Election denialism trends we’re watching in 2024
Findings from our initial state research
As we head into 2024, with The Big Lie still growing in popularity among Trump supporters, our work to research, analyze, and educate about the local processes of election administration feels more urgent than ever.
Today, we are sharing the initial findings from our research to assess the lay of the land in our 2024 portfolio states: AZ, FL, GA, MI, NC, NV, OH, PA, TX, VA, WI.
Knowing what tactics election deniers have used in the past can help us to anticipate and prepare for what’s to come. Our hope in sharing this preliminary analysis is to raise the flag on these issues early. Then, over the next few months, share more comprehensive research as we dive deeper into each state, better assessing the local officials who administer our elections and identifying any threat concerns. We plan to review meeting minutes and board votes, news reporting, and officials’ social media posts for evidence of election denialism, prior election subversion, political extremism, propagating election misinformation, and support for minority rule.
We’ll share these findings with you early and often to help support corrective action and steps to protect our democracy.
Until then, we’re always open to feedback and collaboration. Don’t hesitate to reach out to info@informingdemocracy.org.
Thank you,
The Informing Democracy Team
P.S. Stay tuned for a very soon-to-come, in-depth legal analysis of election certification processes across all 50 states!
Election Denialism In Action
Local Election Officials Rejecting Outcomes
At the county level, individual election officials voted against certification of the 2022 or 2023 elections in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania without cause. One Nevada Commissioner said he voted against certifying the election because while he believed his county’s election had been fair and free, he did not believe others were. Even though the outcomes were not in question, Georgia board members opposed certifying local election results last year, citing small errors that were corrected by election officials, as well as distrust in voting machines. Local certification, however, is a ministerial duty. There are other mechanisms (review by precinct officials, audits, contests) for dealing with genuine concerns about election accuracy and integrity when they arise. Certification is not the appropriate forum and officials do not generally have the discretion to oppose it.
This year, we’ll be identifying more local officials who’ve already engaged in election denialism, or who research suggests might be sympathetic to its cause.
Candidate Challenges
Last cycle, we saw losing Arizona statewide candidates Kari Lake, Mark Finchem, and Abe Hamadeh each unsuccessfully challenge their election results in court; all three were later sanctioned over baseless cases or misrepresenting facts.
This year, we’ll be watching how these attacks continue, and sharing the process details necessary to debunk them.
Efforts to Thwart Election Process
We’re also tracking organized efforts that try to use the process of elections against itself, to force delays and strain resources, with the intent of undermining confidence in election outcomes. In Pennsylvania, unnecessary requests for recounts delayed the certification process for the 2022 gubernatorial election. Similarly, a citizen group in Michigan forced recounts of Proposals 2 and 3, which each passed with wide margins, just because they could.
This year we are continuing our research of the laws and rules of election administration to identify any vulnerable process points so that we can defend against these efforts.
Undermining the System Itself
Other attacks, prompted by election denialism, are focused on disrupting the system itself. As reported by American Oversight, at least nine states have left ERIC, a nonprofit that helps states compare and clean their voter rolls and is an effective tool to combat any voter fraud. There is a similar movement at the state- and county- level toward hand-counting ballots rather than using machines — which would significantly increase counting errors and take a huge amount of time, contributing to shaken confidence in outcomes.
This year we’ll watch how these trends spread, and continue to call out and analyze how proposed changes to laws, guidance, and processes can either bolster or erode the democratic process.