With increasing concerns about U.S. election integrity, it is important to highlight that it is a decentralized system predominantly managed by state and local officials. Each state establishes procedures that require officials to ensure the integrity, security, and accuracy of the electoral process. Key roles in this system include Secretaries of State or their equivalents, who serve as chief election officers, and local election officials.

While state officials bear primary responsibility, federal oversight and support are also integral to ensuring compliance with national laws. There is an increased federal role in safeguarding elections due to increased concern of foreign interference in elections.

The Role of the Secretary of State

In most states, the Secretary of State serves as the chief election officer. According to the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS),[1] responsibilities include voter registration, election planning, and vote certification. However, these duties vary by state, with some delegating specific responsibilities to local officials.

Key Responsibilities:

• Voter Registration: Secretaries of State oversee voter registration systems, ensuring that eligible citizens can register to vote, and that voter rolls are accurately maintained. A recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice highlighted that many states have systems in place to maintain and update voter rolls to ensure accuracy.[2] The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) highlights steps that state and local officials can take to ensure both voter accessibility and accurate and up-to-date voter rolls to prevent fraud.[3]
• Election Planning and Logistics: This involves coordinating with local election officials to organize polling places, recruit and train poll workers, and ensure the availability of voting equipment. In states like California and Florida, officials have developed detailed plans to address issues such as polling place accessibility and early voting logistics, as discussed in the Brennan Center’s 2021 Election Security report.
• Ballot Design and Distribution: Ballots and completion of ballots must meet state requirements. Litigation in Pennsylvania highlights a variety of issues involved in ballots. For example, if voters do not properly sign and date a declaration on a mail-in ballot, state law may reject those ballots. State law and state officials control many of the practical issues of how to vote and strict compliance with ballot completion. In the Pennsylvania case, a federal appeals court held that federal law did not deprive Pennsylvania’s state authority from enforcing signature and date mail-in ballot requirements.[4]
• Election Operations: Secretaries of State play a central role in the timing of election processes and monitoring elections to ensure compliance with both state and federal laws. For example, decision on timing to request an absentee ballot, when election day polling locations open and close, and transparency of the entire process are all state and local operations overseen by Secretaries of State. States like Georgia have focused years of effort to improve voting technology[5]  and operations, including transparency.[6]
• Vote Counting and Certification: Perhaps the most critical task is overseeing the counting of votes, audits, recounts, and certifying results. In close races, such as the 2020 presidential election in Arizona, recounts and audits became necessary to ensure public trust in the outcome, as reported by Reuters and verified through state audit reports.[7]

Local Election Officials

Local election officials, such as county clerks or members of boards of elections, perform the day-to-day tasks that make elections run smoothly. One report called local election officials “stewards of democracy,” emphasizing their vital role in ensuring that local polling places function efficiently and that voters receive the help they need on Election Day.[8]

Key Local Responsibilities:

• Polling Place Management: Local officials ensure polling locations are accessible and sufficiently staffed.
• Voter Assistance: Assisting voters with registration issues, resolving disputes over voter eligibility, and ensuring that all eligible voters can cast their ballots are crucial tasks.
• Initial Vote Tabulation: Votes are first counted at the precinct level before being reported to state authorities. Many states have introduced technology to speed up this process while maintaining security, as outlined in the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) summary of state laws on how election results are reported.[9]

Oversight and Accountability

To ensure the integrity of elections, multiple layers of oversight and accountability are in place at the state and federal levels. Post-election audits, recounts, and transparency measures are essential components of this system.

Key Oversight Mechanisms:

• Audits and Recounts: According to data tracked by the National Conference of State Legislatures,[10] 49 states conduct some type of post-election audit, with Alabama being the exception, though it piloted different audit types in 2022. The most common audit type is the traditional post-election tabulation audit, used by 37 states and Washington, D.C. Four states use risk-limiting audits, which are less comprehensive than traditional tabulation but designed to provide statistical confidence in election outcomes. Eight states have other post-election audits that fall outside these categories, such as procedural audits, randomized audits of ballot counting devices, and data comparison audits. States have autonomy in audit requirements and methods. All audits ensure the accuracy and integrity of election results.
• Transparency Measures: Many states allow observers from political parties and independent organizations to monitor election proceedings. Based on an analysis of NCSL’s collection of state laws for election observers, 38 states and territories have laws that enhance transparency by formally recognizing and regulating the role of election observers. This means roughly 76% of states have some legal framework supporting transparency through election observation. This transparency is vital for increasing public trust in election processes, especially in contested elections.[11]
• Legal Framework: State Constitutions and federal laws provide much of the legal foundation for election administration. The Congressional Research Service outlined the federal Voting Rights Act history and framework.[12] The Department of Justice plays a role in ensuring compliance with federal laws, maintaining a list of enforcement actions and positions it has taken in ongoing elections litigation.[13]

Federal Oversight and Support

While states are primarily responsible for elections, federal agencies provide crucial oversight and support to ensure compliance with federal laws. Several key agencies are involved in this process.

