Behind the Ballot Box: My Eye-Opening Experience as a Poll Worker

The Social Media Catalyst

A week after the election, a photo gained traction on social media. This photo depicted the electoral map, differentiating between the states won by Harris that did not require an ID and contrasting them with the states requiring ID, which she lost. Elon Musk posted this image on X with the remark, “Must be a coincidence.” This image ignited the ongoing debates regarding the impact of voter ID laws on elections. As a first-time poll worker in New York City, I’ve seen firsthand how these rules are implemented—and how they might leave our electoral system vulnerable. This experience, along with my commitment to election integrity, compelled me to take a deeper look at our voting process.

Behind the Training Curtain: Preparation Day

I, like many Americans, wish deeply for election integrity. After witnessing the events of the 2020 election and the surge of illegal immigrants entering New York, I was deeply moved not just to discuss the issue but to take action. In late August, I began by completing the online application to become a poll worker. Upon registration, I was asked two questions: "Are you a registered voter?" and "What is your political party?" I am registered as an Independent, and I answered accordingly. These are two important questions. Let's set that aside for now, as it will be important later.

On September 24th, I determinedly attended the mandatory training, feeling like I was on a secret mission to uncover any unethical practices being discussed. My dedication to election integrity remained my primary motivation through the prolonged four-hour session. This comprehensive course addressed all roles except that of an interpreter. I raised two primary concerns with the instructor, Susan. The first pertained to voter ID. As she described the check-in procedure, I asked, "Are we permitted to ask for voters' ID?" She responded, "No, we only request ID if instructed by the E-poll." The E-poll refers to the iPad used for checking voters in. Susan explained that the system may ask for ID due to clerical errors such as a missing DMV number (State ID), absent signature, or lack of a social security number; only then are we authorized to request any form of identification.

‍

The Voter ID Conundrum

Contrary to popular belief, New York's "signature-only" system doesn't mean identification is never required. The truth is more nuanced. Initial voter registration requires identification. Voters who complete registration with all required documentation don't need ID on Election Day. Those with incomplete registration, documentation must present ID at the polls. It is true, individuals can proceed with their registration with the New York Board of Elections without presenting a social security number or state ID; however, the E-poll system flags these registrations requiring the voters to provide acceptable forms of identification.

‍

Accessibility Trumps Security: The Loophole Effect

This is where the plot thickens regarding what the New York Board of Elections qualifies as acceptable identification. According to New York election law, acceptable ID for this purpose can include non-photo documentation, such as a utility bill, bank statement, government check, or similar document showing their name and address. If the voter presents one of these non-photo documents, they are generally allowed to cast a regular ballot, assuming there are no other issues with their registration. The poll worker checks that the information matches the voter record, and if it aligns, the person receives a standard ballot rather than an affidavit (or provisional) ballot. Let that sink in for a moment: Non-photo identification is used to confirm that someone is who they say they are, and in no way can it truly be used as a visual verification that a photo ID provides, and it certainly doesn’t prove citizenship status. This gap means that, in scenarios where only non-photo documentation is required, there’s an increased reliance on trust in the self-attestation of citizenship during the voter registration process. This is asinine! Fortunately, I did not experience cases like this during my time working at the desk; what I did experience is another issue entirely.

The New York Board of Elections also recognizes IDNYC (New York City Identification Card) as valid identification. Since these government-issued IDs are available regardless of immigration status, this means it's possible for someone to falsely declare U.S. citizenship on their registration form and subsequently present a valid identification. There are no real-time mechanisms to detect non-citizen status immediately on election day. Conjecturally, New Yorkers don't use IDNYC as their primary form of identification. My skepticism about this being a loophole increased on Election Day when I was temporarily positioned as an information clerk. One gentleman approached our desk and presented an IDNYC he had found near the entrance. He remarked, “I just found this; maybe the owner is still here.” Looking at the ID, I realized the name and photo belonged to a Hispanic individual, which made me wonder… this could be an illegal immigrant. There’s no way for me to confirm that. The supposed checks and balances seem ineffective if someone can fill out a voter registration form without a social security number, using a valid ID like IDNYC; this renders the idea of non-citizens voting in New York City entirely conceivable.

Susan mentioned that while we can't request ID, we can confirm a person's identity by comparing their signature with the one on record. This process involves poll workers comparing the voter's signature in the system to the one they signed before obtaining their ballot. When I pointed out that someone could still misrepresent themselves, she replied, "It's perjury to lie; therefore, most people won't do it knowing it's a crime." I found this answer inadequate, as the fear of perjury seems unlikely to prevent wrongdoing, especially given that the initial transgression involves issuing government IDs to non-citizens. While I was assigned to the desk on election day, no poll inspector attempted to verify that the signature matched the one on record. The established protocols weren't even being implemented.

