Informing Democracy

Our Post-Vote Tracker is now live! Our hope is this Tracker can be a source of ground truth through the post-vote period — noting where things are progressing as expected, or where there is deviation from the expected norm or timeline. The Tracker provides both a top-level overview of the counting and certification progress in each key state, as well as the opportunity to dive deeper into each state to see the latest updates — or any concerns — as they take place. (Just click on the state name and hit “open” for a detailed state update.) We’ll update the tracker twice a day and as critical steps take place. Don’t hesitate to reach out with questions, we’re here to help. https://lnkd.in/eangkjj5

Today, we are sharing the second in our “On Our Radar” series, outlining the Cross-State and State-Specific Vulnerabilities we’re monitoring in the post-vote period. This coming counting and certification processes, we are monitoring the areas where officials — often driven by partisan motivations — might exploit loopholes within state law to create delays or disruption within the process of counting and certification. These potential vulnerabilities are especially of note in counties where there are election officials who have shown concerning anti-democracy activity. Though just a small number of election officials have been identified as being election deniers or exhibiting anti-democracy behavior — 300 from the +2,600 election officials we researched —these actors have an outsized impact on the overall narrative of this election, as well as the threat posed to election administration. And that is their goal. While we firmly believe all votes will be counted, the election certified, and the results reflective of the will of the voters, we are close watch on these flashpoints as indicators of potential attempts to create havoc in the post-vote period. Cross-State Themes include:  --> Election Administrators Acting Outside of the Law on Certification --> Exploitable Loopholes in Election Law --> The Role of Outside Agitators --> The Power of Misinformation See our latest report for state-specific vulnerabilities, including process points like illegal calls for hang counting of ballots, delays to the processing of ballots, burdensome recount requisitions, the threat of deadlocked county election boards, and more. https://lnkd.in/gpah2kBk

As with many of the states we’ve covered, Florida elections are designed to be administered in a secure, methodical, and structured manner. There are clear statutes and regulations governing the administration of elections in Florida, and the Secretary of State through the Department of State issues additional guidance to ensure election laws are uniformly applied throughout the state. Given the strength of Florida’s election procedures, the greatest threat facing Florida’s election is from those bad actors who seek to sow chaos and exploit uncertainty for their own means. In reviewing Florida’s Supervisors of Elections, County Canvassing Board members, and State Attorneys, we identified 16 officials with concerning findings in their background — about 7 percent. National or in-state election deniers did not target Florida following the 2020 elections, which likely contributes to the relatively low concerning findings in the state. For that reason, we’ll continue to monitor potential vulnerabilities related to election denial and election skepticism. And while there are no past incidences of current members of County Canvassing Boards refusing to certify, given the increasing use of this tactic among election deniers and anti-democracy actors across the country, it is worth continuing to monitor for potential opposition to certification. This year, we’re also watching for a possible increase in provisional ballots. This will be the first presidential election since Florida enacted legislation that expanded both the scope and depth of poll observer access. Therefore, we have some concerns that utilization of this new access may result in an increase in challenges both at polling locations and to vote-by-mail ballots, increasing the use of provisional ballots. You can read about the processes and personnel involved in Florida’s election administration, as well as the vulnerabilities we are tracking in our latest report: https://lnkd.in/gj2jPHap

The election denial movement in Texas is strong. Attorney General Ken Paxton helped further President Trump’s false "stolen election" claims, suing to overturn the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—a case rejected by the Supreme Court. And in 2021, Governor Greg Abbott made “election integrity” one of his emergency items for the state legislature to address. While Texas does have several safeguards to ensure the integrity of its election processes, Texas’ elections and election-denying officials will need to be closely watched to ensure that 2024’s elections are run freely and fairly, and decided by the voters. The potential vulnerabilities to the integrity of processes and officials responsible for administering the elections that must be watched include:  ➖ The complexity and scope of Texas elections ➖ The potential use of delay tactics ➖ And the politicization of election processes You can read more more about the vote counting and certification in our newly-released report, as well as learn more about these potential vulnerabilities. https://lnkd.in/e5fRY_WH

One of the goals of the anti-democracy electron movement is to foment doubt about our election systems, to dismantle the faith in election administration, and to create distrust of our (mostly) dedicated public election officials. And it’s easy to fall into the trap of this narrative. Even arguing about the security of our elections is arguing on their terms. Our latest post breaks down how to responsibly talk about our elections and fight back against anti-democracy narratives: 👉 Voters will decide the outcome of the election, not election officials.  👉 Our election administration laws are stronger than ever. 👉 There are robust checks and balances in place to ensure we have accurate, fair, and secure elections.  👉 Failure to certify is not an option. 👉 Those who seek to undermine our elections will be held accountable.  👉 Counting votes takes time. It’s better to be accurate than fast 👉 Efforts to subvert the will of voters or delay certification will fail. Read more on how best to talk about anti-democracy efforts and the security of our elections: https://lnkd.in/e7WdxTdA

