Obstruction Of Electoral Count Prosecutions
1. Overview
Obstruction of the electoral count refers to criminal acts intended to delay, disrupt, impede, or prevent the certification of the Electoral College vote in a U.S. presidential election. This typically involves conduct targeting the Joint Session of Congress, held on January 6 following a presidential election, where the electoral votes are formally counted.
Prosecutions in this area have intensified following the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, where hundreds of individuals were charged for their roles in disrupting the certification process.
Relevant Statute:
18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2): Prohibits corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding, including the Electoral Count.
Other associated charges:
Conspiracy to obstruct (18 U.S.C. § 371 or § 1512(k))
Entering restricted buildings (18 U.S.C. § 1752)
Assaulting federal officers (18 U.S.C. § 111)
2. Legal Elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)
To secure a conviction for obstructing the electoral count under § 1512(c)(2), the prosecution must prove:
The defendant attempted to obstruct or impede an official proceeding (i.e., the Electoral Count),
The defendant acted knowingly and corruptly (with wrongful, unlawful intent),
There was a nexus between the act and the official proceeding.
3. Key Prosecutions and Case Law
Case 1: United States v. Jacob Chansley ("QAnon Shaman") – 2021
Facts:
Jacob Chansley entered the U.S. Capitol building on January 6 wearing horned headgear, painted face, and carrying a spear. He led chants and entered the Senate chamber during the Electoral Count.
Charges:
Obstruction of an official proceeding (§ 1512(c)(2)),
Violent entry and disorderly conduct.
Outcome:
Pled guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding. Sentenced to 41 months in prison.
Significance:
First high-profile guilty plea under the obstruction statute related to the Electoral Count.
Case 2: United States v. Guy Reffitt – 2022
Facts:
Reffitt, a member of a Texas militia group, carried a firearm and led rioters up the Capitol steps while making threats against lawmakers.
Charges:
Obstruction of an official proceeding,
Transporting firearms,
Witness tampering (threatened his own children).
Outcome:
Convicted after trial; sentenced to 87 months (over 7 years) in prison.
Significance:
First jury conviction for obstruction of the Electoral Count. Helped establish that violent behavior intended to delay Congress can satisfy § 1512(c)(2).
Case 3: United States v. Paul Hodgkins – 2021
Facts:
Hodgkins entered the Senate chamber during the Capitol breach, carrying a Trump flag and taking selfies. No violence, but disrupted the proceeding.
Charges:
Obstruction of an official proceeding.
Outcome:
Pled guilty and sentenced to 8 months in prison.
Significance:
First felony sentence for a nonviolent offender under § 1512(c)(2). Court noted importance of deterring future threats to democratic processes.
Case 4: United States v. Oath Keepers (Elmer Stewart Rhodes et al.) – 2022
Facts:
Leaders and members of the Oath Keepers extremist group were accused of conspiring to block the Electoral Count using force and organized communications.
Charges:
Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384),
Obstruction of an official proceeding,
Conspiracy to obstruct.
Outcome:
Several defendants, including Rhodes, convicted after trial. Rhodes received 18 years in prison.
Significance:
Landmark prosecution. Demonstrated that organized paramilitary groups intending to disrupt the electoral process face major charges including obstruction and sedition.
Case 5: United States v. Proud Boys (Enrique Tarrio et al.) – 2023
Facts:
Top members of the Proud Boys coordinated actions before and during the Capitol attack to impede the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory.
Charges:
Obstruction of official proceeding,
Seditious conspiracy,
Conspiracy to obstruct.
Outcome:
Tarrio and other leaders convicted. Tarrio sentenced to 22 years, one of the harshest sentences.
Significance:
Solidified that § 1512(c)(2) applies even to those not physically present at the Capitol if they conspire to disrupt proceedings.
Case 6: United States v. Douglas Jensen – 2022
Facts:
Jensen was among the first to breach the Capitol, chasing Officer Eugene Goodman and leading rioters toward Senate chambers.
Charges:
Obstruction of official proceeding,
Assaulting and impeding officers,
Unlawful entry.
Outcome:
Convicted on all counts; sentenced to 60 months in prison.
Significance:
Court emphasized that even without weapons or violence, aggressive participation in disrupting the count justified felony obstruction charges.
4. Summary Table
| Case | Charges | Outcome | Sentence | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Jacob Chansley (2021) | Obstruction of proceeding | Guilty plea | 41 months | High-profile defendant; symbolic case |
| U.S. v. Guy Reffitt (2022) | Obstruction, firearms, witness threats | Conviction after trial | 87 months | First jury trial conviction |
| U.S. v. Paul Hodgkins (2021) | Obstruction only | Guilty plea | 8 months | First felony sentence for nonviolent breach |
| U.S. v. Oath Keepers (2022) | Obstruction, conspiracy, sedition | Multiple convictions | Up to 18 years | Large organized plot; paramilitary ties |
| U.S. v. Proud Boys (2023) | Obstruction, conspiracy, sedition | Multiple convictions | Up to 22 years | Top leadership held responsible |
| U.S. v. Douglas Jensen (2022) | Obstruction, assault | Conviction after trial | 60 months | Early breach leader; officer confrontation |
5. Legal Takeaways
Obstruction of the Electoral Count is treated as obstruction of an official proceeding, a felony with up to 20 years in prison.
Courts have ruled that both violent and nonviolent conduct may qualify under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), depending on the intent and disruption caused.
Defendants don’t need to physically harm others — disrupting proceedings or planning such actions can be enough for conviction.
Conspiracies to obstruct (even if the accused weren’t present in the Capitol) are being charged and upheld.
Sentencing is guided by the severity of disruption, leadership role, and use of violence or threats.
6. Conclusion
The prosecutions arising from the obstruction of the Electoral Count on January 6 have reshaped how § 1512(c)(2) is applied. Courts have affirmed that this provision protects the constitutional process of certifying elections. The cases show that prosecutors have been successful in applying long-standing statutes to unprecedented conduct aimed at undermining U.S. democratic institutions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments