海角大神

Episode transcript

Gail Russell Chaddock:鈥� Remember when election night meant that you鈥檇 know the winner if you stayed up late enough? There would be a congratulatory phone call, campaign workers on camera in big halls would cheer, or weep, and it would be over.

But November 5th isn鈥檛 shaping up to be one of those nights. Close races in polarized times are always tough. But last minute changes to voting rules and back to back hurricanes on the eve of this vote add to difficulty and delay, and distrust. The expectation of chaos on election night can seem inevitable or even normal.

[MUSIC]

Chaddock:鈥� This is 鈥淲hy We Wrote This.鈥� I鈥檓 this week鈥檚 guest host, Gail Chaddock. Cameron Joseph has covered Washington since 2009, mainly focused on elections, Capitol Hill, and the White House, picking up top awards for distinguished reporting of Congress and excellence in political journalism along the way. He鈥檚 now a senior Washington reporter for 海角大神, and this is his first appearance on this podcast. Welcome Cameron!

Cameron Joseph: Thanks for having me.

Chaddock:鈥� There are many choices for covering an election. You could write about Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, what they said, what people said about them. You chose to seek out county election officials and poll workers that no one has heard of. Why are their stories important in campaign 2024?

Joseph: Well, I think that folks don鈥檛 always think about the people who actually run these elections, who are nonpartisan workers, probably tens of thousands of people across the country, who really make the actual election function. And they have frankly had a really tough couple of years. They faced trying to get an election off without a hitch during the peak of the COVID pandemic in 2020. They had a lot of, especially in some of these swing states, a lot of rule changes that were very closely scrutinized, to make it safe for folks to vote by mail. A lot of states expanded their mail ballot rules. They faced a lot of criticism.

Mail ballots are frankly a lot harder to process and count and track than in-person ballots, and so that created an additional logistical hurdle for a lot of them. They kind of thought they were through the woods. And then we saw the false claims from President Trump that he had won the last election, and some even wilder claims from other folks that specific election workers were rigging the results. And we saw a defamation claim, uh, being settled against Rudy Giuliani recently for a lot of money from two Georgia election workers, because he鈥檇 spread false information and then they faced death threats. So these folks are under an incredible amount of pressure and scrutiny and distrust.

And then on top of that, they鈥檙e facing increased pressure at the last minute. Last-minute rule changes. And in both Georgia and North Carolina, two important swing states, they just had a hurricane rip through the state. Some of these counties, the voters are scattered to the four winds because of the damage from the hurricanes. And the actual infrastructure of the election that they鈥檇 spent many years trying to make sure is ready has been damaged. Some of the actual things that these folks are facing, especially in the hardest hit areas of North Carolina, are just unfathomable.

Chaddock:鈥� What drew you to small mountain communities in North Carolina, for example, for a hurricane story that covered such a wide area?

Joseph: Well, there鈥檚 a confluence of two things. The first is that while Hurricane Helene did an incredible amount of damage from the Florida coast up through Georgia, part of South Carolina, North Carolina, the worst damage and the worst flooding occurred in mountainous Appalachia, especially in North Carolina.

And the second factor here is North Carolina is a swing state. Votes in North Carolina are going to draw a lot more attention. I talked to the elections head in Yancey County, which is up on the North Carolina Tennessee border, about an hour north of Asheville under normal circumstances. Part of the county is cut off from the rest of the state. The only way to drive into the county seat is to take two hours of backroads through Tennessee and then come back because the interstate is still closed. And so, the idea of being able to vote early in person when you鈥檙e in a situation like that is daunting. There鈥檚 11 voting sites in that county, and all 11 of them are not options right now. Some of them are fire stations that are being used for emergency response. One of them is a junior high that is now being used to house folks whose houses were damaged or wiped away.

And so, she鈥檚 going out this week, I believe, and see where she can put up FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] tents nearby so that the folks in that county can vote. And she wants to make sure they鈥檙e as close as possible because a lot of the county doesn鈥檛 have internet, still. You know, cellphone service up in the mountains is very spotty in the first place. And so folks who show up without this information that the place that they鈥檝e always voted has been shifted aren鈥檛 going to be able to go on their phone and look up: Where do I need to go now? And so she needs to make it visible, from wherever the voting site was, to be able to get to the new site. And so it鈥檚 this incredibly daunting task that鈥檚 being made even more difficult by claims that the government support in these mountain towns is actually there to hurt the people. Uh, and so there鈥檚 a lot of conspiracy theories bouncing around the internet that [are] making it even harder for FEMA, for example, to be able to come in and help folks get back on their feet.

Chaddock: There were some last-minute rule changes after the hurricane swept through North Carolina, passed unanimously by the State General Assembly, and signed by a Democratic governor. What were these changes, and how have they stirred up claims of conspiracy?

Joseph: So, in the wake of Hurricane Helene, the North Carolina State Election Board stepped in, in bipartisan, unanimous fashion, to make some changes in the 13 counties that were most affected by the storm. The biggest changes were that they are going to allow folks to request absentee ballots to any address that they need. Because a lot of folks are scattered to the four winds. The Yancey County election head said that she talked to folks as far away as Minnesota and Florida who had had to go stay with family and friends. So they鈥檙e able to get ballots. And now anybody who has a ballot can drop it off, if you鈥檙e from these 13 counties, anywhere in the state of North Carolina. The other change is that they are now allowed to bring in election poll workers from other parts of the state. Obviously, a lot of normal people who were planning on helping out with the election in these short term jobs, both with early voting and especially on election day, where there鈥檚 a lot more polling sites, are feeling the impact of the storm as much as anybody else. Uh, some of them have had their homes destroyed, have family missing. They鈥檙e going to be able to be replaced by people coming in from other parts of the state.

So, a lot of this is completely [and in a bipartisan way] supported, among other things, [by] elected and appointed officials. There isn鈥檛 that much controversy over this. But we鈥檙e seeing, as we鈥檝e seen a lot of other conspiracy theories bubbling in North Carolina, we just saw one man arrested for threatening FEMA officials. We鈥檙e also seeing, bubbling online about: 鈥淥h, this is just a way to make it easier to steal votes and fake votes.鈥� There鈥檚 also been even wilder conspiracies that somehow the government engineered this storm and aimed it at a Republican-heavy part of the state.

So that鈥檚 creating, you know, uncertainty for these voting officials. The voting official I talked to didn鈥檛 bring up any specific problems with that. You know, she鈥檚 in a county that is overwhelmingly Republican. It鈥檚 small, a lot of people know each other, they know their neighbors. So you鈥檙e a lot more likely to believe a conspiracy that somebody is doing something wrong if you don鈥檛 know that person. But, it鈥檚 overall problematic because it鈥檚 undercutting voters鈥� faith in the election, both in North Carolina as well as in Georgia, where the storm hit pretty hard.

Chaddock:鈥� One of the most striking observations in your hurricane coverage to me was this sentence: 鈥淎nd the onslaught of election related conspiracy theories since 2020 has led to verbal abuse and death threats against nonpartisan elections workers that have intensified in the wake of storms.鈥� How willing were poll workers to talk with you about this?

Joseph: Well, the poll worker in North Carolina I talked to was largely focused on recovery. Uh, I did talk, when I was in Georgia a week before, and I was in suburban Atlanta for this story, she, you know, she hadn鈥檛 faced death threats, but she said she鈥檇 been approached grocery shopping, and she was wearing her shirt that said, 鈥渁sk me how to register to vote,鈥� which is, you know, a pretty normal thing for an election official to wear. A guy came up to her in kind of a threatening manner [and said]: 鈥淥h, so you want to help dead people vote.鈥� And was trying to goad her into a fight. And, you know, she started to snap back and then remembered her de-escalation training, and extricated herself from the situation.

So, you know, that鈥檚 a pretty minor example compared to a lot of what these folks are facing. The local official, the Republican who certified the Philadelphia results and defended them as safe and accurate, has faced multiple death threats. In Fulton County, which is where the bulk of Atlanta is, a lot of election workers have faced death threats. And so, it鈥檚 a hard enough job when you鈥檙e trying to execute an election where you鈥檙e counting thousands and some of these counties, tens and hundreds of thousands of votes. A lot of poll workers and election officials have quit between 2020 and now. And so we鈥檙e dealing with folks now in some of these places that have significantly less experience than the folks who had been doing this for election after election and really knew the processes. It鈥檚 problematic heading into this election. And we also have a lot of folks who are aggressively planning on observing and monitoring the vote, and that鈥檚 within people鈥檚 rights in a lot of these states.

The woman I talked to in suburban Atlanta, she has, I believe, 10 police [officers] who are going to be at the voting site the entire time during [the] early vote and election day and afterwards. And that鈥檚 just one relatively small county outside of Atlanta. And I think that election officials across the country are rightly worried that they鈥檙e going to face intimidation and threats and possible violence and isolated cases. And they鈥檙e doing what they can to prepare for that. But when you鈥檙e talking about, you know, tens of thousands of voting sites around the country, it鈥檚 hard to have every voting site ready for that.

Chaddock:鈥� Wouldn鈥檛 the sight of 10 police [officers] outside of a voting site reinforce the idea that there is something to be concerned about, and that voting is dangerous?

Joseph: Yeah. It鈥檚 a really fine line that folks are trying to negotiate. You know, for many years the understanding from voting rights groups [has been] we don鈥檛 want police there because 鈥� a lot of them thought that it was an intimidating factor, especially for Black and Hispanic voters. So in some states and some counties, they鈥檙e planning on having police out of sight but right nearby. You know, it鈥檚 a tough balance because police make some people feel a lot safer and they make some other people feel less safe.

Chaddock:鈥� Yep. You have said so many interesting things in the last three minutes. You mentioned poll workers had had de-escalation training. What is that exactly?

Joseph: Well, I haven鈥檛 been through the training myself, so I can鈥檛 get into too much detail, but the basic idea is kind of similar to the way that some people handle somebody throwing a tantrum, uh, with their kids, you know. It鈥檚: Alright, let鈥檚 just get you to calm down enough so that we can have a reasonable conversation and then move on.

I know in Georgia it isn鈥檛 just the de-escalation training, they鈥檝e also given every election site panic buttons that you can push. And it will immediately alert both the Secretary of State鈥檚 office and local police. You know, there鈥檚 other security measures that they wouldn鈥檛 talk about with me, because it鈥檚 only effective if folks don鈥檛 know about it. And so there鈥檚 a lot going on to make sure these folks are safe. Frankly, we just don鈥檛 know what鈥檚 going to happen. But their attitude is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Chaddock:鈥� It鈥檚 interesting you鈥檙e referring to the lanyards around necks that you could just press the button.

Joseph: Exactly.

颁丑补诲诲辞肠办:鈥� There was one other phrase you used that I鈥檇 love to hear more about. You talked about 鈥渁ggressive planning to observe.鈥� What is aggressive observation?

Joseph: Well, it can take a lot of different forms. And some of it is simply an effort that鈥檚 happening in both parties, that I think is very legitimate, to have election observers to make sure nothing is happening untoward. You know, if it鈥檚 a state that has ID checks, [it鈥檚] that IDs are being checked. If it鈥檚 a state that doesn鈥檛 have ID checks, [it鈥檚] that some local official isn鈥檛 going rogue and trying to force people to show ID. That the chain of custody to keep ballots secure is being upheld.

Those are all, frankly, good things that election observers from both parties are involved [in]. The concern comes when people are there not to observe, but to disrupt. And, you know, we鈥檝e seen protesting outside of a major vote counting center in Detroit when Michigan was counting its ballots last time around. And we saw, recently, the Jack Smith report on Donald Trump鈥檚 legal case.

An unnamed Trump official basically encouraging disruption of that vote count in Detroit. Things got pretty hairy there and pretty intimidating. And luckily, most people who were there to agitate were kept out of the actual voting center. But that鈥檚 the type of thing that鈥檚 a real risk. We saw in 2000, 鈥渢he Brooks Brothers Riot,鈥� is what it has been termed historically, where Roger Stone, who鈥檚 now chief unofficial advisor for President Trump, encouraged Republican activists to go and disrupt a local hand recount in an area that was heavily Democratic, in order to help preserve George W. Bush鈥檚 lead in Florida and his win in the state. So, those types of things are where the line gets crossed from good faith efforts or even partisan efforts to make sure your side is getting what is fair for them, to the problematic election disruption where it鈥檚 damaging rather than helping a fair count.

