Votebeat

Trump rehashes claims of election vulnerabilities, foreign interference, and fraud in primetime speech

2026-07-17T05:02:34+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

After days of speculation among election officials and experts about what President Donald Trump might say in a heavily hyped primetime speech on elections, Trump on Thursday night delivered a mix of familiar claims, grievances, and assertions about election security that stopped short of alleging that votes had been altered or that results had been changed.

Instead, Trump revived years-old evidence that China attempted to gather American voter data and that election systems are vulnerable to hacking, information that has long been public and that election officials said they have taken steps to mitigate. He also claimed to have identified 270,000 noncitizens on the voter rolls — election officials said they weren’t sure how that number was arrived at — and resurfaced old fraud allegations related to voter registration in Michigan.

In conjunction with Trump’s speech, his administration released newly declassified documents related to election integrity — some still heavily redacted — that in many cases did not fully back up the president’s claims.

“Every American deserves to know that when they cast their vote, that vote will be counted accurately,” Trump said, alleging that current election systems fall “catastrophically short of that standard.”

As he spoke, many secretaries of state from around the country were at dinner in South Dakota, closing out the summer meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State. Many did not watch the address, convinced after years of Trump’s election-related allegations that he was unlikely to say anything he hadn’t said before — though many staff members attending the conference did watch, and some secretaries issued statements later.

Trump concluded the speech by again calling for passage of the SAVE America Act, his top legislative priority, which would impose photo ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements on voters nationwide.

“The kids playing wizard in the park have a firmer grip on reality than any of this,” one Republican staff member said as he entered Mount Rushmore.

NASS bussed conference participants to the monument on Thursday night, shortly after Trump’s speech concluded, as part of a preplanned event on a day when red, white, and blue was the recommended dress code. Secretaries and their staff filtered past state flags into five reserved rows of seats as “Yankee Doodle Dandy” played and the sun set.

Election officials, experts respond to Trump’s election speech

Not all secretaries of state were in South Dakota, and some did watch the speech. “I have seen zero new facts. I have seen zero evidence backing any of these claims,” said Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat. “It appears to me to be a repackaged version of all of the stuff that we’ve known for years, and I was a little disappointed in the lack of new information.”

Election experts said the voting equipment vulnerabilities Trump appeared to be referring to in his speech have long been publicly known. “Everyone in this space knows that technology is vulnerable and works to put in safeguards and controls to secure it anyway,” said Geoff Hale, a visiting fellow for election security at the Center for Democracy & Technology, who previously worked for a decade at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Hale said he was still reviewing the documents released by the White House, but pointed out that nearly all Americans vote on systems that require a voter-verifiable paper ballot, to ensure a paper backup that can’t be hacked.

One declassified document, quoted by Trump in his speech, stated, “We judge that U.S. adversaries, including at a minimum Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, as well as non-state groups, have the capability to compromise U.S. election infrastructure.” But Pam Smith, the president and CEO of Verified Voting, noted that some components of election infrastructure — such as public-facing election websites — are more vulnerable than others — such as voting machines. “There was a lot of conflation, it seemed to me, of different types of technology, the vast majority of which doesn’t actually affect election outcomes,” she said.

According to Trump, China also illicitly acquired the data of 220 million U.S. voters. However, voter data is widely publicly available, and it wasn’t clear from Trump’s speech whether he was alleging that voter registration databases were breached. Trump did allege that “members of the deep state” tried to downplay China’s acquisition of the data, “covering it up from both the president and the American people.”

Election officials from various states were quick to clarify that their data was secure. “I have no information, either from the federal government or anybody else, that Arizona’s voter information has been compromised,” Fontes told Votebeat.

The Chinese government didn’t steal any Wisconsin election data either, Wisconsin Elections Commission appointee Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, said on X. “If they bought our voter data, that is public data and they are allowed to buy it. So can you! So can anyone!”

Trump makes new claims about noncitizen voters

One new, or at least more specific, claim made by Trump in the speech is that there are 270,000 noncitizens registered to vote nationwide. According to a Department of Homeland Security memo released after the speech, that number appears to mostly be derived from a review of public voter files in four states: California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat who heads the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, said his office hasn’t heard from the Department of Homeland Security. “We don’t even understand how they calculated those numbers,” he said, adding that Trump “truly does not understand elections, not even at the basic level.”

Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt, a Republican, said in a statement that the state follows all laws and requires voters to take steps to verify their identity before casting a ballot, adding that “all evidence has shown that noncitizen voting is extremely rare across the country, including in Pennsylvania.”

“We welcome DHS sharing their methodology and list of potential ineligible voters so we can carefully review the validity of their claims,” Schmidt said.

The president and his allies have long alleged that voting by noncitizens is widespread, but election officials, audits, investigations, and academic research have found it to be extremely rare, and noncitizens who vote illegally are subject to criminal penalties and deportation.

Multiple states have audited their voter rolls and found tiny numbers of noncitizens registered, most of whom have never cast a ballot. Nonetheless, the Trump administration has made the search for noncitizen voters a driving force behind its election agenda. Last year, the administration revamped a Department of Homeland Security data tool, Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, and encouraged states to use it to check their voter rolls for noncitizens.

States that did so reported finding relatively small numbers of potential noncitizens, and at least some of those flagged voters were later determined to be citizens, prompting many experts and election officials to warn that the SAVE program was unreliable.

For example, in Texas, officials flagged 2,724 potential noncitizens, some of whom county officials have determined are citizens, though it isn’t clear exactly how many. They’ve also found that hundreds of the flagged voters had registered through the Texas Department of Public Safety, which requires proof of citizenship, such as a passport, and keeps copies of such documents on file. In April, Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson, a Republican, raised concerns about SAVE’s accuracy in a letter to federal officials.

In June, a federal judge blocked the overhaul of the SAVE program, saying it violated privacy and voting rights.

A Michigan case of suspected voter registration fraud

The president also spotlighted a six-year-old fraud allegation in Michigan as an example of election misconduct being “buried and covered up.”

Police reports showed that in the lead-up to the 2020 election, a woman working for a Tennessee-based company, GBI Strategies, submitted thousands of voter applications to the city clerk of Muskegon, a largely Democratic city. Most were legitimate, but the clerk identified irregularities with several hundred of them. The suspicious registrations were caught in time for the election.

The matter was initially investigated by Michigan State Police and Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office, but the investigation was turned over to the FBI in March 2021. The story made headlines at the time, but it was largely ignored on a broader scale until 2023, when a conservative news site amplified old reports about it, and it has been an occasional Republican talking point in the state since.

Nessel’s office said in a statement Thursday night that the incident provided a “perfect example of the system working exactly as it should,” meaning the clerk noticed suspected fraud and flagged it before anyone could vote improperly.

Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Democratic secretary of state who is now running for governor, emphasized in a statement after the speech that the state’s elections are “secure and safe.”

“This was the case in 2020, 2022, 2024 and will be again in 2026,” she said in a release. “Because in every election, over 1,600 bipartisan professional election administrators and thousands of trained poll workers ensure that the law is followed and that every valid vote counts.”

USPS proposal to carry out Trump’s executive order could create new barriers to mail voting

2026-05-29T23:25:16+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

The U.S. Postal Service proposed new rules Friday that detail in part how the Trump administration intends to carry out its contested mail-ballot executive order — revealing a plan that, if it survives legal challenges, would create new barriers for mail voting and new burdens for election officials.

Under the proposal, all states would be required to send the federal government a list of all registered voters to which they are sending mail-in and absentee ballots in key federal elections. The proposal appears to give the postal service new power to block delivery of ballots to people that are not on the list and allow the agency to refuse delivery of ballots that do not meet new federal standards outlined in the proposed rule.

Jennifer Morrell, CEO of The Elections Group and a former Colorado election administrator, said that the proposal would create onerous new regulations that could be difficult and costly for local elections officials to follow, especially in rural counties which do not currently have the technology to produce the required barcodes. Such systems cost thousands of dollars.

Morrell said the rules represent an unnecessarily broad attempt to crack down on extremely rare examples of voter fraud.

“This proposal would fundamentally change the rules to address a problem that is extraordinarily rare,” she said. “This is adding significant complexity and new administrative burdens that can add additional costs with little-to-no evidence the current system is failing.”

