed

on p

erso

nal k

now

ledg

e an

d ac

com

pani

ed b

y su

ppor

ting

evi

denc

e,

wit

h pe

nalt

ies

for

friv

olou

s

chal

leng

es.

43 •

aPP

end

Ix 2

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Ele

ctio

n D

ay C

halle

nges

Stat

eW

ho

Can

Ch

alle

ng

e

on

ele

CtI

on

day

?le

gal

BaS

IS F

or

Ch

alle

ng

Ing

a

Vote

r’S

elIg

IBIl

Ity

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r m

akIn

g a

nd

d

eter

mIn

Ing

Val

IdIt

y o

F C

hal

len

geS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

a

re V

ote

rS P

rote

Cte

d?

texa

STe

xas

does

not

per

mit

Ele

c-ti

on D

ay c

halle

nges

.W

hile

Tex

as la

w d

oes

not

allo

w le

gal c

hal-

leng

es t

o vo

ter

elig

ibili

ty, T

exas

doe

s al

low

w

atch

ers

insi

de t

he p

ollin

g pl

ace

on E

lect

ion

Day

. Se

e A

ppen

dix

3.

SatI

SFaC

tory

The

elim

inat

ion

of E

lect

ion

Day

ch

alle

nges

is v

ery

prot

ecti

ve o

f vo

t-er

s’ r

ight

s an

d gu

ards

aga

inst

wro

ng-

ful c

halle

nges

to

vote

rs’ e

ligib

ility

on

Ele

ctio

n D

ay.

How

ever

, the

con

tinu

ed p

rese

nce

of

wat

cher

s in

side

the

pol

ling

plac

e m

ay

still

res

ult

in v

iola

tion

s of

vot

ers’

ri

ghts

on

Ele

ctio

n D

ay.

See

App

endi

x 3.

VIrg

InIa

Any

qua

lified

vot

er a

nd a

ny

offic

er o

f th

e el

ecti

ons.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N.

§ 24

.2-6

51

Gro

unds

for

cha

lleng

ing

incl

ude

whe

ther

a v

oter

is a

U.S

. cit

izen

, a

resi

dent

of

the

stat

e, a

nd 1

8 ye

ars

of a

ge o

r ol

der.

The

vot

er m

ay n

ot

have

alr

eady

vot

ed e

lsew

here

, and

m

ay n

ot b

e di

squa

lified

by

the

stat

e (e

.g. d

ue t

o a

felo

ny c

onvi

ctio

n). T

he

vote

r m

ust

be w

ho s

he r

epre

sent

s he

rsel

f to

be.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-65

1(1)

-(8)

The

cha

lleng

er m

ust

fill o

ut a

for

m, s

ubje

ct t

o pe

nalt

ies,

sta

ting

tha

t it

is “

know

n or

sus

pect

-ed

” th

at t

he c

halle

nged

vot

er is

not

a c

itiz

en, a

re

side

nt, o

f ag

e, h

as a

lrea

dy v

oted

els

ewhe

re,

is d

isqu

alifi

ed b

y th

e st

ate

(e.g

. due

to

a fe

lony

co

nvic

tion

), o

r is

not

who

she

rep

rese

nts

hers

elf

to b

e.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-65

1T

he e

lect

ion

offic

es m

ay e

xam

ine

the

chal

-le

nged

vot

er’s

qua

lifica

tion

s. T

he c

halle

nged

vo

ter

then

has

the

opp

ortu

nity

to

sign

a s

tate

-m

ent,

sub

ject

to

felo

ny p

erju

ry c

harg

es, t

hat

he o

r sh

e m

eets

all

of t

he q

ualifi

cati

ons

for

voti

ng in

the

sta

te. U

pon

sign

ing

the

stat

e-m

ent,

the

vot

er s

hall

be p

erm

itte

d to

vot

e on

th

e vo

ting

sys

tem

in u

se a

t th

e pr

ecin

ct. I

f he

or

she

ref

uses

to

sign

the

sta

tem

ent,

he

or s

he

is n

ot p

erm

itte

d to

vot

e. V

A. C

OD

E A

NN

. § 2

4.2-

651

mIx

edA

llow

ing

any

vote

r to

cha

lleng

e ot

her

vote

rs e

ligib

ility

to

vote

may

bu

rden

an

indi

vidu

als’

rig

ht t

o vo

te.

It is

pre

fera

ble

to li

mit

cha

lleng

ers

to

thos

e in

divi

dual

s w

ho r

esid

e in

the

pr

ecin

ct. A

ddit

iona

lly, t

he e

vide

n-ti

ary

requ

irem

ents

for

init

iati

ng c

hal-

leng

es in

Vir

gini

a ar

e to

o lo

w.

How

ever

, Vir

gini

a la

w d

oes

have

go

od p

roce

dura

l pro

tect

ions

: any

ch

alle

nged

vot

er c

an v

ote

a re

gula

r ba

llot

upon

sig

ning

a s

wor

n st

ate-

men

t af

firm

ing

her

vote

r qu

alifi

ca-

tion

s.

44 •

aPP

end

Ix 3

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pol

l Wat

cher

s and

Pol

l Obs

erve

rs

Stat

eW

ho

IS e

lIg

IBle

to

Ser

Ve a

S a

Wat

Ch

er o

r o

BSer

Ver?

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r d

eSIg

nat

Ing

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

Perm

Itte

d a

nd

Pro

hIB

Ited

Co

nd

uC

t By

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

Co

lora

do

A p

oll w

atch

er in

Col

orad

o is

any

el

igib

le e

lect

or, o

ther

tha

n a

cand

i-da

te, w

ho h

as b

een

desi

gnat

ed

by a

ppro

pria

te p

arty

offi

cial

s. A

po

ll w

atch

er d

oes

not

have

to

be a

re

side

nt o

f th

e co

unty

in w

hich

he

is d

esig

nate

d.C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

-1-

104(

51)

A w

atch

er m

ust

be d

esig

nate

d “b

y a

polit

ical

par

ty c

hair

pers

on o

n be

half

of

the

polit

ical

par

ty, b

y a

part

y ca

ndid

ate

at a

pri

mar

y el

ecti

on, b

y an

una

ffilia

ted

cand

idat

e at

a g

ener

al, c

ongr

essi

onal

va

canc

y, o

r no

npar

tisa

n el

ecti

on, o

r by

a

pers

on d

esig

nate

d by

eit

her

the

oppo

-ne

nts

or t

he p

ropo

nent

s in

the

cas

e of

a

ballo

t is

sue

or b

allo

t qu

esti

on.”

C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

-9-2

01(1

)(b)

.

Poll

wat

cher

s ha

ve t

he r

ight

to

mai

ntai

n a

list

of e

ligib

le e

lect

ors

who

hav

e vo

ted,

to

wit

ness

and

ver

ify

each

ste

p in

the

ele

ctio

n’s

cond

uct,

to

chal

leng

e in

elig

ible

ele

ctor

s, a

nd

to a

ssis

t in

cor

rect

ing

disc

repa

ncie

s. P

oll

wat

cher

s m

ay o

bser

ve p

ollin

g pl

ace

voti

ng,

earl

y vo

ting

and

the

pro

cess

ing

and

coun

ting

of

bal

lots

. It

is a

mis

dem

eano

r in

tent

iona

lly

to in

terf

ere

wit

h a

poll

wat

cher

dis

char

ging

he

r du

ties

.C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

-7-1

08(3

)Po

ll w

atch

ers

may

not

dis

rupt

or

inte

rrup

t an

y st

age

of t

he e

lect

ion,

or

inte

rfer

e w

ith

the

elec

tion

’s o

rder

ly c

ondu

ct.

8 C

CR

150

5-1,

Rul

e 8.

8.1.

Poll

wat

cher

s w

ho c

omm

it, e

ncou

rage

, or

conn

ive

in a

ny f

raud

in c

onne

ctio

n w

ith

thei

r du

ties

, who

vio

late

any

of

the

elec

tion

la

ws

or r

ules

, who

vio

late

the

ir o

ath,

or

who

in

terf

ere

wit

h th

e el

ecti

on p

roce

ss m

ay b

e re

mov

ed b

y th

e de

sign

ated

ele

ctio

n of

ficia

l.8

CC

R 1

505-

1, R

ule

8.15

.Po

ll w

atch

ers

are

not

perm

itte

d w

ithi

n th

e im

med

iate

vot

ing

area

, or

wit

hin

six

feet

of

the

voti

ng e

quip

men

t or

vot

ing

boot

hs a

nd

the

ballo

t bo

x, e

xcep

t by

aut

hori

ty o

f th

e el

ecti

on ju

dges

or

elec

tion

offi

cial

s, a

nd t

hen

only

whe

n ne

cess

ary

to e

nfor

ce t

he la

w.

CO

LO

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

1-5

-503

; see

als

o 8

CC

R 1

505-

1, R

ule

8.6

Poll

wat

cher

s ar

e no

t al

low

ed t

o ha

ve c

ell

phon

es, c

amer

as, r

ecor

ding

dev

ices

, lap

tops

or

PD

As

(Pal

m P

ilot,

Bla

ckbe

rry,

etc

.) in

the

po

lling

pla

ce.

8 C

CR

150

5-1,

Rul

e 8.

4

SatI

SFaC

tory

Col

orad

o la

w p

rote

cts

vote

rs

by p

rohi

biti

ng p

oll w

atch

-er

s fr

om in

terf

erin

g w

ith

the

elec

tion

pro

cess

, and

by

allo

win

g of

ficia

ls t

o re

mov

e an

y po

ll w

atch

ers

that

are

di

srup

tive

. Als

o, C

olor

ado

does

not

allo

w w

atch

ers

into

th

e vo

ting

are

a an

d pr

ohib

its

the

reco

rdin

g of

indi

vidu

als

in t

he p

ollin

g pl

ace,

whi

ch

is p

rote

ctiv

e of

vot

er p

riva

cy

and

the

secr

ecy

of t

he b

allo

t.

Col

orad

o la

w c

ould

be

bett

er

if it

mor

e cl

earl

y pr

ohib

ited

w

atch

ers

from

com

mun

icat

-in

g w

ith

vote

rs.

3. s

tate

law

s g

ove

rnin

g P

oll

wat

Cher

s an

D P

oll

oBs

erve

rs

45 •

aPP

end

Ix 3

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pol

l Wat

cher

s and

Pol

l Obs

erve

rs

Stat

eW

ho

IS e

lIg

IBle

to

Ser

Ve a

S a

Wat

Ch

er o

r o

BSer

Ver?

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r d

eSIg

nat

Ing

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

Perm

Itte

d a

nd

Pro

hIB

Ited

Co

nd

uC

t By

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

Flo

rId

aE

ach

poll

wat

cher

mus

t be

a

qual

ified

and

reg

iste

red

elec

tor

of t

he c

ount

y in

whi

ch s

he is

ap-

poin

ted.

FLA

. ST

AT.

§ 1

01.1

31

Law

enf

orce

men

t of

ficer

s or

can

dida

tes

may

not

ser

ve a

s a

desi

gnat

ed p

oll

wat

cher

. FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101

.131

Eac

h pa

rty,

pol

itic

al c

omm

itte

e, a

nd

cand

idat

e m

ay d

esig

nate

pol

l wat

cher

s fo

r ea

ch p

ollin

g ro

om o

n E

lect

ion

Day

. T

he d

esig

nati

on m

ust

be in

wri

ting

, on

an o

ffici

al f

orm

, sub

mit

ted

befo

re t

he

seco

nd T

uesd

ay p

rece

ding

the

ele

ctio

n.

Poll

wat

cher

s m

ust

be a

ppro

ved

by t

he

supe

rvis

or o

f el

ecti

ons

on o

r be

fore

the

Tu

esda

y be

fore

the

ele

ctio

n.FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101

.131

Eac

h po

litic

al p

arty

and

eac

h ca

ndid

ate

is

perm

itte

d to

hav

e on

e w

atch

er a

t a

tim

e in

ea

ch p

ollin

g ro

om o

r ea

rly

voti

ng a

rea

dur-

ing

the

elec

tion

.FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101

.131

All

poll

wat

cher

s m

ust

be a

llow

ed t

o en

ter

and

wat

ch p

olls

in a

ll po

lling

roo

ms

and

earl

y vo

ting

are

as w

ithi

n th

e co

unty

in w

hich

th

ey h

ave

been

des

igna

ted,

but

onl

y if

the

nu

mbe

r of

pol

l wat

cher

s at

any

pol

ling

plac

e do

es n

ot e

xcee

d th

e nu

mbe

r pr

ovid

ed in

thi

s se

ctio

n.FL

A. S

TA

T. §

101

.131

No

phot

ogra

phy

is p

erm

itte

d in

the

pol

ling

room

or

earl

y vo

ting

are

a.FL

A. S

TA

T. §

102

.031

mIx

edIt

is g

ood

that

onl

y a

limit

ed

num

ber

of w

atch

ers

are

per-

mit

ted

in t

he p

ollin

g pl

ace

at

any

tim

e, t

hat

phot

ogra

phy

is p

rohi

bite

d, a

nd t

hat

poll

wat

cher

s m

ust

be a

ppro

ved

by t

he s

uper

viso

r of

the

ele

c-ti

ons

befo

re E

lect

ion

Day

. Fl

orid

a la

w c

ould

be

im-

prov

ed b

y ha

ving

str

onge

r re

stri

ctio

ns o

n po

ll w

atch

er

beha

vior

, suc

h as

pro

hibi

ting

w

atch

ers

in t

he v

otin

g ar

ea,

and

proh

ibit

ing

com

mun

ica-

tion

wit

h vo

ters

. Ele

ctio

n of

ficia

ls s

houl

d ha

ve e

xplic

it

auth

orit

y to

eje

ct w

atch

ers

who

inte

rfer

e w

ith

the

or-

derl

y co

nduc

t of

the

ele

ctio

n.

mIS

Sou

rIIn

Mis

sour

i, th

e te

rm ‘w

atch

er’

refe

rs o

nly

to in

divi

dual

s w

ho

obse

rve

the

coun

ting

of

vote

s an

d no

t th

ose

indi

vidu

als

who

are

in

the

polli

ng p

lace

on

elec

tion

day

. Se

e M

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§§

115

.107

(4);

115

.085

Mis

sour

i doe

s pe

rmit

indi

vidu

-al

s w

ho h

ave

been

des

igna

ted

as

chal

leng

ers

in t

he p

ollin

g pl

ace

on

Ele

ctio

n D

ay.

