Poll watchers have existed in the United States since at least the 18th century, with their earliest role rooted in ensuring transparency and preventing fraud at the ballot box. Political parties or candidates often appointed them to observe elections, supposedly to verify that voting procedures were conducted fairly.
American poll watchers evolved in part from European traditions of election observation, particularly from British and colonial practices that emphasized public accountability and partisan oversight at the polls. In 18th-century Britain, elections were public spectacles, often held in open-air venues where voters cast their ballots orally.
Political agents and party representatives were present to monitor voters, record pledges, and challenge eligibility — a precursor to American poll watching. These observers were often aligned with Whigs or Tories, and their presence was intended to protect party interests rather than ensure neutrality. In America, the first poll watchers were mainly associated with the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, who indirectly evolved into today’s Republican and Democratic Parties.
British electoral norms were imported to the American colonies, where local elites and party factions began assigning observers to polling places. These early watchers helped enforce property and religious qualifications, and sometimes used intimidation or bribery to influence outcomes. The tradition of partisan oversight continued into the post-Revolutionary period, especially as political parties like the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans emerged.
The primary role of poll watchers was to ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots and that votes were counted accurately. This was especially important in an era before standardized ballots or centralized oversight. Given that the first eligible voters were almost exclusively white males with citizenship who owned land, the people targeted to be stopped from voting were immigrants, indentured servants, Black people, free and indentured, and women. Poll watchers have always been more about voter suppression than promoting a democratic society.
In early U.S. elections, local party operatives or community leaders served as informal poll watchers. They were often men of property or influence, aligned with Federalist or Democratic-Republican factions. By the mid-19th century, some states began to formalize the role, allowing parties to appoint official challengers or watchers at polling places.
Poll watchers were tasked with identifying ineligible voters, duplicate voting, or ballot tampering. In some states, watchers could challenge a voter’s eligibility, triggering additional verification. They first served to protect their party’s interests, especially in contested or racially charged elections.
During Reconstruction and Jim Crow, poll watchers were often used as tools of voter suppression — especially against Black voters and poor whites. While their official role was to monitor elections, they frequently engaged in intimidation, challenges, and collusion to uphold white supremacy.
During early Reconstruction, federal troops and officials sometimes acted as neutral poll watchers to protect Black voters from violence. This resulted in the election of many Black male representatives, including several to the House of Representatives and one U.S. Senator. Black people held many offices in state government, with a few in Mississippi and Florida being elected to statewide office.
White supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan targeted polling places, and local white poll watchers often worked to challenge Black voters, disrupt registration, or collude with election officials to discard ballots. During Reconstruction, federal troops stationed throughout the South offered some protection, which disappeared after the Compromise of 1877, when the troops left, and the Posse Comitatus Act ensured they would not return. Poll watchers became agents of disenfranchisement, aligned with Democratic Party machines and white elites.
Watchers would question Black voters’ eligibility, literacy, or tax status, often without cause. They stood close to voters, made threats, and sometimes coordinated with law enforcement to arrest or eject voters. Watchers worked with registrars to discard ballots, enforce grandfather clauses, and manipulate vote counts.
Black citizens were rarely allowed to serve as poll watchers, even in majority-Black districts. States passed laws allowing private citizens to challenge voters, which empowered poll watchers to act as gatekeepers. These laws were used not only in the South but also in parts of the Midwest and Southwest to suppress immigrant and minority votes.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 placed key controls on poll watchers by authorizing federal observers to monitor elections in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination, ensuring that poll watchers did not intimidate or suppress voters — especially Black and minority voters.
Under Section 8, the Act allowed the U.S. Attorney General to send federal observers to monitor elections in areas with documented racial discrimination. These observers could:
- Watch polling place procedures.
- Monitor interactions between poll watchers and voters.
- Ensure that poll watchers did not harass or challenge voters unfairly.
The Act helped curb abusive practices where poll watchers would challenge minority voters’ eligibility without cause. Federal observers ensured that challenges were based on legitimate criteria, not racial bias or intimidation. The presence of federal monitors was supposed to deter poll watchers from engaging in: physical intimidation, verbal harassment, and discriminatory questioning of voters. This was especially critical in Southern states where poll watchers had historically been used to suppress Black turnout. Observers were also authorized to monitor ballot counting, ensuring that poll watchers and election officials did not discard or manipulate votes from minority communities.
The Shelby County v. Holder decision (2013) weakened the Voting Rights Act by striking down the preclearance formula. As a result, fewer jurisdictions are subject to federal observer oversight, reducing controls on poll watcher behavior in areas with renewed voter suppression concerns. The assumption all along was that the federal government would protect the rights of minority voters against the states that might suppress them. Martin Luther King’s dream probably didn’t predict a day when the federal government’s only concern was the civil rights of white people, and that it would be them intimidating voters at the polls.
The Trump administration has announced plans to deploy federal poll watchers in key Democratic-led states and has previously used National Guard units in cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., raising concerns that these efforts could influence election outcomes through intimidation or federal overreach.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is sending federal election monitors to six counties — five in California and one in New Jersey — during the November 4 elections. These areas are involved in high-stakes races or ballot measures that President Trump has publicly criticized. Officials claim the monitors are there to ensure “transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law.”
Governor Gavin Newsom and other Democrats argue this is a form of election interference, accusing the administration of “rigging the election” by intimidating voters and undermining state control. The Trump administration has federalized National Guard troops in cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., against the wishes of local officials.
These deployments were framed as responses to crime and civil unrest. Critics fear the administration could repurpose Guard units to secure polling sites or respond to alleged “fraud,” potentially intimidating voters. The presence of military personnel near polling places could deter turnout, especially in communities with histories of voter suppression, much as local police and sheriffs did during Jim Crow.
The Republican National Committee has pledged to recruit 100,000 poll watchers and workers nationwide, part of a “Protect Your Vote” campaign aligned with Trump’s election integrity messaging. These efforts follow years of unsubstantiated claims about election fraud and reflect a broader strategy to challenge results in Democratic strongholds.
The Republican Party’s current efforts to deploy expansive networks of poll watchers, challenge voter eligibility, and enlist federal oversight in Democratic strongholds echo the tactics used during Reconstruction and Jim Crow — when election monitoring was weaponized to suppress Black political power and enforce racial hierarchies. Just as partisan poll watchers once stood at the threshold of democracy to intimidate and exclude, today’s strategies risk reviving those same patterns under the guise of election integrity. The historical throughline is unmistakable: when oversight becomes a tool of exclusion rather than protection, it threatens the very foundation of representative government.
If you encounter a poll watcher while voting, remember:
- You are not required to speak with them. You have the right to refuse to answer any of their questions or engage with them in any way.
- Only official poll workers and election officials have the authority to assist or question voters about eligibility or ballots.
- If a poll watcher is harassing, intimidating, or interfering with your right to vote, immediately notify a poll worker or election official.
- Poll watchers who violate conduct rules can and should be removed from the polling place.
Poll watchers are allowed to observe — not to interfere. Their role is limited, and they must follow strict rules. If you feel uncomfortable or threatened, speak up. Your vote is your voice, and protecting it is your right. This shouldn’t be necessary in this day and age, but consider going to the polls with a friend or voting by mail, assuming Trump hasn’t lived up to his promise to get rid of them. Whatever you do, still vote. Voting is more crucial than ever because the regular checks and balances don’t seem to be working.
This post originally appeared on Substack and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of William Spivey's work on Medium. And if you dig his words, buy the man a coffee.