Key Federal Agencies:

• Federal Election Commission (FEC): The FEC was created to “create confidence and participation in the democratic process.”[14] The FEC regulates campaign finance and ensures compliance with federal election laws. Their statics reflect numerous ongoing matters under review and civil fines for violations of campaign finance laws.[15]
• Election Assistance Commission (EAC): The EAC provides guidance to states on improving election administration practices. Similar to the FEC, the EAC’s mission includes helping “Americans participate in the voting process.”[16]  The EAC maintains capability that states can voluntarily use to evaluate various aspects of voting systems, including security.[17]
• National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST): NIST provides recommendations and guidance to states for cybersecurity measures of electronic voting systems.[18]
• Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA): CISA provides states guidance and support for both physical and cybersecurity of election systems and processes.[19]
• Department of Justice (DOJ): As previously mentioned in the legal framework highlight, the DOJ enforces federal laws that protect voting rights, including compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

Challenges and Debates

While the decentralized election system allows states flexibility in conducting elections, it also leads to significant variations in how elections are managed. Presidential elections hinge on the electoral vote of a few key states, making the decentralized election process more susceptible to overall compromise if malign efforts focus on key battleground states. Also, debates over voter ID laws, mail-in ballots, and the accessibility of polling locations have intensified in recent years. The NCSL maintains a tracking database of which states maintain stricter voter ID requirements, depicting that most states do not maintain strict voter ID requirements.[20] These differences reflect broader political and regional divides.

Other Perspectives to Consider

Many Americans do not trust U.S. elections. It is possible that lack of trust in elections is correlated to the overall downtrend in public trust in government.[21] Also, compared to other nations, the U.S. has lower voter turnout than other nations with open elections.[22] The American Bar Association established a task force that produces working papers, one of which focuses on increasing trust in elections.[23] Based on this data it is reasonable to conclude that a noteworthy number of Americans do not trust the underlying system of U.S. elections or the government systems that run elections.

There are hundreds of governmental offices involved in elections, including congressional oversight, federal agencies,[24] each state and territory, numerous local election officials in each state, and state and federal courts hearing numerous challenges to various election processes. The legal landscape for elections is complex. Could it be the entire process is too complex for people to have confidence in? People may find it difficult to trust that which they do not fully understand. Simplicity in laws and processes will increase trust.

Conclusion

The U.S. election process, while decentralized and primarily managed by state officials, benefits from a combination of federal oversight, legal safeguards, and transparency measures. By balancing state autonomy with federal support, the system strives to ensure the integrity, accuracy, and accessibility of elections. However, ongoing debates over voter rights, election security, and varying state laws will continue to shape the future of U.S. elections.

There are vulnerabilities in the U.S. election process and voting systems, but there are officials and resources working on these issues. In a world influenced by many opinions, both local and abroad, it is useful to remember that people who live in your community have the most control and influence over the integrity of U.S. elections.

By Dean Korsak – Copyright 2024 – CAPY News™ LLC – All Rights Reserved

Information Quality Grade: 90% (High Credibility)

Why: This article qualifies as High Credibility due to its comprehensive coverage, use of multiple independent and verified sources, and recognition of public trust issues. It provides detailed analysis of both state and federal roles in the election process, bolstered by legal and procedural context.

What Could Be Improved: To increase information quality, the article could provide more in-depth counterarguments and a stronger comparative analysis with international election systems, as well as more granular data on voter trust trends.

---

Sources and Citations:

[1] National Association of Secretaries of State, https://www.nass.org/

[2] Brennan Center for Justice, “Voter Roll Accuracy” (September 3, 2024), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voter-roll-accuracy

[3] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Voting Accessibility” (April 18, 2024), https://www.eac.gov/voting-accessibility

[4] Pa. State Conf. of NAACP v. Sec’y of the Commonwealth, No. 23-3166, slip op. (3d Cir. 2024), https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233166p.pdf

[5] State of Georgia, “Request for Information New Voting System” (August 24, 20218), https://sos.ga.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/ess_rfi_-_final_-_redacted.pdf

[6] State of Georgia, “Vote In Person On Election Day,” https://georgia.gov/vote-in-person-election-day

[7] Maricopa County, “Election Equipment Audit,” https://www.maricopa.gov/5681/Elections-Equipment-Audit

[8] Anita Manion, et. al., “Who are Local Election Officials, and What do they Say about Elections?” MIT Election Data and Science Lab (February 24, 2022), https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/who-are-local-election-officials-and-what-do-they-say-about-elections

[9] National Conference of State Legislators, “Table 17: How Election Results Are Reported,” https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-17-how-election-results-are-reported

[10] National Conference of State Legislators, “Post Election Audits,” https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits

[11] National Conference of State Legislators, “Poll Watchers and Challengers,” https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/poll-watchers-and-challengers

[12] Congressional Research Service, “The Voting Rights Act of 1965:

Background and Overview” (Updated July 20, 2015), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43626/15

[13] U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, “Recent Activities of the Voting Section” https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-activities-voting-section

[14] U.S. Federal Elections Commission, https://www.fec.gov/about/

[15] U.S. Federal Elections Commission, “Enforcement Statistics for Fiscal Years 1977-2024,” https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/enforcementstats1977to2024.pdf

[16] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, https://www.eac.gov/about

[17] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines; See also EAC “Voting System Security Measures,” https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/electionofficials/security/Voting_System_Security_Measures_508_EAC.pdf

[18] U.S. NIST, “Election Security,” https://www.nist.gov/itl/voting/research-and-projects/election-security

[19] U.S. CISA, https://www.cisa.gov/topics/election-security

[20] National Conference of State Legislatures, “Voter ID Laws,” https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id

[21] See Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024” (June 24, 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/

[22] Lyon Nishizawa, “How Does U.S. Voter Turnout Compare to the Rest of the World’s?” Council on Foreign Relations (August 24, 2022), https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-does-us-voter-turnout-compare-rest-worlds

[23] Edward B. Foleyo, “Increasing Trust in Our Elections,” ABA Task Force for American Democracy (May 06, 2024),

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/election_law/american-democracy//resources/increasing-trust-our-elections

[24] Grace Gordon, “The Federal Role in U.S. Elections Visualized” (July 24, 2023), https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/visualize-federal-role-elections/