Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Legal network provides pro bono support for election workers

Christine Gibbons

Christine Gibbons has relied on the Election Official Legal Defense Network to help fight what she says was an unwarranted dismissal from her job as registrar of Lynchburg, Va.

Justin Ide / for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Since 2020, election officials across the country have endured threats, harassment, intimidation, defamation and, in some states, exposure to criminal penalties, for simply doing their jobs of administering fair elections.

In this highly contentious environment, the Election Official Legal Defense Network serves an invaluable function of connecting election officials in need to qualified, pro bono attorneys who can provide advice or assistance.


EOLDN is a project of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, whose mission is to restore trust in the American election system and promote election procedures that encourage participation while ensuring election integrity and security.

One example of many election officials that EOLDN supports is former Lynchburg, Va., Registrar Christine Gibbons, who has endured multiple baseless claims of corruption and harassment since the 2022 election. She even woke up to a sign in her yard one morning that read, “Christine Gibbons Belongs in Jail. #LockHerUp. Resign Now.” Despite this harassment Gibbons nonetheless worked every day to administer fair and transparent elections in her county.

Despite Gibbons’ dedication, in 2023 the newly Republican-controlled Lynchburg Election Board informed her that she would not be reappointed to her position as registrar. In Virginia, registrars are traditionally reappointed as long as they maintain positive performance reviews.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

When the board declined to reappoint her, Gibbons considered her options. As she told Washington Lawyer, “Friends told me that maybe I should walk away, but I didn’t feel right about walking away because I know I did everything possible and within the law to ensure the integrity of our elections.”

When Gibbons decided she needed an attorney, she reached out to EOLDN for pro bono legal support and soon was on the phone with Stephen Pershing of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch, P.C. Pershing agreed to represent Gibbons in her lawsuit to be reinstated as registrar. Pershing said he believes EOLDN’s work is crucial to giving “nonpartisan election officials a way to fight back against hostile partisan takeovers of their functions.”

Gibbons, who has had to work as a substitute teacher to support her family, expressed her gratitude that EOLDN was able to match her with a pro bono attorney, saying, “I don’t know if I would have been able to sustain the case on my own.”

The issues that confront election workers are many. Some of the questions that election workers ask EOLDN attorney’s relate to:

  • Understanding how to deal with harassment and threats received.
  • Help in sending cease-and-desist letters or filing for a restraining order.
  • What to do when attempts are made to undermine their duties or how to respond to intimidation at work.
  • How to respond to instructions from election boards that may conflict with their legal duties.

Faith and trust in our elections is essential for the well-being of a democratic republic. Election workers are critical to the functioning of our democracy. In today’s contentious and partisan political climate it is critical that the work of election workers is protected.

Sadly, as partisanship and rhetoric have heated up in America, so have the threats. As citizens and patriots, we need to stand by our principles, our institutions and our fellow citizens. We cannot allow threats and harassment against election officials to undermine safe and fair elections.

In the coming months The Fulcrum will continue to report on all aspects of the election process, including the many intricacies of election law and procedures, so Americans can trust the results of the election whether their candidate wins or loses.

Read More

Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Gerrymandering and voting rights under review by Supreme Court again

On Dec. 13, The Fulcrum identified the worst examples of congressional gerrymandering currently in use.

In that news report, David Meyers wrote:

Keep ReadingShow less
Rear view diverse voters waiting for polling place to open
SDI Productions/Getty Images

Open primary advocates must embrace the historic principles of change

This was a big year for the open primaries movement. Seven state-level campaigns and one municipal. Millions of voters declaring their support for open primaries. New leaders emerging across the country. Primary elections for the first time at the center of the national reform debate.

But with six out of eight campaigns failing at the ballot box, it’s also an important moment of reflection.

Keep ReadingShow less