See

App

endi

x 1.

Law

s go

vern

ing

thos

e in

divi

dual

s w

ho

obse

rve

the

coun

ting

of

the

vote

can

be

loca

ted

at M

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§§

115

.107

; 115

.085

.

Law

s go

vern

ing

thos

e in

divi

dual

s w

ho o

b-se

rve

the

coun

ting

of

the

vote

can

be

loca

ted

at M

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§§

115.

107;

115

.085

.If

any

wat

cher

or

chal

leng

er in

terf

eres

wit

h th

e or

derl

y pr

oces

s of

vot

ing,

or

is g

uilt

y of

m

isco

nduc

t or

any

law

vio

lati

on, t

he e

lec-

tion

judg

es s

hall

ask

the

wat

cher

or

chal

-le

nger

to

leav

e th

e po

lling

pla

ce o

r ce

ase

the

inte

rfer

ence

. If

the

inte

rfer

ence

con

tinu

es,

the

elec

tion

judg

es s

hall

noti

fy t

he e

lect

ion

auth

orit

y, w

hich

sha

ll ta

ke s

uch

acti

on a

s it

de

ems

nece

ssar

y. I

t sh

all b

e th

e du

ty o

f th

e po

lice,

if r

eque

sted

by

the

elec

tion

aut

hor-

ity

or ju

dges

of

elec

tion

, to

excl

ude

any

wat

cher

or

chal

leng

er f

rom

the

pol

ling

plac

e or

the

pla

ce w

here

vot

es a

re b

eing

cou

nted

. If

any

cha

lleng

er is

exc

lude

d, a

noth

er m

ay

be s

ubst

itut

ed b

y th

e de

sign

atin

g co

mm

itte

e ch

airm

an.

MO

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

115

.111

Prio

r to

the

clo

se o

f th

e po

lls, c

halle

nger

s m

ay li

st a

nd g

ive

out

the

nam

es o

f th

ose

who

hav

e vo

ted.

The

list

ing

and

givi

ng

out

of n

ames

of

thos

e w

ho h

ave

vote

d by

a

chal

leng

er s

hall

not

be c

onsi

dere

d gi

ving

in

form

atio

n te

ndin

g to

sho

w t

he s

tate

of

the

coun

t.M

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

15.1

05

mIx

edIt

is g

ood

that

the

re a

re

spec

ific

proc

esse

s fo

r ej

ecti

ng

chal

leng

ers

and

wat

cher

s w

ho in

terf

ere

wit

h th

e or

-de

rly

proc

ess

of v

otin

g.M

isso

uri c

ould

str

engt

hen

its

law

s by

cle

arly

pro

hibi

ting

ph

otog

raph

y or

rec

ordi

ng

vote

rs a

nd b

y m

ore

expl

icit

ly

defin

ing

a sp

ace

whe

re v

oter

s m

ay n

ot b

e ob

serv

ed o

r co

m-

mun

icat

ed w

ith.

46 •

aPP

end

Ix 3

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pol

l Wat

cher

s and

Pol

l Obs

erve

rs

Stat

eW

ho

IS e

lIg

IBle

to

Ser

Ve a

S a

Wat

Ch

er o

r o

BSer

Ver?

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r d

eSIg

nat

Ing

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

Perm

Itte

d a

nd

Pro

hIB

Ited

Co

nd

uC

t By

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

neV

ada

Mem

bers

of

the

gene

ral p

ublic

are

al

low

ed t

o ob

serv

e th

e co

nduc

t of

vo

ting

at

a po

lling

pla

ce.

NE

V. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 2

93.2

74(1

)

The

cou

nty

cler

k sh

all a

llow

mem

bers

of

the

gen

eral

pub

lic t

o ob

serv

e th

e co

n-du

ct o

f vo

ting

at

a po

lling

pla

ce.

NE

V. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 2

93.2

74(1

)T

he g

ener

al p

ublic

doe

s no

t in

clud

e an

y-on

e w

ho: g

athe

rs in

form

atio

n fo

r co

m-

mun

icat

ion

to t

he p

ublic

, is

empl

oyed

by

or

cont

ract

ed w

ith

the

pres

s, o

r is

ac

ting

sol

ely

wit

hin

his

or h

er p

rofe

s-si

onal

cap

acit

y.N

EV

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

293

.274

(3)

Mem

bers

of

the

gene

ral p

ublic

are

not

pe

rmit

ted

to p

hoto

grap

h th

e co

nduc

t of

vo

ting

at

a po

lling

pla

ce, n

or m

ay t

hey

mak

e au

dio

or v

ideo

rec

ordi

ngs

of p

hoto

grap

h th

e co

nduc

t of

vot

ing.

NE

V. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 2

93.2

74(2

)B

efor

e an

y pe

rson

will

be

perm

itte

d to

ob-

serv

e th

e co

nduc

t of

vot

ing,

he

or s

he m

ust

sign

a f

orm

sta

ting

tha

t, d

urin

g th

e co

nduc

t of

vot

ing,

the

per

son:

• m

ay n

ot t

alk

to v

oter

s w

ithi

n th

e po

lling

pl

ace;

• m

ay n

ot u

se a

mob

ile p

hone

or

com

pute

r w

ithi

n th

e po

lling

pla

ce;

• m

ay n

ot a

dvoc

ate

for

or a

gain

st a

can

di-

date

, pol

itic

al p

arty

or

ballo

t qu

esti

on;

• m

ay n

ot a

rgue

for

or

agai

nst

or c

hal-

leng

e an

y de

cisi

ons

mad

e by

cou

nty

elec

tion

pe

rson

nel;

• m

ay n

ot in

terf

ere

wit

h th

e co

nduc

t of

vot

-in

g; a

nd•

may

be

rem

oved

fro

m t

he p

ollin

g pl

ace

by

the

coun

ty c

lerk

for

vio

lati

ng t

he e

lect

ion

law

s or

any

of

the

abov

e.N

EV

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

§ 2

93.2

45

A p

erso

n ob

serv

ing

the

cond

uct

of v

otin

g at

a

polli

ng p

lace

may

rem

ain

in a

n ar

ea d

es-

igna

ted

by t

he c

hair

of

the

elec

tion

boa

rd t

o ob

serv

e th

e ac

tivi

ties

con

duct

ed a

t th

e po

ll-in

g pl

ace

wit

hout

inte

rfer

ing

wit

h th

e vo

ting

. T

he d

esig

nate

d ar

ea m

ust

allo

w f

or m

ean-

ingf

ul o

bser

vati

on, b

ut m

ust

not

be lo

cate

d in

an

area

tha

t w

ould

allo

w a

n ob

serv

er t

o in

frin

ge o

n th

e pr

ivac

y an

d co

nfide

ntia

lity

of

the

ballo

t of

the

vot

er.

NE

V. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

293

.245

(6)

SatI

SFaC

tory

It is

goo

d th

at N

evad

a do

es

not

perm

it p

hoto

grap

hing

or

reco

rdin

g w

ithi

n th

e po

lling

ar

ea. T

here

is a

des

igna

ted

area

bey

ond

whi

ch w

atch

ers

may

not

pas

s, w

hich

hel

ps

prot

ect

vote

r pr

ivac

y, a

nd

the

form

tha

t ob

serv

ers

mus

t si

gn a

lso

cont

ains

a n

umbe

r of

str

ong

vote

r pr

otec

tion

s.

Esp

ecia

lly g

ood

are

the

expl

icit

pro

hibi

tion

aga

inst

in

terf

erin

g w

ith

the

cond

uct

of e

lect

ions

and

the

aut

hor-

ity

to r

emov

e ob

serv

ers

who

vi

olat

e th

e ru

les.

Nev

ada

coul

d im

prov

e it

s la

ws

by li

mit

ing

the

num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s w

ho a

re p

er-

mit

ted

to o

bser

ve t

he c

ondu

ct

of v

otin

g.

47 •

aPP

end

Ix 3

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pol

l Wat

cher

s and

Pol

l Obs

erve

rs

Stat

eW

ho

IS e

lIg

IBle

to

Ser

Ve a

S a

Wat

Ch

er o

r o

BSer

Ver?

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r d

eSIg

nat

Ing

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

Perm

Itte

d a

nd

Pro

hIB

Ited

Co

nd

uC

t By

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

neW

ham

PSh

Ire

In N

ew H

amps

hire

, obs

erve

rs o

r w

atch

ers

have

no

spec

ial s

tatu

s in

la

w. H

owev

er, N

ew H

amps

hire

do

es a

llow

the

se in

divi

dual

s to

be

pre

sent

in t

he p

ollin

g pl

ace

on

Ele

ctio

n D

ay.

No

pers

on n

ot a

utho

rize

d by

law

may

sta

nd

or s

it w

ithi

n 6

feet

of

the

ballo

t cl

erk

for

purp

oses

of

obse

rvin

g th

e ch

eck-

in o

f vo

t-er

s w

itho

ut t

he e

xpre

ss p

erm

issi

on o

f th

e m

oder

ator

.N

.H. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 6

59:1

3-a

No

pers

on s

hall

inte

rfer

e or

att

empt

to

inte

rfer

e w

ith

any

vote

r w

hen

such

vot

er is

in

the

spac

e w

ithi

n th

e gu

ardr

ail o

r en

deav

or t

o in

duce

any

vot

er b

efor

e vo

ting

to

show

how

he

mar

ks o

r ha

s m

arke

d hi

s ba

llot.

Who

ever

kn

owin

gly

viol

ates

thi

s se

ctio

n sh

all b

e gu

ilty

of a

mis

dem

eano

r if

a n

atur

al p

erso

n or

gu

ilty

of a

fel

ony

if a

ny o

ther

per

son.

N.H

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

659

:37

mIx

edN

ew H

amps

hire

sho

uld

impr

ove

its

law

by

limit

ing

who

is p

erm

itte

d to

obs

erve

vo

ters

on

elec

tion

day

and

by

crea

ting

mor

e de

taile

d vo

ter

prot

ecti

ons.

In a

ddit

ion,

New

Ham

pshi

re

shou

ld p

rohi

bit

phot

ogra

ph-

ing

and

reco

rdin

g of

vot

ers

wit

hin

the

polli

ng p

lace

.It

is g

ood

that

inte

rfer

-in

g w

ith

a vo

ter

wit

hin

the

guar

drai

l is

a m

isde

mea

nor.

no

rth

Car

olI

na

Obs

erve

rs m

ust

be r

egis

tere

d vo

ters

of

the

coun

ty f

or w

hich

th

ey a

re a

ppoi

nted

and

mus

t ha

ve

“goo

d m

oral

cha

ract

er.”

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. §

163

-45.

The

cha

ir o

f ea

ch p

olit

ical

par

ty in

the

co

unty

sha

ll ha

ve t

he r

ight

to

desi

gnat

e tw

o ob

serv

ers

to a

tten

d ea

ch v

otin

g pl

ace.

Obs

erve

rs m

ust

be a

ppoi

nted

in

wri

ting

to

the

coun

ty b

oard

of

elec

tion

s fiv

e da

ys b

efor

e th

e el

ecti

on. T

he c

hair

or

the

judg

es f

or e

ach

affe

cted

pre

cinc

t m

ay, h

owev

er, r

ejec

t an

y ap

poin

tee

for

caus

e an

d re

quir

e an

othe

r be

app

oint

ed.

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. §

163

-45

Obs

erve

rs m

ay n

ot e

lect

ione

er a

t th

e vo

ting

pl

ace.

Obs

erve

rs m

ay n

ot im

pede

the

vot

ing

proc

ess

or in

terf

ere

or c

omm

unic

ate

wit

h or

ob

serv

e an

y vo

ter

cast

ing

a ba

llot.

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. §

163

-45

The

chi

ef ju

dge

and

judg

es o

f el

ecti

on m

ay

ejec

t an

y ch

alle

nger

or

wit

ness

for

vio

la-

tion

of

any

prov

isio

ns o

f th

e el

ecti

on la

ws.

