On Our Radar: Post-Vote Inflection Points
Plus, our Florida 2024 Election Administration Report
As we round the corner into the homestretch of this election, we’re sharing a final set of resources to support your work in the post-vote period (and stay tuned on Monday for the launch of our Post-Vote Status Tracker!)
First up, we have the second installment of our “On The Radar” series. Last week, we shared the Counties of Concern that we’re watching, noting the 16 potential high-risk counties to keep on the radar. Today, we’re sharing the potential flashpoints for election administration in each key state, as well as common themes we’re monitoring across states. See more below (and here).
Then, we have our final 2024 Election Administration report, rounding out our coverage with the great state of Florida. Given the strength of Florida’s election procedures, the greatest threat to elections in the state is those people who want to create confusion and chaos. Read more below.
We’ll be back early next week with our Post-Vote Status Track, plus what to expect over the first few days of the post-vote period.
On Our Radar: Cross-State and State-Specific Vulnerabilities
The election denial movement is more organized and more sophisticated than in 2020. Though just a small number of election officials have been identified as being election deniers or exhibiting anti-democracy behavior — 300 from the +2,600 election officials we researched — these actors have an outsized impact on the overall narrative of this election, as well as the threat posed to election administration. And that is their goal. They want to sow doubt. They want to create an atmosphere where mis- and disinformation can take hold. They are willing to disenfranchise voters for their preferred outcome.
As we look ahead to the counting and certification processes, we are monitoring the areas where officials — often driven by partisan motivations — might exploit loopholes within state law to create delays or disruption within the process of counting and certification. These potential vulnerabilities are especially of note in counties where there are election officials who have shown concerning anti-democracy activity.
While we firmly believe all votes will be counted, the election certified, and the results reflective of the will of the voters, we are closely watching these flashpoints as indicators of potential attempts to create havoc in the post-vote period.
See the full report here.
Cross-State Themes
Across states, we are monitoring the following overarching themes:
Election Administrators Acting Outside of the Law on Certification (and Other Duties): Delaying or refusing to certify is a tactic that’s been tested in states since 2022. We are confident more actors will test this action in this post-vote period. It’s important to remember, failure to certify the election is not an option.
Exploitable Loopholes in Election Law: Almost more concerning than officials acting outside of the law is the potential for election offices to exploit loopholes within election law. Election admin could try to delay the process around recounts, audits, protests, and contests to undermine confidence in outcomes.
The Role of Outside Agitators: Perhaps hardest to predict is the role of outside agitators to disrupt elections. We’ve already seen ballots burned in several states. There are reports of non-election admin inserting themselves into the post-vote process. And the threat of mass organized protest looms large.
The Power of Misinformation: Anti-democracy actors want to create the ground where mis- and disinformation can thrive. Human error is bound to happen in systems run by thousands of people and involving hundreds of millions of voters. But our election laws are designed to mitigate these errors as they arise. That won’t stop anti-democracy actors from trying to exploit these cases to point to a broken system.
State-Specific Vulnerabilities
Below are summaries of the areas we are monitoring in each state where we believe bad actors might try and work from inside the system to delay and disrupt election administration.
For more information on each state and potential vulnerabilities, see our report here.
Arizona:
Illegal Hand Count of Ballots: A County Board of Supervisors may attempt to conduct an illegal hand count of ballots. Though the courts have struct down similar previous attempts, raising hand counts can advance the harmful narrative that elections are not secure without hand counting ballots.
Florida:
Increased Signature Comparison Snags: This is the first presidential election in which changes to Florida law will allow for closer and more expansive monitoring by candidates and political parties. This may lead to an increase in the number of provisional ballots.
Signature Matching Notice Requirement: A new law requires the time and location of signature matching to be noticed by candidates and committees. The impact of this new law is not yet known.
Georgia:
The State Board of Elections’ Actions: This fall, the State Board of Elections passed a number of new rules that could have upended the certification process and add burdensome requirements to other processes. Though the Georgia court struck down these rules, we will be watching to ensure the State Board of Elections does not otherwise attempt to further undermine the vote counting and certification process, including spreading misinformation.
Creating Chaos and Mistrust: In 2020 we saw a number of attempts to undermine confidence in the election results in Georgia. This year, we will be on the lookout for other such attempts.
Michigan:
County Boards of Canvassers Deadlock on Certification: Due to its structure, a Board of County Canvassers could deadlock on any number of issues. In particular, this could result in a deadlock over certification, which would likely delay election results.
Bad Faith Recounts: After the election, a losing candidate or voter unhappy with the outcome of the election could file a request for a recount without a realistic prospect of changing the results.
Nevada:
Recount Requests: Any voter or candidate can request a recount of a race for any reason as long as they cover the cost. With an election denier funding recounts for multiple campaigns, frivolous recounts could become more common across the state.
North Carolina:
Delays to Reporting: The North Carolina State Board of Elections has warned that results will likely not be released as quickly as they have been on Election Night as in previous years. This is due to a change in the law.
Open Seats on Board of Election: There have been recent resignations by members of the Country Board of Elections in Montgomery and Greene. These positions are currently open; we’re monitoring for appointments or possible process effects.
