Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

With an eye on 2024, some states consider new protections for election workers

With an eye on 2024, some states consider new protections for election workers

An election worker scans ballots at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center on November 10, 2022 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Rodriguez is a state politics and voting reporter with The 19th.

After lies about the 2020 presidential election led to threats against election workers and instances of actual political violence, all eyes were on how that would affect the 2022 midterms. While many breathed a sigh of relief that election administration went mostly as planned, the attention and pressure still took a toll. Now, some states are looking to add policies that would address potential future threats for election workers.


It’s a continuation of legislative activity from 2022, but with a new urgency ahead of the 2024 presidential race. Federal funding was approved last year to help boost security, but some voting rights advocates say it wasn’t enough and more must be done to ensure the protection of election workers, a women-led workforce that will remain crucial to the sustainability of elections.

“Being able to sufficiently fund elections plays a tremendous role in protecting democracy,” said Jena Griswold, the Democratic Colorado secretary of state. “As we see insider attacks spread across the country and threats to election workers, it requires upgrade of physical security and teams to be able to assess and respond to situations.”

Election workers have increasingly warned of threats of violence and harassment due in part to conspiracies promoted by former President Donald Trump — who has said he’s running again — following his 2020 loss. His supporters, some of whom then ran for offices with power over elections, have continued to push those unfounded claims. Many of the election-denying candidates lost their races in November, a sign that democracy was a top issue for voters ahead of the midterms.

But while election workers mostly powered through a smooth process in November, the threat of political violence continues, according to election officials and voting rights advocates. Ramping up protections for election workers will be critical this year for legislatures, said Sam Oliker-Friedland, executive director of the Institute for Responsive Government, a group that offers recommendations on voting policy and other civic engagement initiatives. He believes that can include state funding to beef up security infrastructure.

“This is a workforce that’s one of the most sort of underfunded, under-resourced, overworked public service jobs that exists in the United States,” Oliker-Friedland said. “And it’s one that’s primarily women. I don’t think that’s an accident.”

Colorado and Oregon enacted laws last year that add new criminal penalties against people accused of threatening election workers. A new California law keeps election workers’ home addresses private under a confidentiality program. The Voting Rights Lab, a nonpartisan group that tracks voting legislation, estimates 19 states introduced bills last year to protect election officials. Six of those states successfully passed new laws.

At least eight states have introduced a minimum of 11 bills that would provide similar protections for election workers, according to the Voting Rights Lab, and more are possible.

In Minnesota, lawmakers have announced a slate of election-related proposals, including plans aimed at punishing intimidation of election workers. In Texas, a bill would create several new criminal offenses for conduct against election officials and protect their personal information. And in Montana and Indiana, bills have been introduced that would increase punishment for targeting an election worker.

Most of the related legislation moving through statehouses have been led by Democrats. Whether these bills make it into law is unclear, but some have bipartisan support. In Missouri, a Republican has filed a bill that would create a felony criminal offense if someone takes one of several actions against an election official, including threatening or causing harm to the official or their family. In New Jersey, a pair of bills that would protect election workers’ personal information is sponsored by Republicans. Republicans last year authored bills in New Hampshire and Oregon, noted Liz Avore, Voting Rights Lab’s vice president of policy and law.

“We’re seeing legislation that’s been introduced by both Democrats and Republicans,” she noted. “In some ways, this is a kind of call to action that is bipartisan.”

Jocelyn Benson, the Democratic Michigan secretary of state who has been a prominent voice for fair elections, said it’s been heartening to see new secretaries of state announce plans to keep election workers safe. Earlier this month, she and Michigan lawmakers announced support for a bill that would protect election workers by increasing penalties for threatening that particular group. Among the proposals are security funding for local clerks.

“We’re nowhere near where we need to be to protect our democracy or to protect our election workers,” Benson said. “My job, and the job of all of us in this space, is to keep fighting for it, and we will, and to use everything on the table to make smart, informed decisions to keep moving the ball forward where we can.”

Oliker-Friedland said more funding for election materials and safety measures can go a long way in also protecting workers. Many offices are often funded through local and state taxes.

“Just making election officials’ jobs easier actually is a pro for voter access in and of itself,” he said. “And I think people forget that sometimes.”

In Colorado, Griswold helped support legislation signed into law last year that establishes election officials and workers as a protected class against doxxing, or having their personal information published online for the purpose of threatening them or their family. Another provision prohibits intimidating, threatening or coercing an election official while they are performing official duties or retaliating against them for performing their official duties. Both carry penalties.

“Election workers in the state of Colorado have been facing what many election workers have faced across the nation,” Griswold said. “… We’re doing everything that we have at our disposal to make sure that we’re protecting Colorado’s elections.”

But whether the laws are all working as intended is still unclear, in part because not a lot of time has passed since they were implemented.

In Washington state, a new law updated the state’s cyberstalking and cyber harassment law and made it a felony to target election workers online. Shortly after the state’s primary last August, an election worker in Jefferson County, in the western part of the state, received an email with a warning: “Be careful … your life might depend on it. The truth will prevail.”

The worker, who spoke with The 19th on the condition of anonymity because of fear of their safety, filed a restraining order against the person who sent the email. A court granted the request, which will be in effect for five years, including for the 2024 presidential election.

But the Jefferson County prosecutor’s office said unless there is new evidence, it does not intend to file charges in this case. James M. Kennedy, the Jefferson County prosecuting attorney, said Washington state law requires that threats be more specific than the language in the email to obtain a conviction. He said he sympathized with the election worker.

“We absolutely agree that the conduct committed by this suspect was totally inappropriate,” Kennedy said in an email. “However we did not think it quite crossed the threshold into criminal.”

The election worker said the threat made them question whether they want to keep working on elections.

“I actually sat down with my parents and my spouse and said, ‘Is this something that I want to continue on as far as a career path? Is this really something that I want to do? And that my family wants to be subjected to too?’” they said.

Even as legislators of both parties look to protect election workers, some Republican legislators are proposing bills that would limit how administrators do parts of their jobs. Many have been filed as a response to unfounded concern about election fraud. While Texas is considering some protections, a Republican-backed bill moving through the statehouse — one of more than a dozen voting-related bills this year — would expand the Texas attorney general’s power to prosecute election crimes. Voting rights advocates worry it will target election administrators.

“We’re seeing a divide develop across the country, where states are either acting to protect their election officials or they’re acting to attack them,” Avore said. “We want you to pay attention to what your state is doing, because election professionals are the ones who we depend on to run our elections, to hold our democracy — their protection and their ability to do their job is incredibly important.”

Griswold said Republican lawmakers who have introduced such legislation are creating “a culture of fear” for election workers just trying to do their jobs.

“It’s a shame to see states pursue those types of actions, especially given what Republican and Democratic election workers have had to face in the last three years,” she said.

Oliker-Friedland said states that make other changes to election rules, like a new photo ID requirement in Ohio, also “have intense implications for election officials’ workload, both actually how they plan for the election and how they communicate to voters.”

What states do in the months ahead will play a part in how election workers view their work.

Benson said she lives “in a constant state of concern and vulnerability,” in part because she continues to receive threats. At least one threat came just days after President Joe Biden awarded her with a presidential citizens medal for her work in supporting democracy, handling pressure from people who sought to overturn the 2020 election results.

“We’re not out of the woods yet in terms of people being activated by misinformation to try to do harm to election workers,” she said. “It has been gratifying to connect with others who have dealt with this. That is where I find my strength.”

This article originally appeared in The 19th.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present 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.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

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

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less