T

he c

hief

judg

e an

d ju

dges

sha

ll pe

rmit

the

ob

serv

er t

o “m

ake

such

obs

erva

tion

and

tak

e su

ch n

otes

as

the

obse

rver

may

des

ire.

”N

.C. G

EN

. ST

AT.

§§

163-

45; 1

63-4

8V

ideo

tapi

ng o

f vo

ters

by

elec

tion

obs

erve

rs

wou

ld b

e ou

tsid

e th

e pe

rmis

sibl

e ac

tivi

ties

an

d in

cons

iste

nt w

ith

the

cons

titu

tion

al a

nd

stat

utor

y pr

inci

ples

insu

ring

unf

ette

red

elec

-ti

ons

for

vote

rs; h

owev

er, t

here

are

not

the

sa

me

lega

l con

cern

s w

ith

the

use

of c

ellu

lar

tele

phon

es.

Op.

Att

y.G

en.,

Nic

hols

, Oct

. 22,

199

8.

SatI

SFaC

tory

It is

ver

y go

od t

hat

Nor

th

Car

olin

a lim

its

obse

rver

s fr

om in

terf

erin

g w

ith

the

vote

and

spe

cific

ally

gra

nts

auth

orit

y to

eje

ct o

bser

vers

w

ho a

re im

pedi

ng t

he v

otin

g pr

oces

s.T

he a

ttor

ney

gene

ral’s

op

inio

n st

atin

g th

at N

orth

C

arol

ina

wou

ld n

ot p

erm

it

vide

otap

ing

is v

ery

prot

ecti

ve

of v

oter

’s p

riva

cy. T

he le

gisl

a-tu

re s

houl

d ad

opt

this

in t

he

law

and

add

pro

tect

ions

in

light

of

smar

tpho

nes

and

othe

r m

obile

dev

ices

.

48 •

aPP

end

Ix 3

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pol

l Wat

cher

s and

Pol

l Obs

erve

rs

Stat

eW

ho

IS e

lIg

IBle

to

Ser

Ve a

S a

Wat

Ch

er o

r o

BSer

Ver?

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r d

eSIg

nat

Ing

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

Perm

Itte

d a

nd

Pro

hIB

Ited

Co

nd

uC

t By

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

oh

IoA

pol

l obs

erve

r m

ust

be a

qua

li-fie

d el

ecto

r in

the

sta

te b

ut n

ot

nece

ssar

ily in

the

cou

nty

in w

hich

sh

e se

rves

.O

HIO

RE

V. C

OD

E §

350

5.21

Obs

erve

rs m

ust

be d

esig

nate

d ei

ther

by

a po

litic

al p

arty

, a g

roup

of

five

or m

ore

cand

idat

es, o

r a

ballo

t is

sue

com

mit

-te

e. T

he B

oard

of

Ele

ctio

ns m

ust

be

noti

fied

of t

he n

ames

and

add

ress

es o

f ap

poin

ted

obse

rver

s an

d th

e pr

ecin

cts

in w

hich

the

y w

ill s

erve

. App

oint

men

ts

mus

t be

mad

e on

offi

cial

for

ms

not

less

th

an e

leve

n da

ys b

efor

e th

e el

ecti

on, a

nd

obse

rver

s m

ust

pres

ent

cert

ifica

tes

of a

p-po

intm

ent

to t

he p

resi

ding

judg

e of

the

pr

ecin

ct t

he n

ight

bef

ore

or o

n E

lect

ion

Day

.O

HIO

RE

V. C

OD

E §

350

5.21

The

obs

erve

r sh

all b

e pe

rmit

ted

to b

e in

and

ab

out

the

polli

ng p

lace

or

prec

inct

dur

ing

voti

ng. O

bser

vers

are

per

mit

ted

to w

atch

ev

ery

proc

eedi

ng o

f th

e el

ecti

on ju

dges

for

as

long

as

the

polls

are

ope

n. O

bser

vers

may

m

ove

abou

t th

e pr

ecin

ct p

ollin

g pl

ace

as lo

ng

as t

hey

do n

ot d

isru

pt o

r in

terf

ere

wit

h th

e el

ecti

on. O

bser

vers

may

not

tak

e an

y ac

tion

to

inti

mid

ate

vote

rs o

r pu

t th

emse

lves

in a

ny

posi

tion

tha

t co

uld

viol

ate

the

secr

ecy

of t

he

ballo

t or

a v

oter

’s p

riva

cy.

OH

IO R

EV

. CO

DE

§ 3

505.

21

SatI

SFaC

tory

It is

goo

d th

at O

hio

law

pro

-hi

bits

dis

rupt

ing

or in

terf

er-

ing

wit

h th

e el

ecti

on.

Ohi

o co

uld

be m

ore

expl

icit

th

at p

hone

s, v

ideo

cam

eras

, an

d ot

her

reco

rdin

g de

vice

s m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed t

o re

cord

vo

ters

in t

he p

ollin

g pl

ace.

O

hio

coul

d al

so im

prov

e it

s la

w b

y on

ly a

llow

ing

elec

tors

in

the

pre

cinc

t to

ser

ve a

s ob

serv

ers.

Pen

nSy

lVan

IaE

ach

wat

cher

mus

t be

a q

ualifi

ed

regi

ster

ed e

lect

or o

f th

e co

unty

in

the

elec

tion

dis

tric

t.25

PA

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

268

7Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia a

lso

has

“ove

rsee

rs

of t

he e

lect

ion”

who

sup

ervi

se t

he

proc

eedi

ngs

of e

lect

ion

offic

ers

and

poll

wat

cher

s an

d m

ay c

hal-

leng

e vo

ters

. The

se in

divi

dual

s ar

e ap

poin

ted

and

mus

t be

ele

ctor

s fr

om t

he p

reci

nct

they

will

ser

ve.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 2

685

Eac

h ca

ndid

ate

at a

ny e

lect

ion

may

ap-

poin

t tw

o w

atch

ers

for

each

ele

ctio

n di

s-tr

ict

in w

hich

he

or s

he is

run

ning

, and

ea

ch p

olit

ical

par

ty t

hat

has

nom

inat

ed

cand

idat

es m

ay a

ppoi

nt t

hree

wat

cher

s at

any

gen

eral

, mun

icip

al o

r sp

ecia

l ele

c-ti

on f

or e

ach

elec

tion

dis

tric

t in

whi

ch

its

cand

idat

es a

re c

ompe

ting

.25

PA

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

268

7E

ach

wat

cher

rec

eive

s a

cert

ifica

te f

rom

th

e co

unty

boa

rd o

f el

ecti

ons,

sta

ting

hi

s na

me

and

the

nam

e of

the

can

dida

te,

part

y or

pol

itic

al b

ody

he r

epre

sent

s.

Wat

cher

s ar

e re

quir

ed t

o sh

ow c

erti

fi-ca

tes

upon

req

uest

.25

PA

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

268

7O

vers

eers

of

the

elec

tion

are

app

oint

ed

on t

he p

etit

ion

of fi

ve o

r m

ore

duly

re

gist

ered

ele

ctor

s of

any

ele

ctio

n di

s-tr

ict.

The

cou

rt o

f co

mm

on p

leas

of

the

prop

er c

ount

y m

ust

then

app

oint

tw

o ju

dici

ous,

sob

er a

nd in

telli

gent

ele

ctor

s of

the

sai

d di

stri

ct b

elon

ging

to

diff

eren

t po

litic

al p

arti

es.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 2

685

Onl

y on

e w

atch

er f

or e

ach

part

y at

gen

eral

, m

unic

ipal

or

spec

ial e

lect

ions

, may

be

pres

-en

t in

the

pol

ling

plac

e fr

om t

he t

ime

the

elec

tion

offi

cers

mee

t pr

ior

to t

he o

peni

ng o

f th

e po

lls u

ntil

the

coun

ting

of

vote

s is

com

-pl

ete

and

the

voti

ng c

heck

list

is s

eale

d.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 2

687

Wat

cher

s m

ay k

eep

a lis

t of

vot

ers

and

shal

l be

ent

itle

d to

cha

lleng

e an

y pr

ospe

ctiv

e vo

ter

and

to r

equi

re p

roof

of

his

or h

er q

ualifi

ca-

tion

s to

vot

e. T

he ju

dge

of e

lect

ions

mus

t pe

rmit

wat

cher

s to

insp

ect

but

not

mar

k th

e vo

ting

che

ck li

st a

nd e

ithe

r of

the

num

bere

d lis

ts o

f vo

ters

mai

ntai

ned

by t

he c

ount

y bo

ard.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 2

687

Ove

rsee

rs o

f th

e el

ecti

on a

re a

lso

perm

itte

d to

cha

lleng

e an

y pe

rson

att

empt

ing

to v

ote,

ex

amin

e th

e vo

ter’

s pa

pers

, and

ask

the

vot

er

and

the

vote

r’s

wit

ness

es, u

nder

oat

h, a

bout

hi

s or

her

rig

ht t

o vo

te in

tha

t el

ecti

on.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 2

687

un

SatI

SFaC

tory

It is

pos

itiv

e th

at o

nly

one

wat

cher

per

par

ty m

ay b

e in

the

pol

ling

plac

e du

ring

vo

ting

. H

owev

er, i

t is

pro

blem

atic

th

at o

vers

eers

and

wat

cher

s ca

n ch

alle

nge

vote

rs a

nd r

e-qu

est

proo

f of

elig

ibili

ty, b

ut

that

the

re a

ren’

t su

bsta

ntiv

e lim

itat

ions

on

the

acti

viti

es

of w

atch

ers

or o

vers

eers

. W

atch

ers

and

Ove

rsee

rs

shou

ld n

ot b

e ab

le t

o ph

o-to

grap

h or

vid

eota

pe v

oter

s,

or c

omm

unic

ate

wit

h vo

ters

. E

lect

ion

judg

es s

houl

d ha

ve

auth

orit

y to

rem

ove

wat

cher

s an

d ov

erse

ers

who

inte

rfer

e w

ith

the

orde

rly

cond

uct

of

the

elec

tion

49 •

aPP

end

Ix 3

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pol

l Wat

cher

s and

Pol

l Obs

erve

rs

Stat

eW

ho

IS e

lIg

IBle

to

Ser

Ve a

S a

Wat

Ch

er o

r o

BSer

Ver?

Pro

Ced

ure

S Fo

r d

eSIg

nat

Ing

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

Perm

Itte

d a

nd

Pro

hIB

Ited

Co

nd

uC

t By

Po

ll W

atC

her

S an

d o

BSer

VerS

aSSe

SSm

ent:

ar

e Vo

terS

Pro

teC

ted

?

texa

SA

wat

cher

mus

t be

a q

ualifi

ed

vote

r of

the

cou

nty

and

polit

ical

su

bdiv

isio

n in

whi

ch h

e or

she

w

ill s

erve

in a

sta

tew

ide

elec

tion

.T

EX

AS

EL

EC

TIO

N C

OD

E §

33

.031

Can

dida

tes,

cha

irs

of p

olit

ical

par

ties

, or

, in

the

case

of

a w

rite

-in

cand

idat

e, a

gr

oup

of r

egis

tere

d vo

ters

, may

app

oint

tw

o w

atch

ers

for

each

vot

ing

loca

tion

. T

he a

ppoi

ntm

ent

mus

t be

in w

riti

ng,

and

the

appo

inti

ng o

ffici

als

or v

oter

s m

ust

issu

e a

cert

ifica

te o

f ap

poin

tmen

t to

the

app

oint

ee a

nd o

btai

n an

affi

davi

t st

atin

g th

at t

he a

ppoi

ntee

will

not

hav

e po

sses

sion

of

a de

vice

cap

able

of

reco

rd-

ing

imag

es o

r so

und

or t

hat

the

appo

in-

tee

will

dis

able

or

deac

tiva

te t

he d

evic

e w

hile

ser

ving

as

a w

atch

er.

TE

XA

S E

LE

CT

ION

CO

DE

§ 3

3.00

6

A w

atch

er m

ay c

all t

he a

tten

tion

of

an

elec

tion

offi

cer

to a

ny o

ccur

renc

e th

at t

he

wat

cher

bel

ieve

s to

be

an ir

regu

lari

ty o

r vi

olat

ion

of la

w a

nd m

ay d

iscu

ss t

he m

atte

r w

ith

the

offic

er. A

n of

ficer

may

ref

er t

he

wat

cher

to

the

pres

idin

g of

ficer

at

any

poin

t in

the

dis

cuss

ion.

In

that

cas

e, t

he w

atch

er

may

not

dis

cuss

the

occ

urre

nce

furt

her

wit

h th

e su

bord

inat

e of

ficer

unl

ess

the

pres

idin

g of

ficer

per

mit

s.T

EX

. EL

EC

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

33.

