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.

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

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less