Emergency Measures Due to Hurricane Response: The State Board of Elections has approved emergency measures to ensure voter access throughout counties impacted by the hurricane. So far, those provisions do not appear to affect the overall timing of vote counting or certification processes, but we’ll continue to monitor these measures.
Ohio:
Boards of Elections Deadlock: Boards of Elections in Ohio have an even number of members and, therefore, could deadlock on certification. However, there is a clear tie-breaking procedure in the state, minimizing the risk.
Partisan Election Workers: Highly partisan recruitment of election workers at the precinct level is a concern this year. Notably, in August 2024, Republicans held a recruitment session at the party’s Ohio headquarters.
Pennsylvania:
Volume of Petition Recounts: We will be watching to see if counties face a similar or increased number of petition recounts as we saw in Pennsylvania in 2022, which could possibly create delays in the certification process.
Decentralization of Election Administration: Variation among counties in several key election processes can be a cause for concern or delay in election admin processes.
Delays Due to Lack of Extended Preprocessing: Pennsylvania does not allow preprocessing of mail ballots. This could cause delays in reporting election results, particularly in large, Democratic-leaning jurisdictions.
Extra-Legal Hand Reviews: Since 2020, we have seen several counties conduct an extra-legal hand review of results using election denialist narratives as justification. These kinds of hand review are not clearly authorized by Pennsylvania law, have issues with accuracy, and are labor and time-intensive.
Virginia:
Election Deniers on Local Electoral Boards: Inexperienced Registrars: In 2023, multiple Electoral Boards either did not renew the contracts of their registrars putting inexperienced registrars in a vital job. Of particular concern are some jurisdictions where partisanship or politics were alleged as the primary purpose for a registrar’s non-renewal.
Certification Issues: Our research from 2023 indicates that there are at least several election deniers and subverters with positions on local Electoral Boards, the entities tasked with certifying local elections.
Wisconsin:
Partisan Attacks on the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC): Following 2020, the WEC has faced groundless attacks on its authority and trustworthiness, including from the WI legislature. In the upcoming election, we may see similar attacks by election deniers on WEC’s authority,
Delays due to Lack of Pre-Processing: Wisconsin does not allow pre-processing of absentee ballots. This means election officials can only start processing mailed and in-person absentee ballots when polls open on Election Day. Delayed results that skew one party’s direction feed into election conspiracies and distrust of results.
Florida 2024: Election Administration Report
Florida Election Administration Report | One-Pager Summary | Google Calendar
As with many of the states we’ve covered, Florida elections are designed to be administered in a secure, methodical, and structured manner. 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. There is also an Elections Canvassing Commission – composed of the Governor and several members of the Governor’s cabinet – which is responsible for the state canvass and certification.
At the county level, day-to-day election administration is primarily overseen by the Supervisor of Elections with the County Canvassing Board – which typically (but not always) includes the Supervisor of Elections – providing oversight and final decision-making authority concerning most counting, canvassing, and certification activities.
Learn more about the processes and personnel involved in the counting and certification processes. Also see a timeline of counting and certification processes, which you can also subscribe to as a Google Calendar.
Given the strength of Florida’s election procedures, the greatest threat facing Florida’s election is from those bad actors who seek to sow chaos and exploit uncertainty for their own means.
We reviewed Florida’s Supervisors of Elections, County Canvassing Board members, and State Attorneys to identify officials who could pose a threat to free and fair elections. Of 234 officials reviewed, 16 had concerning findings in their background — about 7 percent. National or in-state election deniers did not target Florida following the 2020 elections, which likely contributes to the relatively low concerning findings in the state.
See a summary and analysis of these findings, as well as the Florida Election Official Research Database.
The potential vulnerabilities we’ll be monitoring during this election include:
Election Denial: Our 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.
Election Skepticism: 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.
Refusal to Certify: While there are no past incidences of current County Canvassing Board members refusing to certify, given the increasing use of this tactic among election deniers and anti-democracy actors across the country, it is worth continuing to monitor this issue, particularly in counties with active election deniers and those expressing election skepticism.
Increased Number of Provisional Ballots: This year’s election will be the first presidential election since Florida enacted legislation that expanded both the scope and depth of poll observer access. Therefore, we have some concerns that utilization of this new access may result in an increase in challenges both at polling locations and to vote-by-mail ballots, increasing the use of provisional ballots.
See a full breakdown of these potential vulnerabilities in our report.
Reports, Summaries, and Calendars
All of our other state reports, summary one-pagers, and Google calendars of key dates are available here, as well as via the links below:
Arizona: Report | One-Pager | Google Calendar
Georgia: Report | One-Pager | Google Calendar
Michigan: Report | One-Pager | Google Calendar
Nevada: Report | One-Pager | Google Calendar
North Carolina: Report | One-Pager | Google Calendar
Ohio: Report | One-Pager | Google Calendar
Pennsylvania: Report | One-Pager | Google Calendar
Virginia: Report | One-Pager | Google Calendar
Wisconsin: Report | One-Pager | Google Calendar
Don’t hesitate to reach out to info@informingdemocracy.org if you are looking for additional resources.
Reporters 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.