058

A w

atch

er m

ay o

bser

ve a

ny a

ctiv

itie

s co

n-du

cted

at

the

loca

tion

, exc

ept

that

the

wat

ch-

er m

ay n

ot b

e pr

esen

t at

the

vot

ing

stat

ion

whe

n a

vote

r is

pre

pari

ng a

bal

lot

wit

hout

as

sist

ance

fro

m a

n el

ecti

on o

ffice

r. A

wat

cher

is

ent

itle

d to

:•

sit

or s

tand

nea

r th

e el

ecti

on o

ffice

rs c

on-

duct

ing

the

obse

rved

act

ivit

y;

• si

t or

sta

nd n

ear

enou

gh t

o a

mem

ber

of

the

coun

ting

tea

m w

ho is

ann

ounc

ing

or t

al-

lyin

g vo

tes

to v

erif

y th

at b

allo

ts a

re r

ead

and

talli

ed c

orre

ctly

; •

insp

ect

retu

rns

and

othe

r re

cord

s pr

epar

ed

by e

lect

ion

offic

ers

at t

he lo

cati

on;

• m

ake

wri

tten

not

es w

hile

on

duty

. T

EX

AS

EL

EC

TIO

N C

OD

E §

33.

056

An

elec

tion

judg

e m

ust

allo

w w

atch

ers

to

perf

orm

act

ivit

ies

desc

ribe

d in

the

Tex

as

Ele

ctio

n C

ode,

but

the

judg

e m

ay li

mit

exc

es-

sive

or

disr

upti

ve a

ctiv

ity.

Ele

ctio

n L

aw O

pini

on N

o. J

H-2

(19

91)

Whi

le o

n du

ty, a

wat

cher

may

not

:•

conv

erse

wit

h an

ele

ctio

n of

ficer

reg

ardi

ng

the

elec

tion

, exc

ept

to c

all a

tten

tion

to

an

irre

gula

rity

or

viol

atio

n of

law

;•

conv

erse

wit

h a

vote

r; o

r•

com

mun

icat

e in

any

man

ner

wit

h a

vote

r re

gard

ing

the

elec

tion

.T

EX

AS

EL

EC

TIO

N C

OD

E §

33.

058

A w

atch

er m

ay n

ot b

e pr

esen

t at

the

vot

ing

stat

ion

whe

n a

vote

r is

pre

pari

ng t

he v

oter

’s

ballo

t or

is b

eing

ass

iste

d by

a p

erso

n of

the

vo

ter’

s ch

oice

.

un

SatI

SFaC

tory

Texa

s ha

s m

any

good

res

tric

-ti

ons

on w

atch

ers

that

hel

p pr

otec

t vo

ters

fro

m in

-ti

mid

atio

n an

d pr

eser

ve t

heir

pr

ivac

y.H

owev

er, i

t is

ext

rem

ely

trou

blin

g th

at T

exas

allo

ws

wat

cher

s to

insp

ect

a vo

ter’

s ba

llot

if t

he v

oter

rec

eive

s as

sist

ance

fro

m a

n el

ecti

on

offic

er. T

his

grea

tly

com

-pr

omis

es t

he s

ecre

cy o

f th

e vo

ter’

s ba

llot

and

coul

d le

ad

to v

oter

inti

mid

atio

n, p

ar-

ticu

larl

y fo

r la

ngua

ge m

inor

i-ti

es, t

he e

lder

ly, a

nd d

isab

led

pers

ons.

Wat

cher

s sh

ould

not

be

per

mit

ted

wit

hin

seve

ral

feet

of

the

voti

ng a

rea

and

shou

ld n

ever

hav

e th

e ri

ght

to e

xam

ine

a vo

ter’

s ba

llot.

50 •

aPP

end

Ix 3

| Sta

te L

aws G

over

ning

Pol

l Wat

cher

s and

Pol

l Obs

erve

rs

A w

atch

er is

, how

ever

, ent

itle

d to

be

pres

ent

at t

he v

otin

g st

atio

n w

hen

a vo

ter

is b

eing

as

sist

ed b

y an

ele

ctio

n of

ficer

, and

the

wat

ch-

er is

ent

itle

d to

exa

min

e th

e ba

llot

befo

re it

is

dep

osit

ed in

the

bal

lot

box

to d

eter

min

e w

heth

er it

is p

repa

red

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith

the

vote

r’s

wis

hes.

TE

XA

S E

LE

CT

ION

CO

DE

§ 3

3.05

7

VIrg

InIa

Vir

gini

a on

ly p

erm

its

“aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

tati

ves”

to

obse

rve

the

cond

uct

of e

lect

ions

. Aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

tati

ves

mus

t be

qua

lified

V

irgi

nia

vote

rs.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-60

4(C

)

Aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

tati

ves

are

desi

g-na

ted

by a

par

ty c

hair

man

or

cand

idat

e.

Eac

h au

thor

ized

rep

rese

ntat

ive

mus

t pr

esen

t to

the

offi

cers

of

elec

tion

a w

rit-

ten

stat

emen

t (o

r co

py),

sig

ned

by t

he

part

y ch

airm

an o

r ca

ndid

ate,

des

igna

t-in

g hi

m a

s th

e pa

rty’

s or

can

dida

te’s

re

pres

enta

tive

.V

A. C

OD

E A

NN

. § 2

4.2-

604(

C)

No

cand

idat

e w

hose

nam

e is

on

the

bal-

lot

shal

l ser

ve a

s an

aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

-ta

tive

.V

A. C

OD

E A

NN

. § 2

4.2-

604(

C)

Ele

ctio

n of

ficia

ls m

ust

perm

it a

t le

ast

one

auth

oriz

ed r

epre

sent

ativ

e fo

r ea

ch p

olit

ical

pa

rty

or c

andi

date

in t

he r

oom

in w

hich

the

el

ecti

on is

bei

ng c

ondu

cted

at

all t

imes

. Ele

c-ti

on o

ffici

als

have

the

dis

cret

ion

to p

erm

it a

s m

any

as t

hree

rep

rese

ntat

ives

of

each

pol

iti-

cal p

arty

or

inde

pend

ent

cand

idat

e to

rem

ain

in t

he r

oom

in w

hich

the

ele

ctio

n is

bei

ng

cond

ucte

d.V

A. C

OD

E A

NN

. § 2

4.2-

604(

C)

Aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

tati

ves

mus

t be

allo

wed

, w

heth

er in

a r

egul

ar p

ollin

g pl

ace

or c

entr

al

abse

ntee

vot

er p

reci

nct,

to

be c

lose

eno

ugh

to t

he v

oter

che

ck-i

n ta

ble

to b

e ab

le t

o he

ar

and

see

wha

t is

occ

urri

ng. H

owev

er, s

uch

obse

rvat

ion

shal

l not

vio

late

the

sec

recy

of

the

ballo

t pr

otec

ted

by t

he V

irgi

nia

stat

e co

nsti

tuti

on.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-60

4(C

); V

A.

CO

NST

. AR

T. 2

, § 3

Aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

tati

ves

may

not

“hi

nder

or

del

ay a

qua

lified

vot

er o

r th

e of

ficer

s of

el

ecti

on, p

rovi

de o

r ex

hibi

t ca

mpa

ign

mat

eri-

als,

att

empt

to

influ

ence

a p

erso

n vo

ting

, or

oth

erw

ise

impe

de t

he o

rder

ly c

ondu

ct o

f th

e el

ecti

on.”

Offi

cers

of

elec

tion

hav

e th

e au

thor

ity

to r

emov

e an

y au

thor

ized

rep

rese

n-ta

tive

who

doe

s no

t ad

here

to

the

appl

icab

le

guid

elin

es.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-60

4A

utho

rize

d re

pres

enta

tive

s ar

e al

low

ed t

o us

e w

irel

ess

com

mun

icat

ions

dev

ices

, but

th

ey a

re n

ot p

erm

itte

d to

use

the

cam

era

or

vide

o fu

ncti

on o

n th

ose

devi

ces.

Offi

cers

of

elec

tion

may

pro

hibi

t th

e us

e of

cel

lula

r te

le-

phon

es o

r ot

her

hand

held

wir

eles

s co

mm

u-ni

cati

ons

devi

ces

if s

uch

use

will

unl

awfu

lly

impe

de, i

nflue

nce,

or

inti

mid

ate

vote

rs.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-60

4(C

)

SatI

SFaC

tory

Vir

gini

a la

w p

rote

cts

vote

rs

agai

nst

inti

mid

atio

n an

d vi

o-la

tion

s of

the

ir p

riva

cy. T

he

law

pro

hibi

ts e

lect

ione

erin

g,

inte

rfer

ence

wit

h vo

ters

, an

d an

y de

vice

s th

at c

ould

be

use

d to

rec

ord

vote

rs. I

t is

goo

d th

at V

irgi

nia

has

a st

atut

ory

basi

s fo

r re

mov

ing

repr

esen

tati

ves

that

are

dis

-tu

rbin

g th

e or

derl

y co

nduc

t of

ele

ctio

ns.

Vir

gini

a co

uld

impr

ove

its

law

s by

res

tric

ting

the

in

divi

dual

s w

ho c

an b

ecom

e au

thor

ized

rep

rese

ntat

ives

to

mem

bers

of

the

prec

inct

.

51 •

aPP

end

Ix 4

| Sta

te L

aws f

or A

ddre

ssin

g Vo

ter I

ntim

idat

ion,

Insid

e an

d O

utsid

e th

e Po

lls

Stat

eSla

WS

reg

ula

tIn

g V

ote

r In

tIm

Idat

Ion

, In

Clu

dIn

g a

CtI

VIty

ou

tSId

e o

F th

e Po

llS

Co

lora

do

Proh

ibit

s an

y pe

rson

fro

m d

irec

tly

or in

dire

ctly

impe

ding

, pre

vent

ing,

or

othe

rwis

e in

terf

erin

g w

ith

the

free

exe

rcis

e of

the

vot

e.C

OL

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

-13-

713

Flo

rId

aPr

ohib

its

thre

aten

ing

or c

oerc

ing

any

pers

on f

or t

he p

urpo

se o

f in

terf

erin

g w

ith

that

per

son’

s ri

ght

to v

ote.

FLA

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

104

.051

5

Proh

ibit

s us

ing

or t

hrea

teni

ng t

o us

e in

tim

idat

ion

or c

oerc

ion

to c

ompe

l a p

erso

n to

vot

e or

not

vot

e.FL

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 1

04.0

61

Proh

ibit

s so

licit

ing

for

“fac

ts”

or “

opin

ions

” w

ithi

n 10

0 fe

et o

f a

polli

ng p

lace

. FL

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 1

02.0

31

mIS

Sou

rIPr

ohib

its

usin

g or

thr

eate

ning

to

use

forc

e, v

iole

nce

or r

estr

aint

in o

rder

to

indu

ce o

r co

mpe

l a p

erso

n to

vot

e or

ref

rain

fro

m v

otin

g at

any

ele

ctio

n.M

O. R

EV

. ST

AT.

§ 1

15.6

35

Proh

ibit

s im

pedi

ng o

r pr

even

ting

, or

atte

mpt

ing

to im

pede

or

prev

ent,

by

abdu

ctio

n, d

ures

s or

any

fra

udul

ent

devi

ce o

r co

ntri

vanc

e, t

he f

ree

exer

cise

of

the

fran

chis

e of

any

vot

er.

MO

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

115

.635

Proh

ibit

s a

num

ber

of s

peci

fic e

lect

ion

rela

ted

offe

nses

, suc

h as

tam

peri

ng w

ith

a vo

ter’

s ba

llot,

pro

vidi

ng in

duce

men

ts t

o vo

ters

, cre

atin

g a

brea

ch o

f th

e pe

ace,

pre

vent

ing

one’

s em

ploy

ees

from

vot

ing,

or

othe

rwis

e in

terf

erin

g, o

r at

tem

ptin

g to

inte

rfer

e, w

ith

any

vote

r in

side

a p

ollin

g pl

ace.

See

MO

. RE

V. S

TA

T. §

115

.637

neV

ada

Proh

ibit

s us

ing

or t

hrea

teni

ng t

o us

e fo

rce,

inti

mid

atio

n, c

oerc

ion,

vio

lenc

e, o

r un

due

influ

ence

in c

onne

ctio

n w

ith

any

elec

tion

or

peti

tion

.N

ev. R

ev. S

tat.

§ 2

93.7

10

It is

a f

elon

y un

der

Nev

ada

law

to

inte

rfer

e w

ith

the

cond

uct

of a

n el

ecti

on o

r ot

herw

ise

rem

ove,

rec

eive

, or

disp

lay

any

ballo

t th

at h

as b

een

prep

ared

by

a vo

ter

befo

re t

he p

olls

are

clo

sed.

Nev

. Rev

. Sta

t. §

293

.730

neW

ham

PSh

Ire

Proh

ibit

s us

ing

or t

hrea

teni

ng t

o us

e fo

rce,

vio

lenc

e, o

r an

y ta

ctic

of

inti

mid

atio

n to

com

pel a

vot

er t

o vo

te f

or a

par

ticu

lar

cand

idat

e, r

efra

in f

rom

vot

ing,

or

refr

ain

from

reg

iste

ring

to

vote

.N

.H. R

ev. S

tat.

§ 6

59:4

0 N

o pe

rson

sha

ll in

terf

ere

or a

ttem

pt t

o in

terf

ere

wit

h an

y vo

ter

whe

n su

ch v

oter

is in

the

spa

ce w

ithi

n th

e gu

ardr

ail o

r en

deav

or t

o in

duce

any

vot

er b

efor

e vo

ting

to

show

how

he

mar

ks o

r ha

s m

arke

d hi

s ba

llot.