Release of the proposed rules created widespread confusion among local elections officials unsure how they would work, and sparked broad condemnation from voting rights advocates and Democratic leaders who accused the Trump administration of trying to take unconstitutional steps to deny Americans their right to vote.

“Tens of millions of eligible voters could be prevented from voting by mail if states do not fully submit to this new federal mandate being rushed ahead of the 2026 election,” said U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat who previously served as California’s secretary of state. “Serious and consequential questions remain over how this new list will work with the Trump Administration’s ongoing illegal effort to create a national voter list.”

Friday’s proposed regulations, which require a 30-day comment period before moving forward, are the latest step by the Trump administration to overhaul election rules and impose unprecedented new federal oversight on the voting process.

Since returning to the White House last year, President Donald Trump has directed his administration to take sweeping new steps to alter an election system he has accused, without evidence, of cheating him out of the 2020 election. The Federal Bureau of Investigation in January seized ballots in Fulton County, Georgia as part of a probe of the 2020 election. He has issued two executive orders that attempt to assert broad presidential control over elections, though the Constitution gives authority over elections to the states and Congress. Both orders were quickly challenged in the courts, which froze major provisions of the first order, ruling the president exceeded his authority.

Release of the rules came one day after federal judge refused to block the most recent executive order on mail-in ballots because the Postal Service had not yet released its proposed new regulations. Another challenge to the order is pending in Boston, where a federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments June 2 in cases brought by voting-rights groups and a coalition of states.

Counties face steep compliance questions

Local election officials and experts said the proposal raised urgent operational questions about whether existing ballot envelopes comply with the new standards, whether counties and vendors can produce unique barcodes for outgoing and return ballots, and whether USPS could reject ballot mailings if voter data is missing, late, or mismatched.

“I don’t know how the states would potentially interpret what they need to do in order to comply, and what happens if the state doesn’t?” said Tammy Patrick, chief programs officer for the Election Center, which represents state and local election officials. “Does that mean the postal service will reject the ballots? I don’t think so. The postal service will deliver any mail provided to them so what happens if a state doesn’t do it?”

In addition, Patrick added, “I haven’t seen much here that is giving me much confidence this can be done by the fall without creating a lot of confusion and potential chaos.”

Patrick said many of the Postal Service’s proposed standards are best election-mail practices, many of which she worked on for years. But turning them into federal mandates could collide with state laws and leave local officials with no clear way — or funding — to comply.

“Some of these things are actually really good,” Patrick said, though election officials have been unable to adopt them in the past, and there’s no funding in the executive order to help.“Who is going to pay for it?”

Kathy Boockvar, a former Pennsylvania secretary of state, said implementing the changes before the 2026 midterms would place another burden on election officials who are already underfunded and understaffed.

“Especially in situations like this, where there is no funding being provided and no time for election officials and voters to absorb the required changes, this means that voters will bear the brunt of a poorly planned, last minute attempt to upend electoral processes,” said Boockvar, a Democrat. “You can’t just snap your fingers and change how elections are run overnight.”

A technical rule with major implications

Among the most concerning pieces of the 20-page proposal, voting rights advocates and election officials said, is a new requirement that every ballot envelope — both the one sent to the voter and the one used to return the ballot — carry a unique Postal Service barcode.

Election officials would have to send those barcodes to USPS along with voters’ names and addresses, allowing the agency to check whether outbound ballot mailings match the state-submitted list before accepting them. The postal service said the new rules wouldn’t apply to primary elections or to military and overseas ballots, but critics said it could force some jurisdictions to redesign envelopes, update vendor contracts, and build new ballot-tracking systems before the next federal election in November.

That could be difficult. For example, Thad Hall, the election director in Pennsylvania’s Mercer County, said that while some of his outgoing mail envelopes have intelligent barcodes, not all do. Officials in other Pennsylvania counties have in the past said their vendors do not use intelligent barcodes.

Gideon Cohn-Postar, director of federal affairs at the Institute for Responsive Government, a nonpartisan think tank, characterized the proposal as a confusing attempt to comply with Trump’s recent executive order.

