US election observer charged with felony after refusing to wear mask during Nov. presidential count

A Stand for Principle: The Case of Timothy Hazelo

In a dramatic turn of events during the November presidential election, Timothy Hazelo, a Republican observer from Oak Harbor, Washington, found himself at the center of a contentious debate over personal freedom, public health, and the limits of governmental authority. Hazelo, a 57-year-old election observer, was charged with a felony for unauthorized access to a voting center after he refused to wear a mask in the ballot-counting room. The incident, which began as a quiet act of defiance, has sparked a broader conversation about the role of individual conscience and the legality of mask mandates in public spaces. For Hazelo, the issue was not about the mask itself but about what he believes is an overreach of authority by local officials.

Hazelo’s Perspective: A Matter of Principle

From Hazelo’s standpoint, the mask mandate imposed by Island County Auditor Sheila Crider was an unlawful overstep. When he arrived at the counting room, signs were posted indicating that masks were required, and masks were even offered to those who didn’t have one. Hazelo, however, refused to comply, arguing that the auditor had no legal right to enforce such a mandate. For him, the matter was about accountability and the limits of political power. “We have to stand up when we believe something is wrong,” he told KOMO News, framing his decision as a principled stance rather than an act of rebellion.

As Hazelo went about his duties as an observer, the tension between him and the masked workers counting ballots around him grew. Eventually, someone called the police, and Hazelo was given an ultimatum: wear a mask or leave. He chose the latter, but the situation escalated further. Body-cam footage from the incident shows Hazelo leaving the premises, though his parting words—“I know who you are”—were interpreted by an election worker as a veiled threat. While Hazelo maintained that he was simply trying to make a point about the auditor’s authority, the worker felt uneasy, and the police ultimately charged him with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Months later, the charge was upgraded to a felony for unauthorized access to a voting center.

The Legal Battle: A Question of Authority

Hazelo’s refusal to back down has turned his case into a legal battleground. At the heart of the issue is whether Auditor Sheila Crider had the legal authority to impose a mask mandate in the first place. Hazelo believes she did not, arguing that while masks might be recommended, a mandate crosses a constitutional line. “They can say, ‘Look, it’s highly recommended that if you feel sick, or you don’t feel safe, or you’re worried, we highly recommend you wear this mask,’” he said. “A mandate goes too far.”

For her part, Crider has defended her decision as a necessary measure to protect election staff, citing a COVID outbreak during the August primary. She also pointed out that an “unmasked” area was designated outside the counting room for observers like Hazelo who chose not to wear one. However, Hazelo and his supporters argue that such measures should not be imposed unilaterally by a single official without clear legal backing. Washington State Republican Party Chair Jim Walsh has publicly agreed with Hazelo’s stance, saying that the auditor overstepped her authority.

The Wider Implications: A Debate for the Courts to Decide

The case of Timothy Hazelo has implications that extend far beyond the counting room in Island County. It touches on fundamental questions about individual rights, public health, and the role of government in times of crisis. While some may view Hazelo’s refusal to wear a mask as an act of defiance or even selfishness, he sees it as a necessary stand to ensure that elected officials remain accountable to the people they serve. “What it has to do with is at what point is a politician accountable for their decisions? What decisions can they make and can they not make at their level,” he said, emphasizing that his fight is not about masks but about the principle of lawful governance.

Hazelo’s case is now in the hands of the courts, which will ultimately decide whether the auditor’s mask mandate was lawful and whether Hazelo’s actions justify the felony charge against him. Regardless of the outcome, the incident has already sparked a wider debate about the balance between public health measures and individual freedoms. As the legal process unfolds, many are watching closely to see how this case will influence similar disputes in the future. For Hazelo, the outcome is less about personal vindication and more about ensuring that the rule of law remains intact.

Conclusion: A Test of Principle and Law

Timothy Hazelo’s refusal to wear a mask during the November election count began as a quiet act of defiance but has since evolved into a high-stakes legal battle with far-reaching implications. For Hazelo, the issue is not about the mask itself but about the broader principle of accountability and the limits of governmental authority. Whether one agrees with his stance or not, his case raises important questions about how to balance public health concerns with individual freedoms and the rule of law. As the courts weigh in on the matter, Hazelo’s fight will serve as a test case for how such disputes are resolved in the years to come.