Attorney general weighs in on election judge imbalance, sheriff's role at the polls

EASTON — Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown has weighed in on the equality of election judges, the topic of sometimes tense back-and-forth between the Talbot County Board of Elections, The Talbot County Sheriff and local elected officials in recent weeks.

A letter from Brown was read out loud by Tammy Stafford, election director for Talbot County, during an Oct. 7 Board of Elections special meeting.

The letter, addressed to Talbot County Sheriff Joe Gamble, details the “limited role of local law enforcement, including our sheriff's office, in the electoral process.” Although the letter is not an official opinion of the attorney general, Brown said he hopes the letter is helpful in setting forth the roles of law enforcement officers during elections.

Brown's letter responds to a letter sent by Gamble to the Board of Elections on issues concerning the upcoming election, in which Gamble "strongly" urged the board to follow state law.

In Brown's letter, he addresses the role of law enforcement, security, authority on election law violations and concerns involving election judges.

"State law does, specifies and carefully circumscribes the authority of local law enforcement and polling places while conferring primary responsibility for election law enforcement on other agencies," Brown said. "I understand that local law enforcement agencies do provide assistance to local boards of elections in some jurisdictions, including deploying personnel to provide security and transporting election materials. But importantly, this is done at the request and under the direction of the local Board of Elections itself."

Gamble's letter came in the midst of intense discussions centering concerns over the partisan breakdown of election judges ahead of the Nov. 5 General Election.

According to the most recent breakdown from the Talbot County Board of Elections, 62 judges are Democrats, 50 are Republicans and 11 are unaffiliated.

Maryland election code states “each polling place shall have an equal number of election judges” from “the majority party” and “the principal minority party.”

State election law permits judges not affiliated with either party for precincts with six or more judges, as well as “one or more election judges who are minors.” The number of unaffiliated judges “may not exceed the lesser of” the majority or minority party, law states.

Discussion about the imbalance of election judge political party affiliations surfaced after Talbot County Council Member Dave Stepp raised it in a council meeting Sept. 24. He voiced concerns the county Board of Elections was not following state law for election judges, though his motion for the council to send a letter to the elections board failed by a 3-2 vote.

In his letter, Brown emphasized State law “does not require equality in the total number of judges” recruited and trained by the local Board of Elections.

“Even at the individual polling place level, while all local boards make best efforts to achieve exact party balance, this is not always possible for reasons outside the local board's control, including the number of judges from each party who volunteer,” Brown said.

Toward the end of Brown’s letter, he advised that opening a polling place, even if the number of judges from each party is not exactly equal, is preferable to “closing the polling place and disenfranchising all the voters who would have voted there.”

After the reading of the letter, the county board of elections weighed whether to release its own letter or statement to the public addressing the election judge concerns.

Denise Lovelady, a member of the board of elections, said the issue with Brown’s letter is it is still subject to “clarification.” She said the letter speaks more to security issues than election judge equality.

After a bit of discussion, board members voted 3-1 to sent out Brown’s letter instead of drafting their own. Lovelady voted against sending Brown’s letter.

“I don't feel that it services the public, that it's giving them the full information that they need,” Lovelady said. “The board is kind of skirting the issue that it needs to be defined better than what it has been in these meetings.”

According to Stafford, election judge assignments are on the agenda for a second special meeting Tuesday, Oct. 8 at 9:30 a.m.