“The executive order they are trying to fulfill is incoherent in and of itself,” he said.

Cohn-Postar said the proposals could have the biggest impact on small jurisdictions that may not have the funding to comply. In a small jurisdiction of about 2,500 voters, ordering new envelopes costs about $10,000 — a significant expense that requires them to learn entirely new technology.

For those jurisdictions, he said, the proposal could be a “big change.”

“Right now, in the heat of the midterm election cycle, election officials should be given the space and resources to focus on critical work like improving cyber and physical security,” he said. “More bureaucracy only pulls them away from those mission-critical priorities.”

Correction, May 29: An earlier version of this story incorrectly attributed a quotation to Mercer County Election Director Thad Hall.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

The biggest voting stories in 2025 could shape important aspects of the midterm elections

2025-12-22T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

This news analysis was originally distributed in Votebeat’s free weekly newsletter. Sign up to get future editions, including the latest reporting from Votebeat bureaus and curated news from other publications, delivered to your inbox every Saturday.

From Carrie Levine, editor-in-chief:

The Trump administration moved to exert unprecedented federal authority over elections this year in ways that continue to raise important constitutional questions. Federal judges have blocked major provisions of the president’s sweeping executive order on elections, but that court fight isn’t over yet, and the administration has already said it is working on a second such order. What will be in it? It isn’t clear.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department is suing a slew of states in a bid to obtain personal information on millions of voters in what appears to be a new attempt to build an unprecedented national voter database, and the federal government is quietly planning a more muscular role for itself in vetting people trying to register to vote. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major voting rights case. All of this has big implications for this year’s midterm elections and beyond.

From Jessica Huseman, editorial director:

As we head into 2026, I’m struck by how many of this year’s problems will continue unsolved: Redistricting is somehow still underway, election funding isn’t getting better, and election conspiracy theories continue. All this means election administrators are still struggling — a challenge made sharper by Trump’s renewed attacks and early claims that next year’s results can’t be trusted. Their job satisfaction worries me, even as I’m encouraged by how steadily the field is professionalizing.

From Nathaniel Rakich, managing editor:

Is it too obvious if I say redistricting? Dare I say the biggest electoral story of 2025 was the unprecedented rush — mostly, but not exclusively, by red states — to redraw their congressional districts in the middle of the decade for partisan gain. Six states, representing over a quarter of the nation’s House seats, enacted new maps this year, and a few more (lookin’ at you, Florida and Virginia) may do so in the months to come.

And of course, all of 2025’s fights over lines on a piece of paper will become very real in 2026, when those lines will actually dictate the terms of the elections to one-half of an entire branch of government. The results could include voter confusion, extra work for election officials, less competitive elections, and a U.S. House of Representatives that is less representative of the will of the voters.

From Natalia Contreras, Texas reporter:

Although it’s true that Texas’ redistricting battles took up most of the news cycle this year, Republicans’ ongoing push to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls will continue to affect Texans’ access to the polls in 2026.

During the regular legislative session earlier this year, Texas lawmakers tried to pass a law that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. Voting rights advocates warned the move could disenfranchise eligible voters. The proposal ultimately failed, but the Texas Secretary of State’s office’s use of a federal database to verify registrants’ citizenship prompted it to flag 2,724 potential noncitizens on the rolls. Election officials raised questions about the accuracy of the data. U.S. citizens were among those flagged by the state in multiple counties, and election officials are still identifying more. In addition, the use of the federal database is being challenged in court, and a ruling may not land until next year.

From Hayley Harding, Michigan reporter:

As we gear up for the mega-election here in Michigan — the governorship, the secretary of state, every statehouse seat, an open U.S. Senate seat, and much, much more — I expect we’ll continue to see a battle between Jocelyn Benson and the GOP.

She remains the Democratic frontrunner in the gubernatorial race, which means attacks on her are an easy way for Republicans to shore up their own base. But will that hurt her with her fellow Democrats too, as her reputation is called into question? And what does that mean for her successor in the secretary of state’s office, regardless of their party?