Chaddock:鈥� Are you aware of any instances of where Democratic observers or crowds can be intimidating as well?

Joseph: I鈥檓 sure it鈥檚 happened. Top of mind, there aren鈥檛 specific examples where Democrats have tried to interrupt the vote count. Um, there鈥檚 plenty of legal cases where this is kind of a shirts-and-skins thing, where Democrats and Republicans will be fighting in court. And depending on where an election sits, one side might be arguing a thing that they argued the exact opposite of the last time, and that is totally fine. Those are the types of things that happen every election that should be played out in court, whether you like the decision or not. Um, it鈥檚 the extra legal interruptions that get problematic. I am sure this has happened by Democrats in the past. Back in the old South, during Jim Crow, there was plenty of voter intimidation and violence. There鈥檚 one case in 2008 that, you know, I think got blown out of proportion, but there were a couple of folks from a group called the New Black Panthers outside Philly voting sites that people deemed intimidating. And there was a Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department investigation. But in recent years it has been more on the right 鈥� but that doesn鈥檛 mean that only one side does it.

Chaddock:鈥� You know, that extra legal point is very important. I鈥檓 so glad you said that. There鈥檚 a lot in a story that could involve risk for someone who is named saying this or that. Do you allow people to speak on background or off the record?

Joseph: I absolutely do. You know, there鈥檚 two buckets here. Politicians understand how the game is played, in terms of being able to manipulate, you know, get information out there without their fingerprints attached by going on background. That鈥檚 kind of a dance that you play, especially in D.C. I tend to try and be more resistant to that. But, you know, a lot of information is only available, people will only be willing to share it if their name isn鈥檛 attached to it. Sometimes that鈥檚 because they鈥檙e playing games and sometimes that鈥檚 because they actually have concern for their jobs, concern for their safety. I am less trusting of claims made on background, but it鈥檚 part of the news gathering process. And in order to let people feel safe and secure, sometimes it鈥檚 a necessity. People tend to be more honest when they鈥檙e having to put their name next to a quote, or they can at least be called out for lying.

Chaddock:鈥� That鈥檚 right. How many times you read in a story 鈥渟omeone close to the negotiation said, blah, blah, blah.鈥� Well, are they really close? Do they have other reasons for saying it? The name lends credibility also to readers who are looking at your story.

Joseph: Yeah, I think that鈥檚 absolutely true. And that鈥檚 why I work so hard to make sure to talk to everybody involved on all sides. Try and recognize where my own blind spots and biases may come in. And, you know, I鈥檝e worked at some publications that have leaned left, and I have a pretty good track record of a lot of Republicans still talking to me because they knew I was going to be fair to them and treat them honestly. And you know in the editing process at the Monitor, there鈥檚 a lot of work to take out any verbiage that may be seen as biased, and let facts speak for themselves.

Chaddock:鈥� Wouldn鈥檛 it be great if there were editors all over the internet, you know. Before you punch your comment in anger, a little voice says: 鈥淣ow wait a minute, are you sure?鈥� I [would] love that.

You know, the rule changes in Georgia were also advanced at the last minute, but not unanimously endorsed by the legislature. Who proposed these rules, why at the last minute, and why were these rules so troubling to local officials, and, it turns out, the courts? That鈥檚 a case we鈥檙e going to take up in detail in the next episode of this podcast. Hope you can join us.

[MUSIC]

颁丑补诲诲辞肠办:鈥� You can find more, including our show notes with a link to the stories we discussed in this podcast, at CSMonitor.com/WhyWeWroteThis. This episode was hosted by me, Gail Chaddock, edited and produced by Jingnan Peng, with additional editing by Clay Collins. Mackenzie Farkus is also a producer on this show. Our sound engineers were Tim Malone and Alyssa Britton, with original music by Noel Flatt, produced by 海角大神, copyright 2024.