A week and a half after last November’s election, members of the Surrey County, North Carolina, Election Commission gathered in a windowless room to prove their results.This marked the end of a controversial season in which election deniers harassed and retaliated against county election officials, and it was supposed to be routine work. Shortly after the start, the staff distributed letter From two board members who said they were refusing accreditation.

According to the letter, the two members “considered the sacred blood of both my Savior and His servant” and the “Patriots of the past who made the ultimate sacrifice” to “reject these election results.” We must not take it as trustworthy and bow down.” To distort the truth. ”

in their opinion, Voided North Carolina’s Voter ID Law Because discrimination against minorities has turned state election laws into “grotesque and twisted fakes.” Tim DeHaan, one of his two directors who signed the letter, explained at the meeting:

The argument failed to persuade three Democratic board members, according to one person. meeting recordingDeHaan ultimately agreed to join the trio on professional grounds, and the board approved the selection by a 4-to-1 vote. Republican Board Secretary Jerry Forestieri, who also signed the letter, extended his hand.

DeHaan and Forestieri declined to comment and did not respond to written questions.

Prior to 2020, local election officials rarely voted against certification of results. But in 2022, conservative officials in North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico rejected it. In all 2022 lawsuits, election results were finalized and sometimes under court order.

Election law experts say these disruptions reveal weaknesses in America’s electoral system. America’s electoral system relies on thousands of local officials to certify county and municipal totals before tallying and tallying results for state and federal elections.

Alice Klapman, senior election law adviser at the Brennan Center for Justice, said local election officials’ refusal to authenticate “could cause confusion.” “And in that turmoil, there is more room for political intervention.” In scenarios five legal experts described to ProPublica, legislatures, courts, the secretary of state, or governors could decide whether to approve certification at the local level. Failures may be used to wield partisan influence.

Clapman argues that even if a denial of certification does not affect the outcome of an election, it may violate state law and amplify and verify harmful misinformation that fuels election denial because of the authority of public officials. said it was possible.

ProPublica examined 10 local government cases in four states that refused to certify 2022 results, and found that in most of them, state election officials ultimately did not pursue official results. I understand. Two of his men face criminal charges, but the state’s attorney general has not commented on whether there will be a public investigation. And he faces the possibility of removal from office by the State Electoral Commission, two of whom are from Surrey County.

“There needs to be some kind of sanction for lawlessness,” said Richard L. Heysen, an electoral law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and director of the Protecting Democracy Project. “Allowing these things without any sanctions will lead to more serious violations of the rules in the future.”

After DeHaan and Forestieri’s letter, Bob Hall, former executive director of the North Carolina watchdog group Democracy, said: Complaint Initiate a disciplinary process with the state board of elections, as permitted by North Carolina law, if a board member commits a breach of duty.Hall’s Lawyer claimed in subsequent documents “If left unchecked, Forestieri and DeHaan could be the first of many board members across the state and across the political spectrum who cannot be trusted to faithfully prove election results.”

That is why the State Commission last month summoned Forestieri and DeHaan to attend hearings at its headquarters in the capital, about three hours’ drive from their home in the countryside.

At the beginning of the proceedings, DeHaan argued that the hearing itself was “illegal.” The Democratic chairman agreed to move the hearing to Surrey County and voted with his Republican colleagues. No date has been set yet. “The move to Surrey County shows that this is not the norm,” said Christopher A. Cooper, a professor of North Carolina politics at Western Carolina University. “We don’t have a long history of examples of this kind to turn to.”

Efforts to hold local officials accountable for failing to prove elections have a patchy nature across the country, experts say. And I think they’re taking a different approach, let prosecutors decide on a case-by-case basis whether to file a lawsuit,” said Professor Derek T. The University of Iowa School of Law, which studied legal options for insuring “States need to understand how to bring these lawsuits in a fair, consistent and lawful manner.”

In Cochise County, a rural part of Arizona on the border with Mexico, two county superintendents refused to certify the November 2022 results, which state officials said were illegal under state law. warned many times. In early December, a court ordered them to be certified, but one of his supervisors, Tom Crosby, still skipped the vote.