Every political decision will have direct implications on at least the next four years of election administration in the state. Legislators from both parties feel like they’re struggling to make headway on their election priorities, and a reset of partisan power in any direction could make that even more difficult.

From Alexander Shur, Wisconsin reporter:

Ahead of every election year, Wisconsin clerks lobby the Legislature with the same request: pass a bill to let them count ballots on the Monday before an election. Time and again, they realize it’s easier said than done. This year was no exception.

Typically, legislators introduce a GOP or bipartisan Monday count bill, and it gets stalled somewhere in the Legislature. This year, after extensive infighting, there wasn’t even a GOP bill.

Why is this so important? Well, Wisconsin likes elections, and in 2026 there are four statewide ones. Barring sudden legislative action early next year, that means Wisconsin will remain among a select few states that can’t process ballots before Election Day.

From Carter Walker, Pennsylvania reporter:

Ballot dates. Ballot dates. Ballot dates. It is a perennial issue here in Pennsylvania: Should voters be required to handwrite a date on their ballot return envelope?

But we may have finality before the midterms. A case before the state Supreme Court could finally resolve it. It has been fully briefed and argued, and now we are just awaiting a decision. That said, who is to say some new legal theory, challenge, or piece of legislation won’t change the playing field again for 2026?

Vote for Votebeat’s new pet mascot

2025-09-04T20:57:59+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

Update: As of Oct. 21, voting is closed. View the results and learn more about how ranked choice voting works here.

The Votebeat team is working on a project that explains how ranked choice voting works, so to get some real data to work with, we decided to ask readers to vote in a plurality election and a ranked choice election — with our staff’s pets as candidates.

As part of this election, we have nine candidates. You can peruse their photos and bios below.

If you’d like to vote, you must be a Votebeat newsletter subscriber. You can sign up for any of our newsletters for free here.

If you’re a newsletter subscriber already, watch out for your voting form in tomorrow’s national newsletter, and in subsequent national and local newsletters going out this month.

We’re serious about needing to be a newsletter subscriber to vote. You won’t get the link to the voting form until you sign up for one of our newsletters, and we ask that you please not share that form link around once you do get it. Anyone who votes who is not a newsletter subscriber will not have their vote counted in the final tally. This is to ensure that only real Votebeat readers are voting and not a bunch of spam bots.

And now, the candidates, listed in alphabetical order:

Casper

Casper the cat

Casper was saved from being let out on the street as a kitten where, as a deaf cat, he surely wouldn’t have lasted long. This struggle inspired him to run for public office. Casper is pro naps and anti leaving you alone while you work.

— Carter Walker, Votebeat Pennsylvania reporter

Honey

Honey the bunny

In a previous life, Honey was a human supermodel. She has not forgotten. It’s in your best interest to not forget that, either. The FBI’s file on Honey is deeply redacted and at least 18 inches thick. She’s rumored to have invented gravity, the nuclear bomb, and chocolate chip cookies.

— Hayley Harding, Votebeat Michigan reporter

Luna

Luna the dog

I’m Luna, but my humans call me Lunita, Lulu, Looney Tunes, Puppy Chula, and the list goes on. I’m a confident, 5-year-old miniature pinscher weighing in at 10.5 lbs. You got a problem? I’ll solve it! My humans tell me that I’m at the advanced level of puzzles.

— Elaine Cromie, Civic News Company photo editor

Midnight

Midnight the cat

Midnight is a former pro-athlete and intends to bring the dedication he learned in competitive fetch to serving his community. He takes a strong stance against the Spotted Lantern Fly, and squashes them whenever he can. In his spare time, he enjoys stealing your milk when you’re not looking.

— Carter Walker, Votebeat Pennsylvania reporter

Miklo

Miklo the cat

I survived being stuck inside the motor of a car. I’ve got a scar to show it. I fear nothing. Bring on the water guns. I can fly high, and one day I will get the string hanging from that thing that goes round and round on the ceiling.

— Natalia Contreras, Votebeat Texas reporter

Porfirio

Porfirio the cat

I am named after one of the most influential, feared, and complicated leaders in Latin America. I was rescued from the streets of Corpus Christi last fall. I was my mom’s only baby and we were both very happy together until she — for whatever reason — decided I needed a brother.