Who

ever

kno

win

gly

viol

ates

thi

s se

ctio

n sh

all b

e gu

ilty

of a

mis

dem

eano

r if

a n

atur

al p

erso

n or

gui

lty

of a

fel

ony

if a

ny o

ther

per

son

N.H

. Rev

. Sta

t. §

659

:37

4. s

tate

law

s Fo

r aD

Dre

ssin

g v

ote

r in

tim

iDat

ion

, in

siD

e an

D o

uts

iDe

the

Poll

s

NO

TE

: W

e ha

ve n

ot p

rovi

ded

asse

ssm

ents

for

the

se s

tatu

tes.

In

gene

ral,

they

sho

uld

be b

road

ly c

onst

rued

to

appl

y to

har

assi

ng, i

ntim

idat

ing

or o

ther

wis

e in

appr

opri

ate

beha

vior

in

and

arou

nd p

ollin

g pl

aces

tha

t bu

rden

s or

inte

rfer

es w

ith

a vo

ter’

s ri

ght

to v

ote.

Im

port

antl

y, t

here

are

Fed

eral

pro

tect

ions

aga

inst

inti

mid

atin

g vo

ters

as

wel

l.W

e st

rong

ly e

ncou

rage

ele

ctio

n of

ficia

ls a

nd la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

offic

ials

to

mon

itor

act

ivit

y at

the

pol

ls c

lose

ly a

nd t

o en

forc

e th

ese

law

s ag

gres

sive

ly t

o en

sure

all

elig

ible

vot

ers

can

vote

w

itho

ut in

terf

eren

ce.

A w

atch

er is

, how

ever

, ent

itle

d to

be

pres

ent

at t

he v

otin

g st

atio

n w

hen

a vo

ter

is b

eing

as

sist

ed b

y an

ele

ctio

n of

ficer

, and

the

wat

ch-

er is

ent

itle

d to

exa

min

e th

e ba

llot

befo

re it

is

dep

osit

ed in

the

bal

lot

box

to d

eter

min

e w

heth

er it

is p

repa

red

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith

the

vote

r’s

wis

hes.

TE

XA

S E

LE

CT

ION

CO

DE

§ 3

3.05

7

VIrg

InIa

Vir

gini

a on

ly p

erm

its

“aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

tati

ves”

to

obse

rve

the

cond

uct

of e

lect

ions

. Aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

tati

ves

mus

t be

qua

lified

V

irgi

nia

vote

rs.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-60

4(C

)

Aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

tati

ves

are

desi

g-na

ted

by a

par

ty c

hair

man

or

cand

idat

e.

Eac

h au

thor

ized

rep

rese

ntat

ive

mus

t pr

esen

t to

the

offi

cers

of

elec

tion

a w

rit-

ten

stat

emen

t (o

r co

py),

sig

ned

by t

he

part

y ch

airm

an o

r ca

ndid

ate,

des

igna

t-in

g hi

m a

s th

e pa

rty’

s or

can

dida

te’s

re

pres

enta

tive

.V

A. C

OD

E A

NN

. § 2

4.2-

604(

C)

No

cand

idat

e w

hose

nam

e is

on

the

bal-

lot

shal

l ser

ve a

s an

aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

-ta

tive

.V

A. C

OD

E A

NN

. § 2

4.2-

604(

C)

Ele

ctio

n of

ficia

ls m

ust

perm

it a

t le

ast

one

auth

oriz

ed r

epre

sent

ativ

e fo

r ea

ch p

olit

ical

pa

rty

or c

andi

date

in t

he r

oom

in w

hich

the

el

ecti

on is

bei

ng c

ondu

cted

at

all t

imes

. Ele

c-ti

on o

ffici

als

have

the

dis

cret

ion

to p

erm

it a

s m

any

as t

hree

rep

rese

ntat

ives

of

each

pol

iti-

cal p

arty

or

inde

pend

ent

cand

idat

e to

rem

ain

in t

he r

oom

in w

hich

the

ele

ctio

n is

bei

ng

cond

ucte

d.V

A. C

OD

E A

NN

. § 2

4.2-

604(

C)

Aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

tati

ves

mus

t be

allo

wed

, w

heth

er in

a r

egul

ar p

ollin

g pl

ace

or c

entr

al

abse

ntee

vot

er p

reci

nct,

to

be c

lose

eno

ugh

to t

he v

oter

che

ck-i

n ta

ble

to b

e ab

le t

o he

ar

and

see

wha

t is

occ

urri

ng. H

owev

er, s

uch

obse

rvat

ion

shal

l not

vio

late

the

sec

recy

of

the

ballo

t pr

otec

ted

by t

he V

irgi

nia

stat

e co

nsti

tuti

on.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-60

4(C

); V

A.

CO

NST

. AR

T. 2

, § 3

Aut

hori

zed

repr

esen

tati

ves

may

not

“hi

nder

or

del

ay a

qua

lified

vot

er o

r th

e of

ficer

s of

el

ecti

on, p

rovi

de o

r ex

hibi

t ca

mpa

ign

mat

eri-

als,

att

empt

to

influ

ence

a p

erso

n vo

ting

, or

oth

erw

ise

impe

de t

he o

rder

ly c

ondu

ct o

f th

e el

ecti

on.”

Offi

cers

of

elec

tion

hav

e th

e au

thor

ity

to r

emov

e an

y au

thor

ized

rep

rese

n-ta

tive

who

doe

s no

t ad

here

to

the

appl

icab

le

guid

elin

es.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-60

4A

utho

rize

d re

pres

enta

tive

s ar

e al

low

ed t

o us

e w

irel

ess

com

mun

icat

ions

dev

ices

, but

th

ey a

re n

ot p

erm

itte

d to

use

the

cam

era

or

vide

o fu

ncti

on o

n th

ose

devi

ces.

Offi

cers

of

elec

tion

may

pro

hibi

t th

e us

e of

cel

lula

r te

le-

phon

es o

r ot

her

hand

held

wir

eles

s co

mm

u-ni

cati

ons

devi

ces

if s

uch

use

will

unl

awfu

lly

impe

de, i

nflue

nce,

or

inti

mid

ate

vote

rs.

VA

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

24.

2-60

4(C

)

SatI

SFaC

tory

Vir

gini

a la

w p

rote

cts

vote

rs

agai

nst

inti

mid

atio

n an

d vi

o-la

tion

s of

the

ir p

riva

cy. T

he

law

pro

hibi

ts e

lect

ione

erin

g,

inte

rfer

ence

wit

h vo

ters

, an

d an

y de

vice

s th

at c

ould

be

use

d to

rec

ord

vote

rs. I

t is

goo

d th

at V

irgi

nia

has

a st

atut

ory

basi

s fo

r re

mov

ing

repr

esen

tati

ves

that

are

dis

-tu

rbin

g th

e or

derl

y co

nduc

t of

ele

ctio

ns.

Vir

gini

a co

uld

impr

ove

its

law

s by

res

tric

ting

the

in

divi

dual

s w

ho c

an b

ecom

e au

thor

ized

rep

rese

ntat

ives

to

mem

bers

of

the

prec

inct

.

52 •

aPP

end

Ix 4

| Sta

te L

aws f

or A

ddre

ssin

g Vo

ter I

ntim

idat

ion,

Insid

e an

d O

utsid

e th

e Po

lls

Stat

eSla

WS

reg

ula

tIn

g V

ote

r In

tIm

Idat

Ion

, In

Clu

dIn

g a

CtI

VIty

ou

tSId

e o

F th

e Po

llS

no

rth

Car

olI

na

Proh

ibit

s in

terf

erin

g w

ith

or a

ttem

ptin

g to

inte

rfer

e w

ith

any

vote

r in

side

the

vot

ing

encl

osur

e or

whe

n m

arki

ng h

is b

allo

ts.

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. §

163

-273

Proh

ibit

s ha

rass

men

t w

ithi

n a

“buf

fer

zone

” ar

ound

a p

ollin

g pl

ace,

whi

ch s

hall

not

be m

ore

than

50

feet

or

less

tha

n 25

fee

t fr

om t

he e

ntra

nce

to a

pol

ling

plac

e.

N.C

. GE

N. S

TA

T. §

163

-166

.4

Req

uire

s th

e ch

ief

judg

e an

d ju

dges

of

elec

tion

to

“enf

orce

pea

ce a

nd g

ood

orde

r in

and

abo

ut t

he p

lace

of

regi

stra

tion

and

vot

ing,

” in

clud

ing

keep

ing

“ope

n an

d un

obst

ruct

ed t

he p

lace

at

whi

ch v

oter

s or

per

sons

see

king

to

regi

ster

or

vote

hav

e ac

cess

to

the

plac

e of

reg

istr

atio

n an

d vo

ting

.” J

udge

s ar

e ch

arge

d w

ith

prev

enti

ng a

nd s

topp

ing

“im

prop

er p

ract

ices

and

att

empt

s to

obs

truc

t, in

tim

idat

e, o

r in

terf

ere

wit

h an

y pe

rson

in r

egis

teri

ng o

r vo

ting

.”N

.C. G

EN

. ST

AT.

§ 1

63-4

8

oh

IoPr

ohib

its

atte

mpt

ing

to in

duce

any

per

son

to v

ote

or r

efra

in f

rom

vot

ing

by in

tim

idat

ion,

coe

rcio

n, o

r ot

her

unla

wfu

l mea

ns.

OH

IO R

EV

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

359

9.01

(A)(

2)

Proh

ibit

s lo

iter

ing

or c

ongr

egat

ing

100

feet

fro

m p

ollin

g pl

ace,

or

hind

erin

g an

ele

ctor

fro

m r

each

ing

or le

avin

g th

e po

lling

pla

ce.

OH

IO R

EV

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

350

1.35

Proh

ibit

s re

mov

ing

or d

efac

ing

prop

erty

tha

t re

late

s to

the

con

duct

ing

of a

n el

ecti

on f

rom

a p

ollin

g pl

ace.

OH

IO R

EV

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

359

9.24

(2)

Proh

ibit

s in

tim

idat

ing

or a

ttem

ptin

g to

inti

mid

ate

or p

reve

nt a

n el

ecti

on o

ffice

r fr

om c

ondu

ctin

g hi

s or

her

dut

ies,

and

pro

hibi

ts o

ther

wis

e in

terf

erin

g w

ith

the

cond

uct

of a

reg

istr

atio

n or

ele

ctio

n.O

HIO

RE

V. C

OD

E A

NN

. § 3

599.

24(3

),(5

)

Pen

nSy

lVan

IaPr

ohib

its

any

man

ner

of in

tim

idat

ion

or c

oerc

ion

in o

rder

to

com

pel a

per

son

to v

ote

or r

efra

in f

rom

vot

ing

at a

ny e

lect

ion.

25 P

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. §§

3547

texa

SPr

ohib

its

indi

cati

ng t

o a

vote

r in

side

a p

ollin

g pl

ace

by w

ord,

sig

n, o

r ge

stur

e ho

w t

he v

oter

sho

uld

vote

or

not

vote

. T

EX

. EL

EC

. AN

N. §

61.

008

Proh

ibit

s lo

iter

ing

duri

ng t

he v

otin

g pe

riod

wit

hin

one

hund

red

feet

of

an o

utsi

de d

oor

of t

he p

ollin

g pl

ace.

TE

X. E

LE

C. A

NN

. § 6

1.00

3

Proh

ibit

s pe

rson

s no

t en

gage

d in

act

ivit

ies

spec

ifica

lly p

erm

itte

d by

the

Ele

ctio

n C

ode

to b

e in

the

pol

ling

plac

e du

ring

the

ele

ctio

n pr

oces

s.T

EX

. EL

EC

. AN

N. §

61.

001

VIrg

InIa

Proh

ibit

s at

tem

ptin

g to

influ

ence

a p

erso

n’s

vote

by

thre

ats,

bri

bery

, or

othe

r m

eans

.V

A. S

TA

T. A

NN

. § 2

4.2-

1005

Mak

es it

a c

rim

e fo

r an

y pe

rson

to

loit

er o

r co

ngre

gate

wit

hin

40 f

eet

of a

ny e

ntra

nce

of a

ny p

ollin

g pl

ace

or t

o hi

nder

or

dela

y a

qual

ified

vot

er in

ent

erin

g or

leav

ing

a po

lling

pla

ce.

VA

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

24.

2-60

4(A

)

It is

a m

isde

mea

nor

for

any

pers

on t

o hi

nder

or

dela

y a

qual

ified

vot

er o

r el

ecti

on o

ffice

r, to

giv

e a

ballo

t, t

icke

t, o

r ot

her

cam

paig

n m

ater

ial t

o an

y pe

rson

, so

licit

ing

or in

fluen

cing

any

per

son

in c

asti

ng h

is v

ote,

or

othe

rwis

e im

pedi

ng t

he o

rder

ly c

ondu

ct o

f th

e el

ecti

on.

VA

. ST

AT.

AN

N. §

24.

