<aside> ‼️ Please Note: We share this information with the hope that it aids pro-democracy activists by highlighting specific process points to monitor for any subversive efforts. Due to the sensitivity of this information and the potential for it to be exploited by bad actors, this page and the links within it should not be shared outside of the pro-democracy community.
If you have any questions or feedback on these identified vulnerabilities, please contact us at info[@]informingdemocracy[dot]org.
</aside>
Florida elections are designed to be administered in a secure, methodical, and structured way. Nevertheless, we remain concerned by the potential that unknown bad actors may still attempt to abuse certain legitimate components of the post-vote process to sow chaos and exploit uncertainty for their own means.
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. At the county level, day-to-day election administration is primarily overseen by the Supervisor of Elections with the County Canvassing Commission — which typically includes the Supervisor of Elections — providing oversight and final decision-making authority with regards to most counting, canvassing, and certification activities. However, this year, Supervisors of Elections are up for re-election and so those who have a contested election are disqualified from serving on the Board and instead the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners must appoint a substitute from that Board as a replacement member to serve in their place. At the State level, in addition to the Secretary of State’s role as the chief election officer, there is also an Elections Canvassing Commission — made up of members of the Governor’s cabinet, which is responsible for the state canvass and certification.
Notably in Florida, pre-processing may start relatively early, allowing counties to review, canvass, and tabulate vote-by-mail ballots as they are received. However, counties are not required to do so before Election Day. Also interesting is that Florida has a number of intermediary deadlines where the County Canvassing Board must provide unofficial results to the Department of State before the canvass is finalized. It is not abnormal for states to have some version of this requirement on election night or shortly thereafter. However, in Florida the first deadline for unofficial results is not until four days after Election Day, and should there be a recount, there is then a second deadline for submitting unofficial results before the canvass and final certification of those results. There is also a provision that permits the correction of certified results up to five days after the state certification by the Elections Canvassing Commission.
Our research into Florida’s counting and certification processes, however, has identified vulnerabilities that bad actors may attempt to weaponize to undermine confidence in the election. These include the continued promotion of election denialism and election skepticism, possible attempts to delay or disrupt certification, an increase in the number of challenges issued and a corresponding increase in the number of provisional ballots used, attempts to delay the finalizing of results via contests or observer challenges, and the potential exploitation of open questions of law in the audit and certification process.
The vast majority of Florida’s election administrators are dedicated public servants who have sought to make sure no voter is disenfranchised. However, of Florida’s 234 Supervisors of Elections, County Canvassing Board members, and State Attorneys whose news appearances, social media, and votes were reviewed, research identified concerning findings in the backgrounds of 16 officials, or roughly 7%. Of these officials, four publicly questioned the results of the 2020 election or repeated claims of widespread fraud throughout our electoral system. Another six expressed skepticism of election results, while seven spread election-related conspiracy theories on social media.
Research identified four County Canvassing Board members, across four counties, who publicly questioned the results of the 2020 election or perpetuated claims of widespread fraud throughout our electoral system, undermining election outcomes. This election denial ranged from sharing conspiracy theories about fake ballots being counted to outright claims the election was stolen or rigged. For example, Holmes County Commissioner and Canvassing Board member Brandon Newsom posted an election denial meme stating, “gas prices shooting up faster than a Biden vote count at 2am.” Similarly, in December 2020 Glade County Commissioner and Canvassing Board member Hattie Taylor posted a TikTok video of herself praising Donald Trump, captioning the video “#DontGiveUp #ItAintOver.” Manatee County Supervisor of Elections James Satcher, in addition to spreading election denial claims, repeatedly retweeted content calling on senators to “OBJECT To This Fraudulent Election” in the days leading up to January 6, 2021. Satcher also reposted a Tweet stating, “All right, libs. We see your ‘15 days to slow the spread,’ and we raise you ‘10 days to slow the certification.'” It should be noted that Satcher will not be sitting on the Manatee County Canvassing Board for the November 2024 election, although he will still be serving the elections in an advisory role.
An additional six County Canvassing Board members expressed skepticism regarding election outcomes or election processes without cause, while not outright denying the results of the 2020 election. For example, Baker County Supervisor of Elections Chris Milton declared, “I can’t control what happens elsewhere, but I will diligently work to maintain the trust of Baker County voters that their votes are accurately counted here and that our elections are accessible to every registered voter. The bottom line is we’ve been doing it right and we are going to continue to do it right in Baker County.” Citrus County’s Rebecca Bays similarly believed in irregularities in the 2020 election, even as she denied that the election was outright “stolen.”
Research did not surface any past incidences of current County Canvassing Board members refusing to certify in Florida. Nonetheless, given the increasing use of this tactic among election deniers and anti-democracy actors across the country, it is worth continuing to monitor for the potential of opposition to certification, particularly in counties with active election deniers and those expressing election skepticism.
In Florida, County Canvassing Boards have a clear, non-discretionary duty to certify election results and should Florida face votes against certification, or attempts to delay the process this cycle, there are a number of protections in the system that would minimize the impact and ensure that certification is ultimately completed in a timely manner. For example, the Department of State can use the unofficial returns submitted by counties a week before the certification deadline to certify results on behalf of the county if the county does not certify its official returns by the deadline. Fla. Stat. § 102.112(3). Additionally, should it be necessary, both the Secretary of State and Governor have the power to sue for injunctive relief to force certification and the Governor has the power to remove officials who fail to do their job via executive action. Fla. Stat. § 97.012(14)(b); Fla. Const. Art. IV, § 1(b); Fla. Const. Art. IV, § 7(a). Additionally, criminal and civil penalties may also apply should an official refuse to do their duty and certify. Fla. Stat. § 104.051(2). See Legal Protections for Canvass and Certification for more information.
Should election deniers or anti-democratic actors be further motivated to undermine elections in the state, there is one power of the Elections Canvassing Commission that they might attempt to exploit to insert their will over that of the voters. Florida statute states that should the Commission come across returns that “appear to be [so] irregular or false” that the Commission is “unable to determine the true vote for any office,” then the Commission “shall not include the [irregular or false] returns in its determination, canvass, and declaration.” Fla. Stat. § 102.131. Therefore, should the Elections Canvassing Commission be made up of a majority of bad actors, it is possible they could attempt to use this provision along with false “evidence” of some kind to exclude valid returns.
There are, however, other statutory provisions that limit the likelihood of this kind of fraud. Most notably, the Elections Canvassing Commission can only look as far as the county returns in “determining the true vote…” Fla. Stat. § 102.131. Note, nothing publicly suggests there is reason to suspect this kind of activity from the current Elections Canvassing Commission. Additionally, based on the most recent two meetings of the Elections Canvassing Commission in a presidential election year, the certification meeting has been very quick and pro forma, making this a very remote and unlikely concern at this time.