bullies - demoswalter for assistance with drafting; common cause legal interns peter klym and jesse...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 3
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.
4 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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.”
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 5
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
6 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 7
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
8 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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.”
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 9
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.”
10 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 11
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
12 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 13
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
14 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 15
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
16 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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.
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 17
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.
18 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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,
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 19
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
20 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 21
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
22 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 23
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
24 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 25
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
26 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 27
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.
28 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 29
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
30 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 31
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.
32 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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
)
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 53
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
54 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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.
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 55
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.
56 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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.
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 57
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
58 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012
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.
September 2012 | Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box • 59
60 • Bul l ies at the Bal lot Box | September 2012