It’s no secret that anti-democracy extremists are working to undermine not just confidence in our elections, but elections themselves. Part of ensuring those efforts fail is knowing where they might take shape. Today, we’re sharing our analysis of our research into 2,600+ election officials and 572 counties across nine key states to identify areas of high risk this election. The good news to report is that we found the vast majority of election officials to be dedicated, law-abiding public servants. What we found most concerning, however, wasn’t the breadth of the election denial movement across the country — with 300+ officials with notable anti-democracy findings — but the concentration of officials in key counties who’ve embraced election denialism or otherwise acted against free and fair elections.  While any one election official can attempt to adversely affect proper election administration, the most susceptible localities for delay or disruption are those where these officials have the voting numbers on their local election body to force (or prevent) official action. It’s important to note that the concerns raised in research findings do not indicate that an official will interfere in the 2024 election. These concerns are intended to help focus monitoring efforts where the research shows the potential for interference is greatest.     Of the 572 counties we researched, we found 16 counties of high concern, where election deniers and election subverters have the votes to force action (or inaction), which should be closely watched in this election. Along with the high-threat counties, our research also identified 110 counties where at least one official embraced election denialism or previously attempted to interfere with an election, or there are multiple officials with concerning findings that fall short of outright election denial. There are 20 counties noted where officials who previously delayed or refused certification remain in their positions. Our report provides a national overview of these counties, as well as a state-by-state breakdown of counties of concern. You can also view our complete Election Official Research Database, which has findings on 2,600+ election officials across nine states. With so much focus on the actions of election officials, it’s easy to forget that elections are decided by the voters. That will be the case in this election too. We offer this research as a means for ensuring that outcome. Our hope in sharing these findings and underlying research is to support corrective action where it is needed most to maximize the resources of our pro-democracy partners. https://lnkd.in/d6sHJz3r

Today, we’re sharing an update to our 2023 Virginia Election Administration report. Election administration in Virginia is largely well-run, with detailed and regulated statutes at the city, county, and state levels. The statutes and regulations put in place by the State Board of Elections leave limited discretion in the hands of local Electoral Boards, General Registrars, and election staff. Additionally, there are strong protections in Virginia law, including the power of the State Board to remove local officials for a failure to discharge their duties. This makes it unlikely that even election deniers or subverters serving in an official role could fully undermine a Virginia election. Therefore, election-denying officials will need to be closely watched to ensure that any bad actors do not undermine the will of Virginia’s voters. This update of our 2023 report identifies potential vulnerabilities to monitor, including:  ➖ Anti-democracy activity among election administrators  ➖ The power of the State Board of Elections ➖ Concerns regarding efforts to block or slow down certification or state canvass ➖ Variations in local practice for processes like absentee ballot processing You can read a full analysis of these potential concerns, as well as dive into the database of the election officials researched in 2023 to identify potential threats to free and fair elections. You can also track a timeline of post-vote processes. https://lnkd.in/etn9r_Yb

Before diving into North Carolina’s Election Administration report, we want to take a moment to say that our thoughts are with the North Carolinians who are still working through the response and recovery to Hurricane Helene. We know what a physically taxing and emotionally draining experience this is for everyone in western North Carolina. We’ll continue to monitor any changes brought on by Helene’s impact on post-vote administration and update our research materials as necessary. As always, our team is available to help support you with any questions you might have; don’t hesitate to reach out. Keeping North Carolina in our hearts. . . . The administration of elections in North Carolina falls under the oversight of the State Board of Elections, which has decision-making authority on election processes. However, underlying executive control sits with the Governor, who has the power to appoint the State Board of Elections, as well as the chair of each County Board of Elections. Were the governorship to be held by an anti-democracy actor, this could have drastic ramifications in all areas of election administration. This report provides a detailed look at the vote counting and certification processes that govern North Carolina’s elections. This reporting and analysis is intended to build confidence in our election system, and in shining a light on potential vulnerabilities, allow pro-democracy advocates and partners to monitor elections, target corrective action, and, in turn, protect the integrity of our elections. In this report you will find:  --> Details about each step in the post-vote process, including tabulation, canvassing, and certification. --> An expected timeline for post-vote processes like tabulation and certification. --> A library cataloging 498 North Carolina election officials, as well as a full analysis of our research findings. --> An overview of potential vulnerabilities, including the central role of the executive in North Carolina’s elections. We’re also tracking the potential of delay tactics from contests, protests, and recounts, that could unduly delay the results of the election, though we are confident that current protections in the system can stand up to these subversion attempts. https://lnkd.in/ej7Q2zn7

Ohio is home to some of the most vocal election deniers in the country at the federal level, helping fuel the nationwide movement to undermine faith in our elections (see: Jim Jordan and JD Vance). At the state level, while some state officials have shown a willingness to cave to pressure from election deniers, most of Ohio’s election administrators are dedicated public servants. State election law in Ohio is strong — state statute clearly outlines election processes, and the Secretary of State issues additional binding directives. For that reason, where there are vulnerabilities, they are created and sustained by bad-faith actors attempting to circumvent the law. Our latest election administration report breaks down: -- Post-vote processes, like tabulation and certification -- The offices and officials involved in post-vote election administration -- A timeline of these processes, including key deadlines -- An extensive research library examining 528 County Board of Elections members, Directors, and Deputy Directors to identify officials who could pose a threat to free and fair elections. https://lnkd.in/eCUNEm9m

Michigan’s elections administration is one of the most decentralized systems in the country, with elections administered by 1,603 county and local election officials. While the decentralized nature of Michigan’s election administration isn’t inherently problematic, it does present more opportunities for bad-faith actors to intervene in the process. And the election denial movement in MI is anything but decentralized. These groups are well-coordinated, pushing for recounts and audits, as well as undermining the integrity of the state’s election system with claims of fraud. There’s also widespread election denial among election officials which is increasing concerns that officials will attempt to refuse to carry out their responsibilities to certify the election results.  And with an evenly split partisan composition of the Board of State Canvassers, a deadlock vote could delay the certification process in the state. Our latest report on Michigan dives into these findings, as well as: - A timeline for the post-vote processes, including vote counting and election certification, with different customizable view options. - A library of research on election personnel focusing on whether they may pose a threat to election administration, with supporting evidence. - An overview of the 13 counties of concern that are of note due to the willingness of officials to subvert election administration or entertain and potentially act on conspiracy theories. - A critical analysis of potential vulnerabilities in Michigan’s election administration. Check out the full report here: https://lnkd.in/e6dkuKzs