Limits on Observers and Challengers at the Polls

Despite the president’s recent call for volunteers to “watch closely” at the polls, individuals cannot just show up and wreak havoc in polling places.

Of course, federal law prohibits discrimination and intimidation at the polls. footnote1_XvVBr7CdfkNLQqll0uwRfFEMHX39O53yieXS-7Rc0k_u15GF4tPjvMh1 18 U.S.C. § 594. Voter intimidation of any kind is a crime, and prohibitions on intimidation apply equally to poll watchers and challengers.

But even beyond these baseline rules, nearly every state has laws designed to curb aggressive behavior by poll watchers and challengers, including limits on how many watchers or challengers are permitted, who can serve in these roles, processes for appointment, and restrictions on conduct.

Not everyone can simply show up to be a poll watcher; becoming a poll watcher is an involved process in most battleground states.

• In nearly every battleground state — Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas — poll watchers must be appointed in advance of the election by party or candidate representatives. footnote2_td7h4nhgHLFZIxBBZR9pk6Q809oqVzZS5uUDCTpbQZM_dB7sBkINIFkT2 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16–590; Fla. Stat. § 101.131; Ga. Code § 21–2–408; Iowa Code § 49.104; Ia. Sec’y of State, Poll Watchers Guide (Jan. 2018), https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/pdf/pollwatcherguidebook.pdf; N.M. Stat. § 1–2–27(A); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 163–45; Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.21; 25 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2687(a); Pa. Dep’t of State, Guidance on Rules in Effect at the Polling Place on Election Day at 1 (Oct. 2016), https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/DOS%20GUIDANCE%20ON%20RULES%20IN%20EFFECT%20AT%20THE%20POLLING%20PLACE%20ON%20ELECTION%20DAY%2010–16.pdf; Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.21(C); Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 33.003–33.005.
• All nine of these battleground states affirmatively require watchers to provide some form of written confirmation of their appointment to officials, either prior to the voting period or when they arrive at voting locations. footnote3_837z1gRBsQcRKQD02gflRVW0vlOh2hoYymMnlXAOOoA_fxjRdV9o7KyJ3 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16–590(A); Fla. Stat. § 101.131; Ga. Code § 21–2–408; Iowa Code § 49.104; N.M. Stat. § 1–2–29; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163–45(b); Ohio Rev. Code § 3505–21; 25 Pa. Stat. § 2687; Tex. Elec. Code § 33.051(a).

Many states limit how many watchers can be at the polls and what they can do.

• Most battleground states — Florida, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas — limit in advance the number of individuals who can serve as watchers in each polling place. footnote4_iLivNJIRRs7-V5–78p9GbM711cWBRHht5yCCfrApuI_rr2cLKEHjLRv4 Fla. Stat. § 101.131; Ga. Code § 21–2–408; Iowa Code § 49.104; Ia. Sec’y of State, Poll Watchers Guide at 2 (Jan. 2018), https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/pdf/pollwatcherguidebook.pdf; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163–45(a); Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.21(B); 25 P.S. § 2687(a); Pa. Dep’t of State, Guidance on Rules in Effect at the Polling Place on Election Day at 1 (Oct. 2016), https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/DOS%20GUIDANCE%20ON%20RULES%20IN%20EFFECT%20AT%20THE%20POLLING%20PLACE%20ON%20ELECTION%20DAY%2010–16.pdf; Tex. Elec. Code § 33.007.
• While poll watchers need not be designated in advance in Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin,footnote5_xjjqOlcRuCrmlHSJZRgiMHG9YrIOvSOyqHTWZRDa7dA_z7hHnDCJYkWZ5 Wis. Stat. § 7.41(1); Mich. Dep’t of State Bureau of Elections, The Appointment, Rights and Duties of Election Challengers and Poll Watchers at 12 (Sept. 2020), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/SOS_ED_2_CHALLENGERS_77017_7.pdf; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.274(1). these three states impose other restrictions so that watchers do not get out of hand. For example:
  • Wisconsin gives local election officials the power to limit the number of poll watchers and to restrict watchers’ locations. footnote6_KYpJA9gUvO3RBV6Gt0mpqjZorWMzqTZRUO436tL8t8_xsHVJDDI5r6C6 Wis. Stat. § 7.41(1)–(2).
  • Nevada requires watchers to sign acknowledgements that they are prohibited from talking with voters and interfering with voting, and they are expressly subject to removal from the polling place if they engage in any of the prohibited conduct. footnote7_3Qh0GZWXWzHGbLJ0KUqxb1d-EfPSp1zUvUjBdBdM9qw_rCk0PYHSRRkY7 Nev. Admin. Code § 293.245.
  • Michigan provides standards of conduct for watchers, the violation of which will result in removal from the polling place. footnote8_oIyL8Fai5k16zu9vONcW3D-bRlkz57e6bxs48AEDwk_kqx8MWoqazZk8 Mich. Dep’t of State Bureau of Elections, The Appointment, Rights and Duties of Election Challengers and Poll Watchers at 12 (Sept. 2020), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/SOS_ED_2_CHALLENGERS_77017_7.pdf.

States limit who can challenge a voter’s eligibility, and how.