— Natalia Contreras, Votebeat Texas reporter

Puff

Puff the bunny

Every single day Puff has is the best day he’s ever had, in no small part because Puff has never had a thought on purpose. His hobbies include sprinting full speed across the floor and then crashing directly into the wall.

— Hayley Harding, Votebeat Michigan reporter

Samson

Samson the cat

Rescued from the streets of Michigan, Samson is a certified velcro cat and a Great Looking Man. He loves tuna and hates his owners leaving. He’s probably a father. He has lived in four states and once escaped into backcountry Wyoming — legend has it he returned holding an eagle’s talon.

— Alexander Shur, Votebeat Wisconsin reporter

Walter

Walter the dog

Walter is an 11-pound rescue dog and part-time pooch, full-time mooch. Known for his sparkly cowboy hat and needy charm, he commands attention despite being almost entirely silent. With an Instagram following and a flair for drama, Walter is living proof that wolves didn’t evolve into whatever this is.

— Jessica Huseman, Votebeat editorial director

To vote in this election and help us with this project, you must be a newsletter subscriber. You can sign up for any of our newsletters below:

The Votebeat stories that made a mark on us in 2024

2024-12-23T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

Good morning,

Happy holidays to all the dedicated, smart, witty readers of this newsletter, and welcome to our last edition of 2024! Thanks for supporting our work this year. Before we all go our separate ways to celebrate the holidays, we asked Votebeat’s reporters to highlight some of their most memorable stories of the year. Here are their selections:

From Jessica Huseman:

In Shasta County, Calif., fights over elections have left wounds that just won’t heal

This story is from California, a state Votebeat does not typically cover. There, longtime election administrator Cathy Darling Allen faced a more concentrated version of the problems plaguing elected officials across the country — intense scrutiny and mistrust from local residents, spurred by conspiracy theories about Donald Trump’s loss in 2020. The situation became so overwhelming that Darling Allen chose to retire before her term officially ended, and after she was diagnosed with heart failure due to stress.

I was able to spend time in Shasta County and with Darling Allen and her staff, untangling how the situation there became so toxic. I found county leaders who lied to their constituents, a concentration of political extremism, and growing anxiety among lifelong residents that Shasta County had fundamentally changed for the worse.

From Jen Fifield in Arizona:

How Arizona tackles a language barrier to provide Navajo voters a ballot they can listen to

In Arizona, the Navajo Nation is a crucial voting bloc. High turnout on the nation in 2020 helped Joe Biden win the state. Yet about 7,000 voting-age Navajo residents in the state can’t read English proficiently, making it difficult for them to vote. The state is required to translate the ballot for those voters, but courts have found that election officials haven’t done enough to meet these requirements. We wanted to take a closer look.

In a partnership with Indian Country Today, we gained access to a crucial, typically closed meeting in which Navajo speakers tried to translate culturally sensitive and highly controversial ballot propositions into Navajo. That included a measure to secure abortion access in the state. Our story found that the lack of transparency into the process made it difficult for the Navajo community to ensure the ballot was properly translated on these key issues. The story was broadcast across Navajo Nation, on TV through our partnership with Indian Country Today, and in print in community papers serving the reservation. Voting rights groups used the story to continue to call for better translation services.

Signed, sealed, rejected: How Arizona’s system for verifying mail ballots is hurting key voters

Election margins are tight in Arizona, and races can turn on just a few hundred ballots. But in 2022, I noticed that the number of ballots rejected for mismatched voter signatures had tripled, to around 1,800 in Maricopa County alone. I knew the signature review process was designed to block potential fraud, but I also knew, from my time talking to voters in the state, that many voters didn’t even know the importance of the signature. I set out to figure out if this system was working as intended.

In a monthslong project with the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting, we found that many signatures had been rejected not because they were fraudulent but simply because they were sloppy — meaning that ballots with legitimate signatures were not getting counted. This was often the case for younger and newer voters who only had an e-signature on file. This flaw in the system will be an important target as lawmakers look for ways to improve voting in the state.

