.png)
While many election administrators' responsibilities are ministerial—meaning they are strictly prescribed by law and non-discretionary—other areas within our complex system do involve varying degrees of discretion in the administration of elections. It is important to know who holds this power and how they wield it so they can be supported in their efforts when necessary, held accountable if they act improperly or in bad faith, or recognized for doing good work. It is also our hope that this content may inform news coverage by directing journalists to the appropriate officials to cover because we believe that greater transparency of how our elections are run can lead to greater confidence in election outcomes.
Beyond that, this information is informative. Our federal system makes elections complicated. No one state operates the same. This report gathers toplines and highlights key election administrators at the state and local level. This information allows the readers to more easily draw comparisons between how states structure their electoral systems, and to identify decision-makers and responsible parties.
Additionally, the material presented in the following sections of the 50 State Post-Vote Guide (i.e. local and state canvass and certification, pre-canvassing of mail ballots, and audits) may seem to stand alone. However, the jurisdictional content presented here contextualizes how it all ties together by identifying those responsible for overseeing and implementing these post-election processes.
We hope that this content will help the public, the media, and policy advocates hold key officials responsible by directing accountability to the appropriate individual or government body. While we don't identify any officials by name, we do highlight their offices. Additionally, to showcase how these officials obtain their roles, this guide includes selection methods for chief election officers and state boards of election. It is important to note that not all offices are elected; many are appointed by executive officials, boards, party leaders, etc., or serve that role by virtue of another position they are appointed or elected to.
We can also foresee that this information may be used to inform defenders of democracy of possible threats from election deniers and bad-faith actors to key decision makers, or even worse, what officials themselves could be susceptible to buying into those false narratives. By understanding who the key decision makers are, we can work to ensure that only those who are committed to free and fair elections are occupying the positions of power over our elections.
Under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, state governments are largely responsible for the administration of our elections. [1] The statutory framework of state elections is set by state legislatures. Under this example of federalism, states have significant latitude to set election policy. This has led to great variation in how states organize and administer their election and was a core motivation behind 50 State Post-Vote Guide.
Some states have adopted a centralized system, with a strong state administrative body ensuring uniformity across localities (e.g. North Carolina), while others have opted for a decentralized system, providing local officials greater discretion to choose policies that meet unique local needs (e.g. Pennsylvania).
This framework means that it can be challenging to draw easy comparisons between how states administer elections. However, in this report, we have attempted to gather topline data to be able to more easily see trends across state policy, as well as outliers or exceptions. There are also some federally mandated standards, such as those prescribed by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1992 and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. This has led to increased uniformity in administrative procedures, particularly around voter registration, record keeping, and election equipment.
Since 1992, under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), each state is required to designate a "Chief Election Officer." Under NVRA, this Chief Election Officer is responsible for coordination with the federal government of the state's responsibilities. 52 U.S. Code § 21003(e). In practice, this officer is responsible for administering and overseeing elections statewide and providing support to local election officials.
As is covered below, this Chief Election Officer often also has the power to promulgate election rules and regulations. Our 50 State Post-Vote Guide highlights which officials act as the Chief Election Officer and how they are selected in all 50 states. See data involving Chief Election Officers below.
In the vast majority of states (37 total), the Chief Election Officer is the Secretary of State. Of the Secretaries of States, all but six [2] are elected. Typically, Secretaries of State hold other responsibilities such as handling company registrations, granting professional licenses, etc., in addition to their election duties.
In two states, Alaska and Utah, the Lieutenant Governor is the Chief Election Officer, and in both states, the position is elected.
In eight states [3], the Chief Election Officer is a Dedicated Election Bureaucrat, meaning that they do not have non-election-related duties and are appointed to head a state elections office or department. Oklahoma is unique among these states in that the Secretary of the Senate holds this position ex officio and is also the administrative officer of the State Election Board, but is not a member of the board.
In three states, Illinois, New York, and North Carolina, the State Board of Elections or its chair, fulfills the role of Chief Election Officer. These positions are all appointed.
Two-thirds, or 33 states (see appendix), have voters directly elect their Chief Election Officers, either the Secretary of State or the Lieutenant Governor. The remaining third, or 17 states, have the state executive or legislative branch appoint the Chief Election Officer.