The next day, at the request of the former Republican Attorney General of Arizona, state election officials sent a letter The state attorney general referred the supervisors to a criminal investigation, alleging they had committed a “potential violation of Arizona state law.” “This blatant act of defying Arizona’s election laws runs the risk of setting a dangerous precedent that we must dissuade,” the letter said. I am taking all necessary actions. A spokesperson for the Arizona Attorney General’s Office wrote that it “cannot confirm or deny any potential investigations” that may have resulted from the letter.

In January, a group of Cochise County voters Recall petition initiated Crosby. As of late February, about a quarter of the 6,000 signatures needed to hold new elections by early May had gathered, according to Eric Schodolski, chairman of the committee leading the effort. was “It’s the best we can do as citizens,” he said. “I didn’t think the authorities would finally do something. Even if they did, it could take a while.”

In response to a request for comment, Crosby said: I have already answered all these. ”Once upon a time, he challenged the validity of the county’s voting machine certificationdespite the guarantee from the state.

North Carolina and Arizona have ongoing efforts to hold local officials accountable for failing to prove their elections, but Nevada and New Mexico have decided not to pursue such efforts.

In Nevada, a Republican commissioner Washoe County and another Nye County In both cases, four other commissioners voted against them, but refused accreditation. A spokesman for the Nevada secretary of state’s office said, “Our office is not aware of the legal consequences of that action by the commissioner.”

In Otero County, New Mexico, three county commissioners initially unanimously voted against certification for the June 2022 primary. This followed months of controversy over election security sparked by conservative activists who also fueled protests in Surrey County.

New Mexico law requires the election results to be approved unless the commissioner can raise specific issues. Otero’s commissioner only expressed concern about the hacked voting machines, and one of his staff members, his Couy Griffin, referred to his “gut feeling.” The New Mexico Secretary of State then asked the state’s Supreme Court to intervene, and the Supreme Court ordered the commissioner to certify.Secretary of State also dispatched letter It notified the state attorney general of “multiple misconduct by the Otello County Commission” and called for a “prompt investigation.” Griffin did not. (In Sandoval County on the other side of the state, one of his commissioners voted against authenticationalthough the other four on the panel beat him.)

Griffin did not respond to a request for comment.

The Office of the New Mexico Secretary of State decided not to pursue further “punitive action” against officials who failed to do so because “our concern was to get the election certified and that was it.” bottom.

“Once there was a Supreme Court precedent that showed this wasn’t really widespread and there were only two far-right commissioners, I was relieved that it wouldn’t be a big deal in the general election,” he said. He said. , “And, in our view, it has become a bit of a moot point.”

Griffin then Removed from public office and prohibited from holding it by order of a judge As part of the sentencing for participating in the Jan. 6 riots.

One of the challenges for states trying to crack down on officials who refuse to authenticate elections is that many of the go-to laws were written more than a century ago. Quinn Eargain, a professor at the Commonwealth School of Law at Widener University in Pennsylvania, said, “We are dealing with modern issues based on very old laws.

Some states have recently enacted new regulations.Last year, the Colorado Legislature Election Security ActIt requires the Secretary of State to certify results if he fails to meet the deadline to certify county results.Michigan voter passed a broad voter protection ballot proposal Certification in NovemberMinisterial, Clerical, Non-Discretionary DutiesThe clause addressed conservative members of Detroit’s county campaign committees. Deny authentication Hours ahead of the 2020 presidential election, it threatened to temporarily throw authentication into chaos.

Election law experts say it will continue to be complicated to hold local election officials responsible for votes against proof of elections. Mueller, an Iowa law professor, favors what he calls “the least invasive process.” This allows courts to replace local officials who refuse to certify elections with other officials who fulfill their duties.

However, he said any process that would result in the forced replacement of officials would likely carry political risks.

“These processes are just beginning, so we have yet to see any impact from local election officials,” Muller said. “But I could see it right away.”