Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How to separate poll watching from voter intimidation

Contributor Tammy Patrick, a senior advisor at the Democracy Fund, went on NPR on Thursday to explain how one of the mechanics of the election — poll watchers — do their work in most states. Her explanation stood in contrast to what President Trump seemed to be calling for in Tuesday's presidential debate. While warning about potential voter fraud, he asked his supporters to "go into the polls and watch very carefully."

Almost every state has some sort of system set up so political parties can send observers inside polling places, explained Patrick, who was previously an elections official in Maricopa County, Arizona (which includes Phoenix). But there are clear rules and limitations about what these observers can do — how close they can be to voting equipment, who they can talk to and what they can challenge. Poll watchers have to sign up ahead of time and work with election officials, she said.


Trump supporters responding to the president's call are likely to be treated as "electioneers," and that means they'll be restricted from how close they can get to a polling place. If they yell or try to intimidate voters, they'll be breaking the law, Patrick said. It's urgent that election officials have the training to de-escalate potential conflicts, how to report them and where to seek help.

"There is a tactic here that can be used to make sure that individuals start to question whether or not it is safe to even go to the polling place," Patrick said. "Unfortunately, in this moment, we need to make sure that our elections are protected from adversaries, both foreign and domestic."

Listen to Patrick's full interview on All Things Considered last week:


Read more from The Fulcrum's Election Dissection blog or see our full list of contributors.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less