• Nearly half of all states either do not authorize members of the general public to serve as challengers at the polls (e.g., Ohio footnote9_Osu1pMz6b9nyjaOYiklZkePxcbUXcypQsgX0bH7TJg_uBMlMKtOK0aU9 Ohio Rev. Code § 3505–20. and Texas footnote10_uoKSQud17NFP9kYjLipT8532GGUsny4X1DWx0HhtHgg_h7wpRmOxIWrr10 Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 33.001; Tex. Elec. Code § 16.091. ) or restrict the number of people who can serve as challengers inside the voting space ­— including battlegrounds like Arizona,footnote11_b1E4KFN3WrGeiiu4IYfcivjdzrOW9T-UKAYye1hzo7A_mEv445Q8C16y11 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16–590. Michigan,footnote12_DbPWPzctdpo69OrlZt1z7aa9BGrXk-vocZmO9h7KY_bdbMVDHrHBKP12 Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.730; Mich. Dep’t of State Bureau of Elections, The Appointment, Rights and Duties of Election Challengers and Poll Watchers at 6 (Sept. 2020), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/SOS_ED_2_CHALLENGERS_77017_7.pdf. Montana,footnote13_FVvILDWHfUwRuRAtu-SFYreyr8eLi-9qqFgBWrHHe8_uZ3wDQevB1El13 Mont. Code § 13–13–120(1). and New Mexico.footnote14_hqRDEGt-I0EtfrxScOe40sOHhxjsUljgCpOeogpWuiQ_ycHUHKVUIXWk14 N.M. Stat § 1–2–25 (A)(6), (B).
• In states like Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina, only electors from the specific precinct or county may mount a challenge, limiting the risk of disruption from outsiders. footnote15_C7eb2WdyYfZ3GKAblJrJbPKhh-U1Hz9Xb7Se3rEAytY_iu8Eyrv89uBp15 Fla. Stat. §§ 101.111, 101.131; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.303; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163–87.
• In Michigan, challengers must be specifically appointed and carry credentials verifying their appointment. footnote16_nV89KMHHccM9oN8NeEo87I5V2kISPWSnWZCElDf7Uq4_pzhmPVCRHs7Q16 Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.730; Mich. Dep’t of State Bureau of Elections, The Appointment, Rights and Duties of Election Challengers and Poll Watchers at 4–5 (Sept. 2020), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/SOS_ED_2_CHALLENGERS_77017_7.pdf.
• Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico explicitly bar law enforcement officers from serving as challengers (or poll watchers, for that matter). footnote17_s5JQuocgezNQrWltzKfdG-CduOwTRrdOY4UxDJziaF0_azOgSRfFRNgc17 Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.21(B); Fla. Stat. § 101.131(3); N.M. Stat. § 1–2–22(D).

States strictly regulate the conduct of challengers at the polls.

• Key battlegrounds like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Georgia (among other states) require challenges to be made by a written sworn oath. footnote18_vxdwobTu51VVDZ-fuxsQblYugTM3dbP2tidQ4vLyMQ_o7rSwVcE1LOZ18 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1–9–202; Fla. Stat. § 101.111; Ga. Code § 21–2–230; Ind. Code § 3–11–8–20; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:27; N.J. Stat. § 19:15–18.2; Or. Rev. Stat. § 254.415; 25 P.S. § 1329.
• North Carolina and Montana require specific documentary evidence to sustain a challenge. footnote19_0lQLjUEtWf5k4XzUlqQi7qZ8gfXu4RNWzamgfqyQ_b51wwRnTIq9V19 Mont. Code § 13–13–301(1) & Mont. Admin. R. 44.3.2109(2); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163–90.1(b).
• Several states strictly limit the grounds on which a challenger can lodge a challenge against the voter. footnote20_Ibmji-cwVkXXHxW1–4k9l2ufIsZnRi3metrhqxAUx3w_fjgcApv7BpIC20 Ark. Code § 7–5–312; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11–25; Md. Code, Elec. Law § 10–312(a)(1); 17 R.I. Gen. Laws § 17–19–27; Vt. Stat. tit. 17, § 2564.
• Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Maryland, and Nevada expressly permit election officials to remove watchers or challengers who interfere with the voting process. footnote21_BUB1QBSzoM8H9WRM-TgllYZ9fE3HWQwMpSopWiSfTuk_f2LTNxLYdPmw21 Ga. Code § 21–2–408(d); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 117.318(1); Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.730; Mich. Dep’t of State Bureau of Elections, The Appointment, Rights and Duties of Election Challengers and Poll Watchers at 5 (Sept. 2020), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/SOS_ED_2_CHALLENGERS_77017_7.pdf; Md. Code, Elec. Law § 10–311(d)(2); Nev. Admin. Code § 293.245.
• Florida and Montana have rules to discourage spurious challenges, with Florida criminalizing “frivolous” challenges footnote22_LhZx1ziQOot45ZgGCvXHVRdy5nqvtC-dSqzxTPijbMk_oSveB2wo8I8g22 Fla. Stat. § 101.111(2). and Montana giving election officials the power to reject challenges they deem insufficient before asking the challenged voter to respond. footnote23_wyTvqBJ2VgUlXrticm4UPiFruBkD9x-uXnmJrBxrfHM_uVo6ISg7nt5j23 Mont. Code § 13–13–301(3).

With all of these regulations in place, and with local election administrators actively preparing and coordinating with state and federal officials to keep voters safe, voters should not let fearmongering from the president, or anyone else, discourage them from casting their ballots.