From Hayley Harding in Michigan:

No, Michigan does not have more voters than residents eligible to vote

In Michigan, misunderstandings about how the state maintains its voter rolls quickly blew into something bigger as Elon Musk and other conservative activists spread bad information across social media. Michigan has about 8.4 million registered voters and only about 7.9 million residents older than 18. But that’s the result of Michigan’s proactive voter registration policies — everyone eligible to vote is registered when they get a driver’s license in the state, for instance. There are only about 7.2 million active voters in Michigan, with the remainder on the rolls being the dormant records of people who have left Michigan or died, but whose records haven’t yet been removed because of federal laws that restrict such removals.

Votebeat’s reporting on this issue helped to slow the spread of incorrect information and restore trust in the state’s election system during the critical last few weeks before the November election.

From Carter Walker in Pennsylvania:

This Pa. activist is the source of false and flawed election claims gaining traction across the country

Missing voting machine documents raise concern about Pa. county’s testing processes

These two stories share a common theme: They didn’t end with the 2024 presidential election.

In the first story, I took an in-depth look at how Pennsylvania resident Heather Honey had quietly become one of the most influential voices in the conservative election integrity movement. By meticulously fact-checking her report and advocacy on ERIC, an obscure multistate coalition for voter list maintenance that’s been the subject of conservative pushback, we demonstrated how the Lebanon County-based researcher often omitted facts and selectively analyzed data in a way that produced flawed conclusions.

The second story detailed how simple process missteps can lead to big election problems. Before each election, counties must test voting machines to ensure they are functioning properly. After voters in Northampton County noticed a programming error in the 2023 municipal election, it was immediately apparent that officials had not properly tested the county’s machines. They admitted as much. By reviewing thousands of documents, despite the county’s heavy restrictions on my access, I showed that the county’s testing documentation was incomplete, inconsistently filled out, and, in more than 150 instances, missing entirely.

Election administrators are going to continue to make mistakes, and outside observers are going to continue to misinterpret how our elections infrastructure works. That didn’t end on Nov. 5.

From Natalia Contreras in Texas:

How Texas’ paper-based voter registration system has led to the disenfranchisement of some voters

This investigation was sparked by the problems I experienced while registering to vote in Texas. I set out to understand exactly how the voter registration process works in this state, talking to about a dozen election officials, and multiple voters and volunteer deputy registrars. They all confirmed that I wasn’t alone in having filled out a voter registration application but still being left off the voter rolls. Nor was I the only one who had also registered at the Department of Public Safety as a failsafe, while still not being added to the rolls. This happens often to people who try to register in Texas, and means that some voters who think they’re registered aren’t able to cast a ballot. The crux of the problem, my reporting found, is the state’s refusal to adopt online voter registration.

Texas ballot-numbering lawsuit leaves election officials puzzled

Together with colleagues at the Texas Tribune, I reported on how since 2021, in an effort to increase transparency, Texas lawmakers have put some voters’ ballot secrecy at risk.

By the time we reported this, one longtime Texas poll watcher, Laura Pressley, had already sued the state and local election officials, alleging that they violated her and other voters’ right to a secret ballot. In her lawsuit, she said she used publicly available records to come up with an “algorithmic pattern” that helped her find the ballot choices of more than 60,000 voters in Williamson County. Pressley alleges that the state isn’t complying with a century-old Texas law that says ballots have to be numbered sequentially starting with 1. In the course of my reporting, I found that Texas is one of only a few states that still number their ballots at all. Most don’t, to prevent ballot secrecy breaches. Bills that lawmakers say would further expand election transparency have already been filed, but I have yet to see one that would address the ballot secrecy issues. I am on the lookout for it as the legislative session gets underway in January.

From Alexander Shur in Wisconsin:

Under Wisconsin’s ‘drawdown’ election law, one person’s error can cost another person their vote

I’ve reported on all sorts of issues in my career, but none provoked such a visceral reaction from my sources as this one. My national contacts in the election community were appalled to hear that when Wisconsin polling place records show more ballots cast than the number of voters who correctly checked in, election workers, under state law, can resolve the discrepancy through a “drawdown” — that is, by randomly pulling a number of voters’ (likely) legitimate ballots to toss out. Every Wisconsin clerk I spoke with for this story found the idea of conducting a drawdown a distressing, last-resort option. Some said they would never do it again.