2-60

4(D

)


endnoteS

1. Brentin Mock, “How the Right’s Building a ‘Poll Watcher’ Network for November,” Colorlines.com, August 23, 2012, available at http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/08/true_the_votes_large_and_growing_far-right_network.html (quoting True the Vote National Elections Coordinator Bill Ouren).

2. See infra pp. 17, 26, and 30. 3. See Appendix 1, State Laws Governing Pre-Election Day Challenges.4. See Appendix 2, State Laws Governing Election Day Challenges.5. See Appendix 3, State Laws Governing Poll Watchers and Poll

Observers.6. See Appendix 4, State Laws Addressing Voter Intimidation, Inside and

Outside the Polls.7. See infra Section on History of Wrongful Challenges and Intimidation,

page 6.8. Abby Rapoport, “The Battle of Harris County,” The Texas Observer,

November 1, 2010, available at http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/item/17065-the-battle-of-harris-county; Dave Fehling, “I Team: Are Poll Watchers Crowding Some Locations and Ignoring Others?” KHOU, Oct. 27, 2010, available at http://www.khou.com/news/I-Team-Poll-watchers-crowd-some-locations-and-ignore-others-105946263.html; Tommy Christopher, “Tea Party Group Accused of Voter Intimidation in Houston Early Voting,” Mediaite, October 19, 2010, available at http://www.mediaite.com/online/tea-party-group-accused-of-voter-intimidation-in-houston-early-voting/.

9. Id.10. Tom Driscoll, “The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks,”

April 17, 2011, available at http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/holmesandco/2011/04/17/the-lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks/#axzz24hzmO5X.

11. Brentin Mock, “Young and Black Voters Turn Out in Wisconsin Despite Suppression Efforts,” Colorlines.com, June 6, 2012, available at http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/06/grassroots_picnic_for_young_black_and_conservative_voters_in_wisconsin_recall_loss.html.

12. “G.A.B. Issues Flier on Voter Rights and Respobonsibilities” http://gab.wi.gov/node/2437

13. Pam Fessler, “Tea Party Spawns New Effort Against Voter Fraud,“ NPR, March 13, 2012, available at http://www.npr.org/2012/03/13/148518795/tea-party-spawns-new-effort-against-voter-fraud.

14. Joe Holley,“Tea Parties Confer in Houston to Fight Vote Fraud,” Chron, April 28, 2012, available at http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Tea-partiers-confer-in-Houston-to-fight-vote-fraud-3518567.php.

15. CPAC Chicago: NRA News Interview with Catherine Engelbrecht, President of True the Vote, YouTube, June 14, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ahohaYl5x0 (last visited Aug. 31, 2012).

16. Steven Rosenfeld, “Going Undercover at the GOP’s Voter Vigilante Project to Disrupt the Nov. Election,” Alternet, Aug. 24, 2012, available at http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/going-undercover-gops-voter-vigilante-project-disrupt-nov-election?paging=off (quoting John Fund).

17. See Ryan J Reilly, “Columnist: ‘Registering The Poor To Vote Is Un-American’ Piece ‘Indelicately Worded,’” TPM Muckraker, November 15, 2011, available at http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/columnist_registering_the_poor_to_vote_is_un-ameri.php; Ryan J. Reilly, “Anti-Voter Fraud Tea Party Group Hosts Author Who Thinks Poor Shouldn’t Vote,” Talking Points Memo, Nov. 14, 2011, http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/anti-voter_fraud_tea_party_group_hosts_author_who_thinks_poor_shouldnt_vote.php.

18. Katie Pavlich, “Justice Department Working with Radical Leftist Groups to Steal Elections,” Townhall.com, Apr. 28, 2012, available at http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/04/28/justice_department_working_with_radical_leftist_groups_to_steal_elections.

19. See Brentin Mock, “How the Right’s Building a Poll Watcher Network for November,” supra note 1.

20. Letter from Thomas J. Fitton, President, Judicial Watch, (Aug. 15, 2012) (on file with authors).

21. See Brandon Fischer, “Texas-Based “True the Vote” Gearing Up to

Combat “Voter Fraud” in Wisconsin Recall,” Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch, May 31, 2012, available at http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/05/11552/texas-based-true-vote-gearing-combat-voter-fraud-wisconsin-recall.

22. Madeleine Morgenstern, “Election Watchdog: 160 Counties Have More Registered Voters Than Are Actually Eligible To Vote,” The Blaze, Aug. 6, 2012, available at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/election-integrity-watchdog-sends-notice-to-160-counties-it-says-have-more-registered-voters-than-are-actually-eligible-to-vote/.

23. Id.24. Id.25. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(c)(2)(A). 26. Id.27. 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(b). This provision states, in part: “No person,

whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote. The legislative history of this provision makes it clear that voter intimidation is unlawful even if it is not racially motivated. H. Rep. No. 439, 89th Congress, 1st Sess. 30 (1965). Moreover, actions that are reasonably likely to intimidate a voter are unlawful under this provision even in the absence of a subjective intent to cause intimidation. Id. Moreover, actions under color of law that are targeted against groups or individuals based on race or color are prohibited under 42 U.S.C. § 1971.

28. See 18 U.S.C. § 594; 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-10(1). In addition, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 & 242, actions that intimidate persons from exercising any constitutionally protected right may be criminally prosecuted.

29. Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act ensures that members of language minorities may receive voting assistance in their native languages. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a. Efforts to interfere with such assistance are subject to penalties. 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-3. Section 208 of the Voting Right Act requires that people who need assistance due to blindness, disability, or inability to read or write are to be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of the employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-6. These provisions are important because persons receiving legally protected assistance at the polling place sometimes have been improperly targeted for challenges. See Tom Driscoll, “The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks,” April 17, 2011, supra n. 10.

30. See Section on State Laws Addressing Voter Intimidation, Inside and Outside the Polls, infra page 28; see also Appendix 4.

31. It started at the turn of the 19th century but saw a real heyday in the 1960s when the Republican Party launched “Operation Eagle Eye” in which thousands of challengers were sent to the polls to challenge the eligibility of voters, primarily in communities of color. Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny and Benjamin Wise, “Republican Ballot Security Programs: Vote Protection or Minority Vote Suppression or Both?” 2004, available at http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/GOP_Ballot_Security_Programs.pdf.

32. Brennan Center for Justice, “DNC v. RNC Consent Decree,” available at http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/dnc_v_rnc_consent_decree/; see also Amended Complaint, Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., Civ. No. 81-3876 (D.N.J. 1982), available at http://brennan.3cdn.net/753e62cd3c89a985c8_uzm6id7ot.pdf.

33. Specifically, the RNC agreed that neither it nor its agents or parties acting in concert with the RNC would “conduct a direct-mail campaign in the future directed at names appearing on a voter registration list in order: (1) to use the letter returned as undeliverable to compile voter challenge lists; (2) to make such challenges; or (3) to deter registered voters from voting[.]” Stipulation, Democratic Nat’l Comm. V. Republican Nat’l Comm., Civ. No. 86-3972 (D. N.J. 1986) available at http://www.projectvote.org/images/publications/Voter%20Caging/DNC_v_RNC_1986_Consent_Decree_1.pdf. Other party committees acting independently from the RNC did not have to enter into this decree. In the 1982 consent decree and its 1987 successor, the

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/08/true_the_votes_large_and_growing_far-right_network.html



http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/item/17065-the-battle-of-harris-county

http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/item/17065-the-battle-of-harris-county

http://www.khou.com/news/I-Team-Poll-watchers-crowd-some-locations-and-ignore-others-105946263.html



http://www.mediaite.com/online/tea-party-group-accused-of-voter-intimidation-in-houston-early-voting/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/tea-party-group-accused-of-voter-intimidation-in-houston-early-voting/

http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/holmesandco/2011/04/17/the-lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks/#axzz24hzmO5X



http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/06/grassroots_picnic_for_young_black_and_conservative_voters_in_wisconsin_recall_loss.html

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/06/grassroots_picnic_for_young_black_and_conservative_voters_in_wisconsin_recall_loss.html

http://gab.wi.gov/node/2437

http://gab.wi.gov/node/2437

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/13/148518795/tea-party-spawns-new-effort-against-voter-fraud



http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Tea-partiers-confer-in-Houston-to-fight-vote-fraud-3518567.php



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ahohaYl5x0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ahohaYl5x0

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/going-undercover-gops-voter-vigilante-project-disrupt-nov-election?paging=off



http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/columnist_registering_the_poor_to_vote_is_un-ameri.php



http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/anti-voter_fraud_tea_party_group_hosts_author_who_thinks_poor_shouldnt_vote.php



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/04/28/justice_department_working_with_radical_leftist_groups_to_steal_elections

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/04/28/justice_department_working_with_radical_leftist_groups_to_steal_elections

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/05/11552/texas-based-true-vote-gearing-combat-voter-fraud-wisconsin-recall



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/election-integrity-watchdog-sends-notice-to-160-counties-it-says-have-more-registered-voters-than-are-actually-eligible-to-vote/



http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/GOP_Ballot_Security_Programs.pdf

http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/GOP_Ballot_Security_Programs.pdf

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/dnc_v_rnc_consent_decree/

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/dnc_v_rnc_consent_decree/

http://brennan.3cdn.net/753e62cd3c89a985c8_uzm6id7ot.pdf

http://www.projectvote.org/images/publications/Voter Caging/DNC_v_RNC_1986_Consent_Decree_1.pdf

http://www.projectvote.org/images/publications/Voter Caging/DNC_v_RNC_1986_Consent_Decree_1.pdf


RNC agreed to have federal courts review any proposed ballot security measures. In 2008, however, the RNC attempted to dissolve it. Though a federal judge refused to dissolve the decree as the RNC asked, the judge did modify the ruling. The activities prohibited by the consent decree were limited to efforts that are aimed at preventing potential voters from casting a ballot. Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d 575 (D.N.J. 2009). In 2012 the RNC lost an appeal before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals seeking again to vacate the consent decree. DNC v. RNC, 09-4615 (3d Cir. 2012).

34. Voter Suppression: Hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 2008. (testimony of J. Gerald Herbert, Executive Director & Director of Litigation, The Campaign Legal Center).

35. Id.36. Jo Becker, “GOP Challenging Voter Registrations; Civil Rights Groups

Accuse Republicans of Trying to Disenfranchise Minorities,” The Washington Post, October 29, 2004, p. A05.

37. See J. Gerald Hebert and Brian Dupre, “Vote Caging and the Attorney General,” Campaign Legal Center Blog, July 23, 2007, http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-152.html#_ftnref1; Election Law @ Moritz, “Key Questions for Key States: Nevada,” http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/projects/maps2008/info.php?state=55&a=all.

38. “Voter Caging & Housing Works,” Now. PBS, New York, July 27, 2007. Transcript. Available at http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/index.html; Jason Leopold and Matt Renner, “Emails Detail RNC Voter Suppression in 5 States,” Truthout, July 26, 2007, available at http://archive.truthout.org/article/exclusive-emails-detail-rnc-voter-supression-5-states.

39. Id.40. The letters were stamped “Do Not Forward” in order to increase the

likelihood they would be returned “Voter Caging & Housing Works,” supra note 38.

41. Exhibit 7, Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., Civ. No. 81-3876 (D.N.J. 1982), available at http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/DNC-Memo-RNC-emails.pdf.

42. Id.43. Teresa James, “Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan

Challenges to Minority Voters,” Project Vote, September, 2007: 16, available at http://projectvote.org/images/publications/Voter%20Caging/Caging_Democracy_Report.pdf.

44. Spencer Overton and Daniel P. Tokaji, “Profiling at the Polls in Ohio: Presence of Partisan Challengers in Swing States a Threat to Democracy,” Dayton Daily News, Oct. 30, 2004, reprinted at http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/analysis/2004/041031c.php.

45. Voter Registration and List Maintenance(Continued): Hearing before the Subcommittee on Election of the Committee of House Administration, Washington D.C. November 16, 2007 (testimony of Elizabeth S. Westfall) available at http://www.advancementproject.org/sites/default/files/House%20Elec%20Subcmte%20Testimony%20ESW.pdf

46. Id.47. Id.48. Abby Goodnough and Don Van Natta, “Bush Secured Victory

in Florida by Veering From Beaten Path,” The New York Times, November 7, 2004, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/politics/campaign/07florida.html?pagewanted=print&position=.

49. Suzy Khimm, “Angle Campaign: Reid Wants to ‘Steal This Election,’” Mother Jones, Oct. 26, 2010, available at http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/10/sharon-angles-lawyer-accuses-reid-vote-buying.

50. “One Wisconsin Now Exposes Voter Suppression Plans Between Republican Party of Wisconsin, Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party Groups,” One Wisconsin Now, September 20, 2012, available at http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/press/one-wisconsin-now-exposes-voter-suppression-plans-between-republican-party-of-wisconsin-americans-fo.html.

51. Suzy Khimm, “The Tea Party’s Election Spies,” Mother Jones, October 22, 2010, available at http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/tea-party-election-spies.

52. Id.53. Id.54. Id.55. Order and Judgment, United States of America v. New Black Panther

Party for Self-Defense, No. 2:09-cv-00065, (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2009),

available at http://www.slideshare.net/LegalDocs/findlaw-voting-rights-new-black-panther-party-figure-shabazzs-weapons-order.

