Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Packing at the polls: Fine most places, so another voting security worry

person carrying a gun

While most states have laws banning guns inside polling locations or the types of facilities use for voting, the laws governing spaces outside the centers are far more relaxed.

Maranie R. Staab/Getty Images
Voter safety is a top concern for people running elections this year, of course. But that's not only because of the coronavirus. More than any year in memory, there is real worry about the threat of armed conflict at the polls.

There have been no weaponized clashes at drop boxes or early voting centers, so far. But with a week to go, social media is filled with hateful or at least threatening talk from partisan stalwarts promising they'll be packing on Election Day.

State and local rules vary widely about the presence of firearms inside polling places and in the hands of people electioneering outside. But in general the policies in most places are either permissive or silent — creating yet another concern for those worried about swelling coronavirus cases, legal disputes about absentee ballots and all the different ways the central act of American democracy could get sullied as never before.


The topic of guns at the polls got a little notice four years ago but faded when Donald Trump's upset election went off without armed incident. But concerns about voter intimidation have returned with a fervor in recent weeks, in the wake of increased activity and heated rhetoric from vigilante groups on both the extreme right and the hard left.

President Trump turned up the volume at the first debate, when he told his supporters "to go into the polls and watch very carefully." But most partisans must stay outside voting locations — 100 feet or farther away from the door in all but 10 states — if they want to heckle or shout encouragement to people on their way in.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Their electioneering can become a federal crime, and a crime in many states, if it's viewed as interfering with the right to vote, however, and plenty of courts have found brandishing a weapon in a threatening way to be a form of voter intimidation.

State and county election officials have been consulting with state attorneys general and law enforcement officials to decide what counts as voter intimidation and what powers officials will have to stop it Nov. 3.

Meanwhile, only a handful of certified partisan poll watchers are generally allowed at each precinct polling place. And the president's campaign is training 50,000 of these people under the label "Trump's Army" — insisting the title should not be read as militaristic, because the poll watchers will be armed only with cell phones to summon attorneys if they spot something possibly fraudulent or otherwise untoward.

Just six states (plus D.C.) explicitly prohibit guns of all kinds inside voting locations, and four of them are presidential battlegrounds: Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas, along with solid blue California and pure red Louisiana. Four more states, all solidly in Trump's camp, have polling place exceptions to their usual concealed carry permissions: Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina.

In those 10 states, and 31 others, gun owners are prohibited from taking their weapons on school campuses, which are probably a plurality of the nation's 94,000 or so polling places. Many other states and cities have rules against carrying pistols and rifles into government buildings such as the libraries, fire stations and city halls that are also popular voting locations.

Thirteen states and D.C. bar weapons at houses of worship, which many of these states also use as polling locations. And a dozen states plus D.C. prohibit guns in sporting venues, which have surged in popularity as voting centers during the pandemic because there's plenty of room for the balloting stations to be at a social distance.

But the laws governing electioneering — while setting the perimeters for where advocates may stand — appear almost everywhere to defer to the local regulations for carrying weapons in public.

Map of gun laws at voting locationsSources: National Conference of State Legislatures, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

The most prominent place to crack down is battleground Michigan, which made global headlines this spring when throngs of protesters angry about Covid-19 stay-at-home orders entered the state capital heavily armed with rifles and handguns, which was totally legal, to confront lawmakers.

Two weeks ago, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson moved to prevent similar footage from spanning the world on Election Day — announcing a ban on people openly carrying guns within the 100-foot electioneering boundary, inside polling places or at buildings where ballots will be tabulated.

The order is so "all eligible Michigan citizens can freely exercise their fundamental right to vote without fear of threats, intimidation or harassment," she said.

It's unclear if these new rules will remain in force, though. Two lawsuits have already been filed by gun rights activists, prompting a judge Tuesday to order a halt on Benson's directive. Attorney General Dana Nessel vowed to appeal. Meantime, and some county sheriffs say they won't enforce the restrictions.

In the next presidential battleground to the west, local election officials in Wisconsin have discretion over how to handle potential threats and disturbances at the polls. Last week, the state Board of Elections sent a memo to local officials to provide guidance and clarify state laws. For instance, law enforcement officers are permitted at polling locations, but it's up to local officials to decide whether they're necessary.

And in neighboring Minnesota, where Trump says he is within striking distance of a state he lost last time, law enforcement officers can be posted at polling locations. Officials in Minneapolis, the state's biggest city, said they would be stationing police at the polls for the first time in four years.

Tensions are still running high in the state after a Tennessee-based security company attempted to recruit former U.S. military Special Operations personnel as armed guards for polling sites. The company, Atlas Aegis, agreed to cancel its plans Friday following an investigation by the state's Democratic attorney general, Keith Ellison, who warned this kind of activity would be considered voter intimidation.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less