‍

Bipartisan in Name Only

The second concern arose when Susan noted that bipartisan teams—usually consisting of one Democrat and one Republican—are assigned specific tasks at each polling site to maintain transparency and accountability. This bipartisan approach is intended to reduce bias by including members from both major political parties in oversight. My mind began to consider various scenarios. For instance, what happens to registered Independents, like myself, or if there's an overrepresentation of one party? I posed these questions to her, and she replied, “If one party is absent, someone will step in as that honorary party.” In other words, if there aren't enough Republicans, someone—be it a Democrat or an Independent—will take on that role. Does this create a potential loophole for partisan and biased oversight? More of this unfolded during Election Day.

A few weeks after the training, I got an email informing me that I had cleared the open-book exam. Honestly, it's nearly impossible to fail; even someone like Stevie Wonder could pass it. After I chose my availability, I was scheduled to work as a line clerk on election day.

Election Day: A Watchman on the Tower

(Note: this is my experience working at one poll site in New York City. Some sites function slightly differently.)

November 5th, election day is finally here, and we started at 5:00 am sharp. As people rolled in, the site coordinator—the person in charge—began setting people up with tasks to help set up the site and follow the proper procedures for what goes where.

The only concerns on my mind were the two issues raised during training: "How do they establish this bipartisan pair, and are there even enough Republicans?" Before we welcomed our first voters, the site coordinator addressed my question by asking for a show of hands: "How many Republicans do I have?" A few hands went up, and the same inquiry was made for Democrats. The site coordinator, Jan, assigned each pair. Unbeknownst to me, every poll worker at the election desk or scanner wore an ID badge displaying a letter D or R before their name, indicating their party affiliations. However, skepticism remained. To my surprise, I thought, "There couldn't possibly be this many Republicans in such a Democratic stronghold district." The first half of the day was spent as a line clerk, where I could float to different parts of the poll site and engage with every poll worker. As our conversations deepened, many began to open up, leading to increasingly intriguing discussions.

‍

The Republican Masquerade: Uncovering Hidden Affiliations

Meet our first contestant: Christina, a black woman in her mid-50s who has been a poll worker for eight years. She mentioned she has been a Republican since she was 18. When I inquired about her voting plans, she indicated that she would not participate in this election. Despite her admiration for Trump’s policies, she expressed her dislike for him and her desire for a different candidate. I asked her about the D on her badge, to which she replied, “Yes, they have her listed as a Democrat, but she never bothered to change it.” I found this surprising; I wondered why she wouldn’t correct what seemed like a mistake. Throughout our discussion, she seemed to align more with democratic values... Ah, maybe that's why.

Meet our second contestant: Jessica, a white woman in her mid-40s who said she'd been a Republican almost all her life but had begun to shift her views recently. She said, "I learned a lot and grew in my understanding." Although this implies that she may no longer with to identify with the Republican party, she kept her poll worker registration as one because so few republicans work as poll workers. This guaranteed her a position to continue to work as a poll worker.

Meet our third contestant: Joshua, a black man in his mid-40s working as a poll worker for the first time. I only had a little time to converse with him, but I gathered much information from observing what was said in his conversations with people around me. He, too, had an R on his name badge. However, amidst further discussions with a poll worker I befriended, Lilly—a conservative Italian woman who became a poll worker motivated by my same integral ideals—My same integral ideals—she mentioned that he said he deliberately registered as a Republican for his role as a poll worker, despite being a Democrat. This only strengthened my belief that this polling site favored the Democratic Party. I became increasingly confident in my concerns when I helped the site coordinator with a task at day's end, which involved reviewing the lunch break schedule for poll workers. The document contained each worker's name, email, and party affiliation. Throughout the day, I recorded the letters on each person’s badge to cross-check their listed party. BINGO! My suspicions were confirmed; those with an R on their badges were not registered as Republicans.

This raises an important question: why can poll workers claim a party affiliation that differs from their registered party without raising any flags? It’s troubling, and yet many poll workers have been doing this for years. If this is indeed the case, then the concept of ‘setting bipartisan pairs’ is meaningless.

‍

"Thank You for Voting for Our Future President"

Poll workers are trained to operate non-partisan, yet it's hard to believe this is true when 15 or more poll workers are all aligned to one political party. During the periods when I was assigned as a line clerk, I made it my mission to keep a close proximity to the two scanner machines to observe the two scanner inspectors, Christina—whom I mentioned earlier, and Sophia—who also had a badge with a letter R and is a registered Democrat. I witnessed these women helping people with ballots in a manner that did not meet training standards. The protocol to follow in this assigned role is to maintain a stand of 5 feet from the scanner to ensure voters’ privacy and provide verbal assistance on how to enter the ballot into the machine. In any case, where the voter has a problem, you are to look at the screen and avoid looking and touching the voter’s ballot. Throughout my time observing, I noticed them deliberately hovering over voters' shoulders, directly looking, and in many cases, grabbing the voter’s ballots and entering them in the scanner machine.

