Fighting back against dangerous election narratives
Plus, our Texas Election Administration Report
One of the goals of the anti-democracy election 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.
2020 was a watershed year for anti-democracy efforts, but in the aftermath of those attempts, election officials in nearly every state Informing Democracy researched worked to make already strong election systems more secure and more transparent. State officials, like Secretaries of State or State Election Boards, have sought to get ahead of potential problems by issuing statements clarifying laws and laying out potential penalties for those who violate them.
Election laws are strong. Election administration officials run elections well. And election processes are designed to counter efforts to undermine them.
With more than 8,000 localities responsible for running our elections, we know there will be a handful of fixable human errors that get outsized attention and become weapons for misinformation about the integrity of the election. This is another trap not to get caught in. To be a responsible voter and citizen, it’s critical to push back against the anti-democracy narratives and stand firmly in confidence with our elections. Don’t allow chaos to create more chaos.
Here’s how to talk responsibly about our elections and fight back against anti-democracy narratives:
Voters will decide the outcome of the election, not election officials.
While our research has identified 300+ election officials with concerning findings in their background, that’s only 11% of all election officials researched. The vast majority of election officials are public servants dedicated to ensuring votes are accurately counted.
Our election administration laws are stronger than ever.
State officials have spent the last few years making the already strong election system more secure and more transparent. State officials are getting ahead of potential problems by issuing clear statements on the law and laying out the penalties for those who violate the law. These statements take into account lessons learned and trends from the 2020 and 2022 elections.
There are robust checks and balances in place to ensure we have accurate, fair, and secure elections.
Human error will happen; that’s inevitable. However, the system is designed to identify and fix those errors in a timely and efficient manner. These errors should not be allowed to become the basis of misinformation about the security of our elections.
Failure to certify is not an option.
Despite promises by some bad-faith actors to vote against certification, most state election codes clearly outline that certification is a required and non-discretionary duty of election officials. Secretaries of State and other Chief Election Officials have been working hard to ensure this is clear to county officials and to deter anti-certification activities.
Those who seek to undermine our elections will be held accountable.
Election law provides mechanisms to ensure the duties required by election administration are undertaken faithfully. Remedies include removal and criminal penalties for those election officials who refuse to do a required duty under the code or who undertake any kind of fraudulent action with regard to counting or reporting vote totals.Counting votes takes time. It’s better to be accurate than fast.
It takes time to adhere to all of the checks and balances we have in place and to follow the procedures determined by state and federal law. Depending on the laws governing vote counting in each state, some localities simply take longer than others to process and count votes. That means that news organizations may not be able to project winners in many races until days later and election administrators won’t announce winners until all votes are counted and official results are finalized. But we believe that every verified vote must be counted, even if we don’t get results on Election Night.
For anticipated vote counting and certification timelines, see our State Election Administration reports, or subscribe to a Google Calendar for each state of key dates.
Perhaps the most important point to end on is this: Efforts to subvert the will of voters or delay certification will fail. Your vote will be counted. We have to trust the process, be patient, and remain confident in the security of our elections. That’s how we fight back against the people who seek to undermine the very foundation of our democracy.
Texas Election Administration Report
To continue to shine a light on the post-vote election administration process — and root out anti-democracy efforts where they exist — today, we are sharing our latest Election Administration Report for Texas, covering key state and county officials, and the canvass and certification processes.
See our Texas Election Administration Report here, including a breakdown of Key Dates for County and State Canvass + Certification here.
Texas law contains several safeguards to ensure the integrity of its election processes, including the Secretary of State’s oversight power to ensure the uniformity of state election administration and the ability to pursue civil action in court to compel election officials to meet their statutorily required election duties.
In contrast to the strong safeguards, the election denial movement in Texas is strong. Texas 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, with a law described as “sweeping legislation that further tightens state election laws and constrains local control of elections.” 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.
Due to the strong current of election denialism in Texas and the nature of election administration in the state, there are potential vulnerabilities to the integrity of processes and officials responsible for administering the elections that must be watched. This includes:
Complexity and Scope of Texas Elections. Texas has more counties than any other state at 254. At the county level, there is significant variation in how counties administer elections and to whom they delegate key election responsibilities, causing confusion over duties.
Delay Tactics: Losing candidates have used the election code's permissive recount provisions and election contest rules in bad faith to drag out their challenges. Election denial activists made other challenges claiming counties’ voting equipment was not properly certified and officials face increased recount petitions, which can strain resources.
Politicization of Election Processes: Texas elections have become increasingly politicized by state lawmakers following the 2020 election. Election deniers in the state legislature have pushed sweeping voting bills to change election law, and some of these changes seem to be motivated by extreme partisanship.
Harris County, the largest county in the state that includes Houston, in particular has been a primary focus of these politically motivated efforts. In 2023, the State Legislature passed a bill that abolished the Harris County Elections Administrator and empowered the Secretary of State to initiate administrative oversight of any county with a population of more than four million if there is evidence that a "recurring pattern of problems with election administration or voter registration exists." Harris is currently the only county in the state that meets this criteria. In a sense, this creates a two-tiered election system. It is also the county with the single largest total of Democratic votes, indicating the clear partisan intent of this law.
You can read more about these potential vulnerabilities in our analysis, found here.
Frequently Asked Questions About Certification
One of the most pressing questions surrounding this election’s post-vote period is certification. Specifically, what happens if counties fail or flat-out refuse to certify?
This post outlines some of the most commonly asked questions about certification:
What is certification (and what is it not)?
Do counties have the authority to refuse to certify the election?
Are there states we should be concerned about certifying the election?
What can we do to prevent the threat of refusing to certify?
Read detailed answers to these questions here:
ICYMI: On Our Radar
Earlier this week, we shared our analysis of our research into 2,600+ election officials and 572 counties across nine key states to identify areas of high risk.
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 this election:
Michigan: 5 counties with high-level concern. Overall, Michigan had the highest findings of outright election denial of any state we researched.
Pennsylvania: 6 counties with high-level concern.
Arizona: 2 counties with high-level concern.
Ohio: 2 counties with high-level concern.
Nevada: 1 county with high-level findings.
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.’
Read more about our research and analysis here:
If you're a reporter with questions about the upcoming elections across any of these states or want to schedule a briefing with your newsroom, please email Ryan Thomas at ryan@zpstrategies.com.