Informing Democracy believes that it is essential that election outcomes reflect the will of the voters, and are not influenced by those running our elections after the votes are cast. To understand the process and practice of vote counting and election certification, we worked to identify laws, rules, and regulations governing our elections and supplemented that material with analysis of prior practice through public records where available. Research into the makeup of these offices and the rules, processes, and timelines throughout this report began with a review of the election code and any formal rules or regulations as well as guidance and directives produced by the Chief Election Officer or responsible state and county offices.
This report is intended to synthesize the information from these sources and provide examples to aid understanding but is NOT a legal document and should not be interpreted to contradict or supersede any advice from your state or local elections officials. Further, this document is being provided for informational purposes only and not as part of an attorney-client relationship. The information is not a substitute for expert legal or other professional advice.
As part of our mission to shine a light on the people and processes of the post-vote period, Informing Democracy conducted public record reviews of local election officials to identify whether any past behavior raises concerns about their commitment to fair vote counting and election certification. Research on these officials included reviews of publicly available information, such as news stories, social media and online footprints, and official records such as meeting minutes and votes. Officials were identified from government sources, including from websites, through record requests, and from election results.
Researchers sought evidence that an individual in a position of trust in election administration was aligned with the election denial movement or otherwise signaled a lack of commitment to the democratic process. These indicators included past attempts to subvert the electoral process, rejecting the results of the 2020 election or belief there is otherwise widespread fraud, or platforming conspiracies about voting and election outcomes. Researchers also looked for indications of support for minority rule, hostility to the rule of law, rejection of democratic norms and civil rights, or overtly threatening or violent political rhetoric.
Informing Democracy categorized these findings based on areas of concern. Categories include election denial, election subversion, election skepticism, election conspiracies, anti-democracy, support for hand counts or baseless audits, or opposition to certification.
Informing Democracy publishes these findings to promote transparency around election administration and highlight officials within localities that could present a concern in administering upcoming elections. Concerning findings do not mean an official will seek to undermine the next election, just as a lack of findings is not a guarantee an official will faithfully execute their duties. This research provides guidance on where attention should be focused to ensure that elections are administered properly according to the law. Notably, research showed that the vast majority of local election officials are dedicated public servants, committed to running free and fair elections.
Research findings are accurate as of the date of publication and are not actively being updated. If you have additional information you’d like to share or any questions about these findings, please reach out to info[at]informingdemocracy[dot]org.