Since our review of the first primaries of the 2026 election cycle, another 15 states voted, and election officials confronted several new security challenges.
In two states, candidates engaged in disorderly and even violent behavior. An already contentious campaign in South Carolina nearly erupted at a polling place. Opposing candidates for state representative found themselves campaigning outside the same polling place. When the incumbent rebuffed the challenger’s offer to shake hands, the challenger’s uncle exchanged words with the incumbent, who got in his vehicle, then allegedly raised a gun and pointed it at the uncle before lifting the barrel to the air and driving off. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) is investigating.
Meanwhile, in Maryland, a government employees’ union official and a state legislator got into an argument outside an early voting center, which turned physical. They knocked over tables and continued to grapple until another legislator intervened.
“I fight hard every day for my constituents,” Delegate April McClain Delaney said. “But as a mom, I’m committed to keeping the peace, and I wasn’t going to just stand there and let a fight escalate at a polling place, the front lines of democracy.”
Both incidents occurred outside voting sites, and poll workers weren’t involved. Still, they underline that campaigning and the no-campaign zone boundaries set in most states can be flashpoints for disorder. Many election offices provide local police and sheriffs with the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections’ Law Enforcement Quick Reference Guides that offer handy summaries of election laws to support no-campaign zone enforcement. Many also conduct de-escalation training for poll workers and staff.
Two incidents on the same night tested the Los Angeles County election office’s incident response reflexes, as described in a recent issue of this newsletter. On the Sunday morning immediately before the June 2 primary, staff of the LA County Registrar-Recorder/ County Clerk discovered broken windows at an early vote center, as well as burned ballots in a drop box at a different location. Investigators don’t believe the vote center incident targeted the election. Staff followed planned procedures for responding to each incident, and, as a result, there was little impact on the election.
Voters in Washington, D.C., faced lines long enough at some sites that they were still waiting 90 minutes after the 8 p.m. closing of polling places, due in large part to ballot on demand printers that ran out of ink at some sites and malfunctioned at others. Board of Elections Director Monica Evans, seeking replacement of some voting machines, warned that “malfunctioning equipment directly erodes public trust.” Unofficial results were delayed because the Board was unwilling to release data until all ballots had been cast.
Another office with delayed unofficial results was in Shasta County, California, where the office of Clerk and Registrar of Voters experienced a late-night power outage. Clerk and Registrar Clint Curtis said that an outdated electrical panel “shut down everything, even the ones on battery backup.”
“We have to start over,” Curtis said. “We’re running an hour behind because we’re haunted.”
As these primary elections continue, the through-line is clear: election offices are being asked to manage not only the mechanics of voting but the unpredictable behavior, equipment failures, and operational disruptions that can surface around it. The incidents in this cycle underscore why every jurisdiction benefits from a well-rehearsed incident response plan that covers physical, operational, and communication processes.
The Situation Room focuses on real security incidents and threats in the news relevant to election security. To review previous issues, see the newsletter archive.