Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

People at voting booths.

A clear breakdown of voter ID laws under the Constitution, federal statutes, and court rulings—plus analysis of new Trump administration proposals to impose nationwide voter identification requirements.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


Few issues generate more heat and are less understood than voter ID.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less