56. See, e.g., New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case&oldid=505387921 (last visited Sept. 3, 2012).

57. This section does not address challenges to voter registration applications, which may also suppress the right to vote. For more on this problem in Texas, for example, see Mark Greenblatt, “Thousands in Harris County May Be Wrongly Banned from Ballot Box,” KHOU, Oct. 22, 2008, available at http://www.khou.com/news/local/66173492.html.

58. See A.J. Vicens and Natasha Khan, “Voters Feel Intimidated by Election Observers,” News 21, Aug. 12, 2012, available at http://votingrights.news21.com/article/poll-watchers/.

59. Steven Rosenfeld, “Going Undercover at the GOP’s Voter Vigilante Project to Disrupt the Nov. Election, Alternet, Aug. 24, 2012, available at http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/going-undercover-gops-voter-vigilante-project-disrupt-nov-election?paging=off.

60. Id.61. Id. 62. Id. 63. See Vicens & Khan, supra note 58. 64. See id.65. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-9-101(1)(a).66. However, Colorado does allow voter challenges on Election Day. 67. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-9-203.68. Id.69. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-9-101(1)(a).70. Id.71. Id.72. Colo. Rev. Stat.at § 1-9-101(1)(b).73. Id.74. While these protections extend to voters being challenged through

these procedures, the problem of government purges still exists. For example in 2008 Colorado’s Secretary of State purged thousands of voters from the rolls within 90 days of the election, violating the National Voter Registration Act; he continued to do so even after reaching a settlement with a voter protection organization. Naomi Zeveloff, “Federal Judge Rails at Secretary of State Coffman to Stop Purges,” Colorado Independent, Oct. 31, 2004, available at http://coloradoindependent.com/13576/federal-judge-rails-at. Election protection organizations, including Common Cause, sued the Colorado Secretary of State for cancelling newly registered voters’ registrations whose voting cards were returned undeliverable, again contravening the National Voter Registration Act. Pls.’ Mot. for Prel. Inj., Common Cause of Colorado v. Buescher, (2010) Civil No. 08-CV-02321-JLK (2010). The lawsuit continued into 2010. See A.J. Vicens and Natasha Khan, supra note 58; Naomi Zeveloff, “Federal Judge Rails at Secretary of State Coffman to Stop Purges,” Colorado Independent, Oct. 31, 2004, available at http://coloradoindependent.com/13576/federal-judge-rails-at; Felisa Cardona, “A Win for Purged Voters,” Denver Post, Oct. 30, 2008, available at http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10851260.

75. See id.76. Joe Zekas, “Chicago Foreclosure Inventory Fourth-highest Nationally,”

Chicago Now, May 30, 2012 available at http://www.chicagonow.com/homeward-bound-west/2012/05/chicago-foreclosure-inventory-fourth-highest-nationally/.

77. See id. 78. Fla. Stat. § 101.111.79. Id. 80. See Fla. Stat. § 101.111. 81. See id.82. Id. 83. Id.84. Id.; Fla. Stat. § 101.045.85. Rachel Weiner, “Florida’s Voter Purge Explained,” The Washington

Post, June 18, 2012, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/floridas-voter-purge-explained/2012/06/18/gJQAhvcNlV_blog.html.

86. Marc Caputo, “How Rick Scott’s Noncitizen Voter Purge Started Small and Then Blew Up,” The Miami Herald, June 12, 2012, available at http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/12/v-fullstory/2846319/how-rick-scotts-noncitizen-voter.html.

http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-152.html#_ftnref1

http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-152.html#_ftnref1

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/projects/maps2008/info.php?state=55&a=all

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/projects/maps2008/info.php?state=55&a=all

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/index.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/index.html

http://archive.truthout.org/article/exclusive-emails-detail-rnc-voter-supression-5-states

http://archive.truthout.org/article/exclusive-emails-detail-rnc-voter-supression-5-states

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/DNC-Memo-RNC-emails.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/DNC-Memo-RNC-emails.pdf

http://projectvote.org/images/publications/Voter Caging/Caging_Democracy_Report.pdf

http://projectvote.org/images/publications/Voter Caging/Caging_Democracy_Report.pdf

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/analysis/2004/041031c.php

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/analysis/2004/041031c.php

http://www.advancementproject.org/sites/default/files/House Elec Subcmte Testimony ESW.pdf



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/politics/campaign/07florida.html?pagewanted=print&position=

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/politics/campaign/07florida.html?pagewanted=print&position=

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/10/sharon-angles-lawyer-accuses-reid-vote-buying

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/10/sharon-angles-lawyer-accuses-reid-vote-buying

http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/press/one-wisconsin-now-exposes-voter-suppression-plans-between-republican-party-of-wisconsin-americans-fo.html




http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/tea-party-election-spies

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/tea-party-election-spies

http://www.slideshare.net/LegalDocs/findlaw-voting-rights-new-black-panther-party-figure-shabazzs-weapons-order

http://www.slideshare.net/LegalDocs/findlaw-voting-rights-new-black-panther-party-figure-shabazzs-weapons-order

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case&oldid=505387921



http://www.khou.com/news/local/66173492.html

http://www.khou.com/news/local/66173492.html

http://votingrights.news21.com/article/poll-watchers/

http://votingrights.news21.com/article/poll-watchers/



http://coloradoindependent.com/13576/federal-judge-rails-at




http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10851260

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10851260

http://www.chicagonow.com/homeward-bound-west/2012/05/chicago-foreclosure-inventory-fourth-highest-nationally/



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/floridas-voter-purge-explained/2012/06/18/gJQAhvcNlV_blog.html



http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/12/v-fullstory/2846319/how-rick-scotts-noncitizen-voter.html

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/12/v-fullstory/2846319/how-rick-scotts-noncitizen-voter.html


87. Marc Caputo, “Florida’s Voter Purge Sparks Lawsuits Between State and Feds,” The Miami Herald, June 12, 2012, available at http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/12/v-fullstory/2845111/floridas-voter-purge-sparks-lawsuits.html

88. Greg Allen, “World War II Vet Caught Up In Florida’s Voter Purge Controversy,” NPR it’s all Politics, May 31, 2012, http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/31/154020289/world-war-ii-vet-caught-up-in-floridas-voter-purge-controversy.

89. Marc Caputo, “How Rick Scott’s Noncitizen Voter Purge Started Small and Then Blew Up,” supra note 86.

90. Id.91. See Rachel Weiner, “Florida’s Voter Purge Explained,” supra note 85.92. Lizette Alvarez, “Florida Steps Up Effort Against Illegal Voters,” The

New York Times, May 17, 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/us/florida-attempts-to-scrub-illegal-voters.html?_r=1.

93. Marc Caputo, “County Elections Chiefs to State: We Won’t Resume Voter Purge Program,” The Miami Herald, June 8, 2012, available at http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/07/2838176/county-elections-chiefs-to-state.html.

94. Id.95. Greg Allen, “World War II Vet Caught Up In Florida’s Voter Purge

Controversy,” supra note 88; Judd Legum, “Meet Bill: The 91-Year-Old Decorated WWII Veteran Targeted By Florida Governor Rick Scott’s Voter Purge,” ThinkProgress, May 29, 2012, available at http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/29/491430/meet-bill-the-91-year-old-decorated-wwii-veteran-targeted-by-florida-governor-rick-scotts-voter-purge/

96. Complaint, United States v. Florida et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00285 (N.D. Fl. June 12, 2012), available at http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/U.S.v.DetznerComplaint.pdf.

97. See id.98. Id.99. Order Denying a Temporary Restraining Order, United States v.

Florida, No. 4:12-cv-00285 (N.D. Fl. June 28, 2012), available at http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/OrderDenyingaTemporaryRestrainingOrder.pdf.

100. Complaint, Florida Dep’t of State v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security et al., No. 1:12-cv-00960 (D.D.C. June 6, 2012), available at http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/FloridasComplaint.pdf.

101. Complaint¸ Arcia v. Detzner, Case No. 1:12-cv-22282-WJZ (S.D. Fl. Aug. 9, 2012); Complaint, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund v. Detzner, Case No. 8-12-cv-01294 (M.D. Fl. June 18, 2012).

102. Ian Urbina,“As Homes Are Lost, Fears That Votes Will Be, Too,” N.Y. Times, Sept. 24, 2008, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/us/politics/25voting.html.

103. Greg Gordon, “Election Officials Telling College Students They Can’t Vote,” McClatchy, Sept. 24, 2008, available at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/09/24/53024/election-officials-telling-college.html.

104. See Rev. Stat. Mo. § 115.191. 105. See id.106. H.B. 2541, Voter Caging Prohibition Act of 2008 (Mo. 2008).107. H.B. 192, Voter Caging Prohibition Act of 2009 (Mo. 2009).108. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 293.303, 293.547.109. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 293.547.110. Id. 111. N.A.C. § 293.418.112. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 293.547.113. See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 293.303. 114. See id. 115. Id.116. See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 293.304117. Id.118. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 654.42.119. Id.120. Id. 121. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 654:36-a.122. Id. 123. Id.124. Id. 125. Id.126. Peter Wallsten, “In states, parties clash over voting laws that would

affect college students, others,” Washington Post, PostPolitics, March

8, 2011, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602662.html.

127. Id. See also Jason Leopold and Matt Renner, “Emails Detail RNC Voter Suppression in 5 States,” supra note 38; Greg Palast, “Bush’s New US Attorney a Criminal?,” March 28, 2007, available at http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/.

128. Id.129. Id.130. Greg Gordon, “Election Officials Telling College Students They Can’t

Vote,” supra note 103.131. Cara Degette, “Lawmaker calls out El Paso Clerk Balink for ’12-point

strategy’ on Voter Suppression,” The Colorado Independent, October 9, 2008, available at http://coloradoindependent.com/10844/lawmaker-calls-out-el-paso-clerk-balink-for-12-point-strategy-on-voter-suppression.

132. See N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 163-85. 133. See id.134. Id.135. Id.136. Id.137. Id.138. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 163-90.1.139. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 163-85.140. See N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 163-85.141. See Oh. Rev. Code Ann. § 3505.19. 142. Id. 143. Ohio Secretary of State, Directive 2012-30, “Pre-Election Voter

Challenges,” available at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2012/Dir2012-30.pdf.

144. Ohio Secretary of State, Directive 2008-79,“Required Procedures in Administration Voter Challenge Statutes, R.C. 3503.24 and 3505.19,” available at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2008/Dir2008-79.pdf.

145. Directive 2012-30, supra note 143.146. Id.147. Id.148. Id.149. Id.; Directive 2008-79, supra note 144.150. Jo Becker, “Ohio GOP Challenges 35,000 Voters,” Washington Post,

Oct. 23, 2004, avaialable at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55472-2004Oct22.html.

151. Id.152. Gerald Hebert, “Inside the Vote Cage: Griffin, Goodling and

McNulty,” Campaign Legal Center Blog, June 20, 2007, available at http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-138.html.

153. Miller v. Blackwell, 348 F. Supp. 2d 916 (S.D. Ohio).154. See id. at 921.155. Summit Cnty. v. Blackwell, 388 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2004). The Supreme

Court denied review. Dan Horn, et al., “Supreme Court Justice Allows Challengers,” Cincinnati Enquirer, Nov. 4, 2004, available at http://www.enquirer.com/midday/11/11032004_News_mday_challengers03.html. The court decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the G.O.P. to deploy 3,600 people to challenge voters’ identity, age, residency and citizenship. Id., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., “Was the 2004 Election Stolen?” Rolling Stone, June 1, 2006.

156. Others included a shortage of voting machines, an insufficient number of urban polling places, and a recent redrawing of precinct boundaries. Mark Crispin Miller, “None Dare Call it Stolen: Ohio, the Election, and America’s Servile Press,” Harper’s Magazine, August 1, 2005, available at http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696.

157. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3503.24.158. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3505.20.159. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3503.24.160. Id..161. Id.162. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3505.181.163. Id.164. SEIU v. Husted, Case 2:12-cv-562 S.D. Ohio (Aug. 27, 2012).165. 25 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 1329; 1509.166. 25 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1329167. 25 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1509. 168. 25 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1329.169. Id.170. Id.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/12/v-fullstory/2845111/floridas-voter-purge-sparks-lawsuits.html



http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/31/154020289/world-war-ii-vet-caught-up-in-floridas-voter-purge-controversy



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/us/florida-attempts-to-scrub-illegal-voters.html?_r=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/us/florida-attempts-to-scrub-illegal-voters.html?_r=1

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/07/2838176/county-elections-chiefs-to-state.html

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/07/2838176/county-elections-chiefs-to-state.html

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/29/491430/meet-bill-the-91-year-old-decorated-wwii-veteran-targeted-by-florida-governor-rick-scotts-voter-purge/




http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/U.S.v.DetznerComplaint.pdf

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/U.S.v.DetznerComplaint.pdf

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/OrderDenyingaTemporaryRestrainingOrder.pdf

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/OrderDenyingaTemporaryRestrainingOrder.pdf

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/FloridasComplaint.pdf



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/us/politics/25voting.html


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/09/24/53024/election-officials-telling-college.html



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602662.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602662.html

http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/

http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/

http://coloradoindependent.com/10844/lawmaker-calls-out-el-paso-clerk-balink-for-12-point-strategy-on-voter-suppression



http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2012/Dir2012-30.pdf




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55472-2004Oct22.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55472-2004Oct22.html

http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-138.html

http://www.enquirer.com/midday/11/11032004_News_mday_challengers03.html



http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696


171. Id.172. Id.173. 25 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1509. 174. Id. 175. Id. 176. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 16.091. 177. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 16.0921.178. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 16.092 179. Id.180. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 16.0921.181. Id.182. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 16.093.183. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-429. 184. See id. 185. Id.186. Pam Fessler, “Tea Party Spawns New Effort Against Voter Fraud,”

supra note 13.187. Id.188. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-429.189. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-9-201.190. Id.191. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-9-202.192. Id.193. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-9-203.194. See Id. For example, if a person is challenged as being ineligible to vote

because of his or her citizenship, an election judge shall ask: “Are you a citizen of the United States?”

195. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-9-201(1)(b). A watcher must be designated “by a political party chairperson on behalf of the political party, by a party candidate at a primary election, by an unaffiliated candidate at a general, congressional vacancy, or nonpartisan election, or by a person designated by either the opponents or the proponents in the case of a ballot issue or ballot question.”

196. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-1-104(51).197. Id.198. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-5-503; see also 8 CCR 1505-1, Rule 8.6199. 8 CCR 1505-1, Rule 8.4.200. 8 CCR 1505-1, Rule 8.1.2.201. 8 CCR 1505-1, Rule 8.2.202. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-7-108(3).203. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-7-108(3).204. 8 CCR 1505-1, Rule 8.8.1.205. 8 CCR 1505-1, Rule 8.8.206. 8 CCR 1505-1, Rule 8.15.207. Fla. Stat. § 101.111. 208. Id.209. See Fla. Stat. §§ 104.011; 775.082; 775.083; 775.084.210. See Fla. Stat. § 101.048; Grounds for challenging an elector include

age, citizenship, legal residence in the appropriate state and county, and the voter’s registration status.

211. Fla. Stat. § 101.131.212. Id.213. Id.214. Id.215. Id.216. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.105.217. Id.218. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.429; 115.133. 219. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.429(3).220. Although there is some ambiguity in the statute, an affidavit would

appear to satisfy the requirement that the voter must establish his or her identity and qualifications before being permitted to vote. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.429(3), (5).

221. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.429(5).222. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.430.223. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.105.224. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.105.2.225. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.107(1), (4).226. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.107(2).227. Id.228. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.107(3).229. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.111.230. Id.231. Ian Urbina, “As Homes Are Lost, Fears That Votes Will Be, Too,”

N.Y. Times, Sept. 24, 2008, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/us/politics/25voting.html.

232. Id.233. H.B. 192 (Mo. 2009) (amending Mo. Rev. Stat. s 115 to add s

115.192).234. H.B. 192 (Mo. 2009) (amending Mo. Rev. Stat. s 115 to add s

115.192).235. H.B. 1952 (Mo. 2010) (amending Mo. Rev. Stat. s 115.142) s A.236. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 293.547; 293.303.237. Id. Though challenges made on Election Day may be made orally, the

challenger must then make a written affirmation.238. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.303(2).239. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.303.240. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.303(7).241. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.303(8).242. Id.243. Nev. Rev. Stat. 293.304. 244. Id.245. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.274(1).246. Id. at (2).247. “‘Advocate’ includes, without limitation, speaking, displaying or

disseminating written material and wearing identifying clothing, buttons or other paraphernalia.” Nev. Admin. Code § 293.245(7).

248. Nev. Admin. Code § 293.245 at (2). 249. Id. at (5).250. Id. at (6).251. N.H. Rev. Stat. §659:27.252. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 666:5.253. “The state committee of a political party may appoint a person to

act as challenger of voters at any polling place in the state at a state election. A city or town committee of such a party may appoint a person to act as such challenger at any polling place in such city or town at a town election, business meeting, or city election.” N.H. Rev. Stat. § 666:4.

254. N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 666:4; 666:5.255. Id.256. Id.257. N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 659:27; 659:27-a.258. N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 659:27. Grounds for challenging a voter include

any of the following: the person seeking to vote is not the individual whose name he or she has given; the person has already voted in the election; the person seeking to vote is disqualified for violating the elections laws; the person is under 18 years of age; the person seeking to vote is not a United States Citizen; the person seeking is not domiciled in the town or ward where he or she is seeking to vote; the person seeking to vote does not reside at his or her listed address; the person is an incarcerated convicted felon who is currently sentenced to incarceration; the person is not a declared member of the party he or she claims to be affiliated with (in a primary only); the person is ineligible to vote because of a state or federal law or constitutional provision. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:27-a. It is noteworthy that a letter or postal card mailed by returnable mail and returned by the U.S. Postal office because the person purportedly no longer lives at that address is not admissible evidence in a challenge. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-88.

259. Id; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:30; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:31.260. N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 659:27.261. Id.262. See New Hampshire Department of State, “New Hampshire Election

Procedure Manual: 2010-2011,” available at http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=12408.

263. Id.264. N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 659:37.265. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-87.266. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-85; 163-87.267. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-90.1.268. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-85.269. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-88.270. Id.271. Id.272. Id.273. Id.274. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-90.1.275. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-88.276. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-45.



http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=12408

http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=12408


277. Id.278. Id.279. Id.280. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-45.281. Id.282. Op.Atty.Gen., Nichols, Oct. 22, 1998.283. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-45.284. Id.285. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-48.286. Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.20.287. Id. The provisions of Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.20 which would have

required naturalized citizens to provide naturalization documents, but did not require native-born citizens to provide documentation of their citizenship, was struck down as unconstitutional in 2006. See Boustani v. Blackwell, 460 F.Supp.2d 822 (N.D. Ohio 2006).

288. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.20. The statute has an exception for individuals whose parents were naturalized citizens: “If the person states under oath that, by reason of the naturalization of the person’s parents or one of them, the person has become a citizen of the United States, and when or where the person’s parents were naturalized, the certificate of naturalization need not be produced.”

289. Id. In Boustani v. Blackwell, supra note 287, a district court held the proof of citizenship requirements in Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.20(2), (3), and (4) unconstitutional and prohibited challenges on that basis. A challenger affidavit form available on the Ohio Secretary of State’s website describes the four currently permissible forms of Election Day challenges. See Form 10-U Prescribed by the Secretary of State (10-06), available at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/elections/forms/10-U.pdf.

290. Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.20. Depending on voters’ responses to the election judges’ questions, election judges are instructed to either ask follow up questions or request documentation, identification, or a statement under oath from the voter attesting to his or her qualifications. If the election official is unable to verify that the voter qualifications have been met, they must provide a provisional ballot, which will only be counted once the board of elections determines that the voter is properly registered and eligible to vote.

291. Id.292. Ohio Secretary of State, Directive 2012-21. “Observers,” available

at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2012/Dir2012-21.pdf; Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.21.

293. Id.294. Id.295. Id.296. Id. Directive 2012-21. “Observers,” supra note 292.297. Ohio Secretary of State, Directive 2008-29, “Observers,” available at

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Text.aspx?page=1835&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1.

298. See id.; Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.21.299. Directive 2012-21. “Observers,” supra note 292.300. Id.; Ohio Rev. Code § 3501.30(A)(4).301. Id.302. Directive 2012-21. “Observers,” supra note 292.303. 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 2685; 3050.304. Id.305. 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3050.306. Id.307. 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2687.308. Id.309. Id.310. Id.311. Id.312. Id.313. Id.314. Id.315. 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2685.316. Id.317. Id.318. Id.319. Id.320. Id.321. 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2686.322. “The Texas provision permitting Election Day challenges was repealed

effective January 1, 2004, in HB 1549,” Project Vote, The Role of

Challengers in Elections: Issues in Election Administration: Policy Brief Number 10, (Jan. 3, 2008), available at http://projectvote.org/images/publications/Policy%20Briefs/PB10_ElectionChallenger2.pdf.

323. Texas Elec. Code § 33.001.324. Texas Elec. Code § 33.031.325. Texas Elec. Code § 33.007.326. Texas Elec. Code § 33.006.327. Texas Elec. Code § 33.056. Before permitting a watcher who made

written notes at a precinct polling place to leave while the polls are open, the presiding officer may require the watcher to leave the notes with another person on duty at the polling place, selected by the watcher, for retention until the watcher returns to duty.

328. Election Law Opinion No. JH-2 (1991).329. Texas Elec. Code § 33.057330. Texas Elec. Code § 33.057.331. Texas Elec. Code § 33.058.332. Chris Moran, “New Voter Intimidation Complaints Surface at Harris

Polls,” Houston Chronicle, Oct. 21, 2010, available at http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/New-voter-intimidation-complaints-surface-at-1709902.php (“Allegations continued to surface on Thursday of poll watchers intimidating voters and of poll watchers themselves being harassed.”); Texas Elec. Code § 33.058.

333. Id.334. Id.335. Id.336. Texas Elec. Code § 33.061.337. Texas Elec. Code § 61.006.338. Texas Elec. Code § 61.007.339. Ryan J. Reilly, “DOJ Probes TX Voter Intimidation Complaints

During Tea Party Anti-Voter Fraud Drive,” Talking Points Memo, Oct. 19, 2010, available at http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/the_texas_democratic_party_expanded.php.

340. See Chris Moran, “New Voter Intimidation Complaints Surface at Harris Polls,” supra note 332; Ryan J. Reilly, “County Clerk’s Office Dismisses Voter Intimidation Allegations in TX,” Talking Points Memo, Oct. 22, 2010, available at http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/county_clerks_office_dismisses_voter_intimidation_allegations_in_tx.php; Erik Barajas, “What are Poll Watchers Supposed to Do?,” KTRK-TV, Oct. 27, 2010, http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/politics&id=7750142.

341. See Ryan J. Reilly, “DOJ Probes TX Voter Intimidation Complaints During Tea Party Anti-Voter Fraud Drive,” supra note 339.

342. See id.343. Va Code Ann. § 24.2-651(1)-(8). 344. Va Code Ann. § 24.2-651.345. Id.346. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-604(C).347. Id.348. Id.349. Id.350. Id. Op. Va. Att’y Gen. 11-028 (Oct. 6, 2011).351. Id. See also Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-604(C); Va. Const. Art. 2, § 3.352. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-604(C).353. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-607.354. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-13-713.355. Id.356. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-13-712.357. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 104.0515.358. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 104.0615.359. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 102.031 (4).360. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.635.361. Id.362. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.637.363. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.710.364. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.274.365. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.730.366. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:40.367. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:37.368. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-273..369. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-165.370. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-166.4.371. Id.372. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-48; 163-47.373. See Email from Don Wright, General Counsel, North Carolina State

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/elections/forms/10-U.pdf

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/elections/forms/10-U.pdf



http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Text.aspx?page=1835&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Text.aspx?page=1835&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

http://projectvote.org/images/publications/Policy Briefs/PB10_ElectionChallenger2.pdf

http://projectvote.org/images/publications/Policy Briefs/PB10_ElectionChallenger2.pdf

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/New-voter-intimidation-complaints-surface-at-1709902.php



http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/the_texas_democratic_party_expanded.php


http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/county_clerks_office_dismisses_voter_intimidation_allegations_in_tx.php



http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/politics&id=7750142

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/politics&id=7750142


Board of Elections to Nick Surgey, August 16, 2012 at 9:05 a.m. (on file with authors).

374. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-48. 375. Project Vote, “Voter Intimidation,” http://www.projectvote.org/voter-

intimidation.html. 376. See Email from Don Wright, General Counsel, North Carolina State

Board of Elections to Nick Surgey, August 16, 2012 at 9:05 a.m. (on file with authors).

377. Christina Bellantoni, “McCain supporters heckle early voters,” The Washington Times, Oct. 20, 2008, available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/bellantoni/2008/Oct/20/mccain-supporters-call-early-voters-ch/.

378. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.01(A)(2).379. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.24.380. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3501.35.381. Id. 382. 25 P.S. §§ 3547.383. Id.384. Id.385. Id.386. Tex. Elec. Ann. § 61.008.387. Tex. Elec. Ann. § 61.003.388. Tex. Elec. Ann. § 61.001.389. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-604(A). 390. Va. Stat. Ann. § 24.2-1005.391. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-604(D). 392. Ryan J. Reilly, “DOJ Probes TX Voter Intimidation Complaints During

Tea Party Anti-Voter Fraud Drive,” Talking Points Memo, October 19, 2010, available at http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/the_texas_democratic_party_expanded.php.

393. See Citizens for Police Accountability Political Committee, 572 F.3d 1213, 1221 (11th Cir. 2009).

394. See Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992).395. See e.g. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9—122(3).396. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 715, 716 (2000).397. See id. at 716. 398. Ohio Secretary of State, Directive 2012-30, “Pre-Election Voter

Challenges,” available at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2012/Dir2012-30.pdf.

399. H.R. 5799 (112th Cong.).400. Id.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/bellantoni/2008/Oct/20/mccain-supporters-call-early-voters-ch/







bullies - demoswalter for assistance with drafting; common cause legal interns peter klym and jesse...

Documents