Swing state officials prepare for potential disruptions around December electors meetings

The final votes of the presidential election have yet to be cast, but concern is already swirling among state election officials that a close outcome could fuel chaos during the routine events that follow a campaign.

In the weeks following Election Day, results will be certified by state officials, recounts may occur and electors will meet in each state to formally cast their Electoral College votes. Those votes later get sent to Washington, D.C., where lawmakers are scheduled to formally count those results during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2025. 

These meetings in states, outlined by federal statute and specified by state laws, statutes or constitutions, will occur on Dec. 17. The violence of Jan. 6, 2021 — as well as the growing expectation that former President Donald Trump may not accept the election results if he loses to Vice President Kamala Harris — has prompted federal officials to beef up security in the nation’s capital for the same occasion this time around. Specifically, concerns abound that the possible submission of alternate slates of electors could manifest as unrest ahead of and during these meetings.

Officials in battleground states — whose Capitols will, in most cases, host the December meetings of electors — are beginning to plan for such contingencies as well, in preparation that these events could be disrupted.

“We are not going into this naively,” Elaine Marshall, the secretary of state in North Carolina and a Democrat, said in an interview.

“I don’t think anybody needs to go through this election naively, having watched Jan. 6, having watched what happened, listening, now, to news reports of people who are attempting to disrupt the actual voting,” she added. “I don’t think anybody needs to be real naive about what the possibilities are — because sometimes desperate people do desperate things.”

In interviews, officials in the most hotly contested states said that in large part, when it comes to the security of the meeting of their electors, they were planning for the worst but hoping for the best. There haven’t been any public reports around explicit threats aimed at those meetings, and officials declined to discuss whether they’d received any.

Officials were largely hesitant about offering specific details, due to the sensitivity of the matter and the fluidity of their plans. But many said they’d already begun amassing security protocols with the help of local, state and federal law enforcement officials, while also referring to statutory language, in some cases, regarding the venue of that meeting as evidence that it could be changed without breaking any laws or statutes.

Some officials pointed to Colorado as a strong example of planning for potential chaos surrounding the electors meeting. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, lobbied successfully to amend state statutes so that the venue for electors' meeting could be changed if the governor deemed it “not feasible” to meet in the Capitol. 

But with that not statutorily an option in the seven core presidential battleground states, here is what officials in those states are planning for potentially messy meetings of their electors.

Arizona

In Arizona, as is explicitly required in most states, electors must meet on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December (Dec. 17 this year) to cast votes for president and vice president, but state statute doesn’t explicitly state that the meeting must occur at the state Capitol. 

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said that officials were in the process of making plans that would ensure that the meeting occurs “in a space where the electors will have the facilities they need to get the job done right.”

“We’ve got all of the plans for executing these duties squared away,” Fontes, a Democrat, said in an interview.

Fontes said his office and other officials had been in regular touch with law enforcement officials at various levels, but wasn’t free to discuss safety or security protocols.  

“We will conduct any legal activities that are necessary for the electors to proceed to represent Arizona appropriately, as we see fit at the time, given the circumstances that best fit their needs,” he said.

“It’s like we used to say in the Marine Corps: Semper Gumby — we’re always flexible. We understand that certain circumstances may require variations on what the law prescribes, particularly when the possibility exists that there may be safety issues,” he said.

Georgia

In Georgia, state law mandates that electors “shall” meet at the state Capitol, and elections officials there are making sure they will.

“There’s no alternate venue being considered,” Mike Hassinger, a spokesperson for Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said in an email.

Hassinger said that officials hadn’t yet requested additional security for the meeting and would do so “only if necessary,” adding that the existing security around the complex “is always pretty tight.”

He pointed to the presence of the Capitol Police, Georgia State Patrol officers, an existing security fence and other measures, including the issuance of a security badge with a button to employees inside the complex that will alert and summon the Capitol Police to their exact location in the event of an emergency. 

Michigan

In Michigan, state law requires electors to meet this year on Dec. 17 in the state Capitol’s Senate chamber. State officials indicated there was no leeway to change that.

“I don’t think there’s any room for that to be changed,” Angela Benander, a spokesperson for Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said in an interview. Benander said that Benson’s office was working closely with the office of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, as well as the Michigan State Police, who would both play a prominent role in any final determinations regarding security.

Responding to questions about potential contingencies regarding the meeting of electors, Stacey LaRouche, a spokesperson for Whitmer, said in a statement that Whitmer “is committed to protecting Michiganders’ right to vote and ensuring every ballot is cast and counted” and that, “as we’ve done in every prior election, Michigan will follow state and federal requirements” during the certification process and electors meeting.

Michigan State Police spokesperson Michael Shaw said in an email that, “in order to keep our security protocols secure, we do not publicly discuss security measures at the capitol.”

Nevada

In Nevada, the law is more broad about when, how and where the meeting of electors occurs, and state officials remain in the process of finalizing details. Officials are considering both in-person and virtual meetings for the event.

“We’re more flexible than some other states. There isn’t a designated space where our electors need to meet. We can do it virtually, if we so choose,” Cecilia Heston, a spokesperson for Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, said in an interview.  She said the plan “has not yet been 100% finalized on location.”

North Carolina

In North Carolina, the state Board of Elections handles all matters related to voting. But it is Marshall’s secretary of state office that handles all matters related to the electors.

Per state law, the electors meet in the state House chamber of the state Capitol on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December (Dec. 17).

“It’s by law at the House of Representatives. I cannot change it. There’s no emergency power that I would have to change it,” Marshall said, adding, however, that her office was already coordinating with local, state and federal law enforcement officials, and had even given those officials several walk-throughs of the state Capitol complex “to make sure that their command controls know what the lay of the land is.”

“A time of disaster is not the time to first meet your partner,” she said.

“Four years ago, when people were wanting electors to do differently, there was a bit of a scare — so we actually had a warmup,” she said, referring to 2020. Her office, she said, was “very carefully getting with our partners early, laying out plans.”

She said her staff had prepared for “all contingencies” for “quite some time” — and had made an array of “other plans” in the event of multiple crises.

Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania, state law governs that the electors must meet “at the seat of government of this Commonwealth” — the Capitol — at noon on Dec. 17

State officials wouldn’t comment specifically on what contingency plans were under consideration in the event of security issues surrounding the event.

“The Department of State and Shapiro Administration will take whatever steps necessary to ensure the security of the electoral college,” Amy Gulli, a spokesperson for Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt, a Republican, said in an email. 

“The Pennsylvania Department of State takes very seriously the safety and security of our election workers and the public, which remains a top priority of the Shapiro Administration. The Department is confident that the electors will be able to convene and discharge their obligations securely and in accordance with all legal requirements,” she added. 

Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, state law requires that electors meet at the state Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December at noon (Dec. 16) — though in practice lawmakers comply with the federal statute dictating that they meet on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December (Dec. 17).

Spokespersons for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski and Gov. Tony Evers (both Democrats), didn’t respond to questions about whether and what contingency plans were under consideration for the event.