During the few instances when Lily and I were close enough to eavesdrop on Sophia and Christina’s conversations with voters, one moment particularly stood out. Sophia was engaged in a vibrant dialogue with a voter casting her ballot. I caught her saying, “Thank you for voting for our future president.” Surprised, I leaned over to Lily to check if she had heard the same thing. “Yeah, it’s not the first time I’ve heard her say that.” At various times, she used other phrases implying that the voter had made the right choice; the only way she could know for sure was if she had directly seen a voter’s ballot.

Whether she referred to Trump or Harris in her statement, the essential concern persists: this conduct cannot be tolerated. Nevertheless, given the substantial evidence backing Sophia's affiliation as a registered Democrat, it is evident she was alluding to Harris.

The one excusable reason that appears justifiable to look at a person's ballot is if the voter has made an error that leads to rejection by the machine. In this case, the ballots were declared void, necessitating the voter to return to the desk where they obtained their ballot to get a new one. However, even in these situations, poll workers must maintain a high standard of integrity. If there is a lack of accountability, especially if someone appears to represent an opposing party, the system's integrity begins to deteriorate.

‍

The Affidavit Crisis

Throughout the day, I alternated between two roles: line clerk and election desk worker. A notable issue arose when one of the election desk tables began to run low on affidavit ballots. An experienced poll worker noted, “They have never encountered a situation where they ran out of affidavit ballots.” This prompted her to question the competence of those at the election desk who were responsible for these ballots. Affidavit ballots are special ballots issued for specific reasons. For example, they are given to voters who show up at the wrong polling place but still wish to vote. While polling officials encourage these voters to go to their correct polling location, if a voter insists on voting there, they must be allowed to do so. The only situation where a voter at the wrong polling location should not receive this special ballot is if they insist on voting in the wrong county; for example, a person registered in Queens who attempts to vote in Manhattan will find that their affidavit ballots will not be counted. I cannot speculate too much on why they were low on these ballots; however, it raises the question of whether they might have issued these ballots to ineligible voters at this location. The fact that over 100 ballots were depleted before even reaching the halfway point of the day suggests that they may have been giving these special ballots to individuals who should not have received them.

The issue with ballots in general elections, such as our presidential elections, occurs when someone attempts to vote in an inappropriate location, even if they are within the correct county. Their vote will still count for that district. While this doesn’t significantly change the total vote count statewide, it can create a false impression that a candidate may perform well or poorly in certain districts, which is concerning. I appreciate the New York Board of Elections policy: registered voters who have been inactive for four years are removed from the rolls and must re-register. If a person visits the election desk and their name is marked inactive, they need to complete a new registration before they can vote. They cannot just demand an affidavit ballot, as that ballot would not be counted. During my time at the desk responsible for validating voter information and issuing ballots, I saw this issue firsthand. Many individuals were listed as inactive in the system, leading to disputes about whether we were unfairly obstructing their voting rights.

Additionally, some mistakenly believed they could register and vote at the same time despite never having registered, which is incorrect. Registration must take place at least 30 days before the election. Fortunately, a system is in place to address this, though it still has its limitations.

‍

Conclusion: In the Absence of Action by the Righteous, Wrongdoing

Reflecting on my experience as a poll worker, I recall the meaningful conversations with poll workers that exposed their true emotions and political beliefs. Many assumed I shared their political views, expressing their biases openly; their anti-Trump feelings were evident in their pro-left perspectives, as they hoped for a favorable outcome for Kamala Harris. It would be fascinating to see their reactions now that she has lost.

In the lead-up to Election Day, I didn’t expect to uncover significant voter fraud; my main goal was to gain insight into how our polling sites operate. During the election training session, my trainer Susan’s comment about needing an “honorary Republican or Democrat” if there aren’t enough workers filled me with indignation as I noticed the absence of conservative Christians participating. I thought, ‘WHERE ARE ALL OF THE CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES?!" There should never be a lack of Republicans. Our system shouldn’t allow someone to register as a poll worker with a party affiliation that doesn’t match their voter registration. It’s clear we need more conservatives involved to help shift the balance, and there should be no loopholes allowing individuals to register as poll workers with a different party affiliation.

I often reflect on how many Christians overlook this vital aspect of civic duty. While I was working as an information clerk, a departing voter said, “Thank you for your service; you’re all brave for doing this.” How strange. How laughable. Can we genuinely label this role as ‘brave’? My message to conservatives and Christians is that this does NOT embody bravery. Being a poll worker does not conjure images of heroism against evil, nor does it entail risking one’s life for others; it simply lacks the true courage found in real heroism. Referring to it as "bravery" diminishes the essence of truly heroic deeds. Likewise, avoiding civic responsibilities doesn’t equate to bravery; it merely amounts to shirking accountability.
I’m fed up with Christians and conservatives complaining about the political climate in blue states such as New York, demanding secure elections while disregarding local initiatives that foster righteousness. It’s time to stop the complaining; in the next four years, we should figuratively keep our foot on the accelerator and remain engaged in public matters. If you’re unable to make a positive contribution, please refrain from complaining while others take action.

‍

‍

Written by: Sincere Cardona

For confidentiality, I have changed the names of the individuals involved

‍