What observers can – and cannot – do on election day

When most people think of their in-person voting experience, they may think of other voters at the polls or the hard-working election officials checking in and helping people cast their ballots. But many elections often involve a third group: poll watchers.

Observers are ordinary citizens who voluntarily participate in election observation on behalf of the organization. Many of them do it on behalf of a specific political party. Other volunteers are non-partisan poll observers; they observe action at the polls on behalf of non-partisan organizations, including local groups and international election observers such as The Carter Center or Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Historically, the United States has not relied heavily on international election observers, and it does prohibited in some statessuch as Tennessee. Most often, when journalists and scientists like us we mean election observers in the United States.

If all goes well on election day, the work of observers will be exhausting. They will simply observe how voters perform the key acts of democracy: they go to polling stations, talk to poll workers and cast ballots. Party poll watchers are also likely to watch the vote count and receive an official copy of the results if they choose to conduct a simultaneous vote count.

What do poll watchers do?

Observers protect the interests of their organization at the polling stations. By observing the casting and counting of ballots, poll observers can help ensure that only eligible voters cast their ballots and that outright election fraud, such as the stuffing of ballot boxes with unauthorized ballots, does not occur.

As observers independent of the government officials they observe, poll observers can add an additional layer of transparency and accountability to electoral procedures and help ensure elections are held free and fair.

However, poll watchers can also undermine the integrity of elections. For example, poll observers may excessively – and illegally – challenge a citizen’s right to vote without reason. Or their presence can intimidate or pressure voters.

In the 1980s, for example, Republican Party in New Jersey hired off-duty uniformed police officers to monitor polling stations and put up posters offering rewards for information on people violating election laws. A lawsuit over the activity led to a nationwide court order barring the Republican National Committee from using poll watchers without the permission of a federal judge. There was an order raised in 2018.

Historical records show that since the early 1800s, poll watchers from both parties have often contested eligibility African Americans and probable immigrantswhich often leads to their removal from voter lists. In such cases, observers can undermine the basic democratic principle of the freedom of voters to participate.

It is also important to remember that many observers are partisan – they work on behalf of their political parties. Indeed, in recent years a a central goal of the Republican Party recruits and deploys poll observers. Our research shows that in the current era of polarized partisan politics in the United States, the simple presence of partisan actors at the polls can undermine voters’ confidence in elections.

What are the rules?

While the history and partisan nature of election surveillance may raise concerns about voter intimidation, a variety of federal and state laws protect voters on Election Day.

Survey observers are subject to federal laws that protect voters from intimidation and interference. Many states also have additional rules governing the actions of observers during election observation.

For example, some states require formal training. State of Georgiafor example, requires all poll observers full training provided by their political party. Observers in Ohioon the other hand, must be registered voters but do not have formal training.

Another important difference between states is whether they allow poll watchers to interact directly with voters. In some states, such as Georgia, observers may not communicate with voters. In others, such as Ohio, poll watchers can talk to voters, but cannot threaten voters for choosing a particular candidate or to encourage them to vote for another.

Contesting the right to vote

A final important difference between states’ poll watcher rules is whether they can challenge a voter’s right to vote. Good faith issues can arise when a poll watcher has reasonable grounds to believe that a voter is not eligible to vote in the district in which he or she is voting. Poll watchers in Pennsylvania, for example, are allowed keep a list of voters who have the right to vote and can register a challenge if they believe someone not on that list is trying to vote.

Poll observers who act in bad faith may challenge votes based on little or no evidence, with the intention of distracting poll workers, demoralizing voters, and slowing down voting, rather than ensuring that the rules are properly followed.

Vote observers usually raise questions at the polling station directly with election administrators, who are local volunteers and employees. Voters whose right to vote is contested may be required to return an advance ballot and provide additional proof of their identification and residence to election officials either on Election Day or at a later hearing. Importantly, many states have strict regulations protect voters from arbitrary challenges to their compliance. Challengers in Floridafor example, must submit a formal written oath attesting to the accuracy of their appeal, and are subject to prosecution if the appeal is found to be “frivolous”.

If an observer suspects something is wrong at a polling station, when voters are voting or the results are being tallied, they can report it to local election administrators or other election commission officials, such as local election commissions. They can also pass information through the political party they represent.

Many questions are easy to resolve and election officials respond immediately. More complex issues – or allegations brought to the attention of party leaders by multiple poll watchers in different locations – can eventually lead to legal action.