I set out to understand why Wisconsin continued to use this practice — first implemented a year after the state’s founding — while almost every other state that once had it has since disavowed it. The answer, I learned, has nothing to do with election workers finding the practice fair or useful. Much the opposite. But the Legislature hasn’t stepped in to change the state’s drawdown law, and the practice continues to jeopardize properly cast ballots — a risk that can change election outcomes. It’s just one example of Wisconsin having some election laws on the books that are widely disliked by election workers.

As Votebeat prepares for 2025, we want to know what journalism would best serve your needs and interests. What should we report on in the upcoming year? Please give us your thoughts in this short survey.

Election officials prepare poll workers and staff for the threat of political violence

2024-10-18T17:54:46+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat’s free national newsletter here.

After two apparent attempts on former President Donald Trump’s life, shootings at an Arizona Democratic field office, as well as the arrest of an Afghan national who had planned a terrorist attack on Election Day, the threat of violence has become a fact of American politics. Memories of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, with gruesome and unprecedented scenes of violence, have also left many Americans fearing what may come this election.

With just weeks until Election Day, it is particularly worrisome to those Americans who will be administering voting. While election administrators have long prepared for the possibility of violence, experts say their concerns have been heightened by the vicious rhetoric and behavior this year.

“Because of this Communist Left Rhetoric, the bullets are flying, and it will only get worse!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

The data shows, in fact, that political violence is not at an all-time high for the United States, and that recent incidents have, if anything, diminished support for such action over all.

Still, in May 2024, a survey of election administrators by the Brennan Center found that 40% of respondents had taken steps to increase the physical security of election offices and polling locations since 2020, and 38% reported experiencing harassment or abuse. Across the country, election offices are doing things like investing in “panic buttons” and training poll workers in de-escalation techniques as a result.

“Election officials aspire to prepare for every possible election scenario — sadly, the possibility of violence is one of those scenarios that has been part of election contingency plans and protocols for years, if not decades,” said Tammy Patrick, the chief programs officer for the Election Center, a nonprofit group representing election officials. “What is different this year is the preparation for potential, albeit remote, issues to arise at tabulation centers and election offices over the course of the election, with particular consideration for the post-election period and certification.”

Here’s a look at what election officials in key swing states and their biggest cities are doing to ensure safety this season. Of course, there are limits to what details officials will share about their security plans. The longstanding logic is that if those trying to thwart your security know the outlines of your plans, they can figure out ways around them.

Arizona: Training poll workers to defuse crises

In Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest county, elections department spokesperson Jennifer Liewer told Votebeat that election officials are working closely with the local sheriff’s department, and coordinating with state and federal officials through the county’s command center. “Agencies have been meeting for more than a year to prepare for the 2024 General Election,” she said.

Officials from all levels of government have also participated in tabletop exercises — drills meant to simulate emergency situations so that participants can prepare to respond. The county has also updated its poll worker training to include using de-escalation tactics to defuse potentially violent situations as well as “protocols on when and who to contact should poll workers feel the security of the facility or those in it might have a safety issue,” Liewer said.

“It is our hope that voters will peacefully cast their ballots,” she said. “Poll workers are prepared to intervene and de-escalate situations, but should the potential for violence occur, law enforcement is prepared to respond.”

Michigan: Responding to threats driven by misinformation

Michigan’s election workers have faced high-profile threats and intimidation over the last four years — mostly driven by misinformation.

“People who believe the misinformation have been driven to harass, threaten, or cause harm to local election officials simply for doing their jobs,” said Cheri Hardmon, spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

In response, Michigan’s election officials have stepped up their preparation since the 2020 election — hosting tabletop exercises on everything from AI-sparked misinformation to political violence.

“We will be ready — voters should have confidence that we are prepared for any disruption or threats to our system,” Hardmon said.

Hardmon said the state is also working to ensure poll workers feel secure. Benson earlier this year said her office would introduce a direct text line between poll workers and local law enforcement — so-called panic buttons — in response to conversations with election officials as well as emergency responders.

“We cannot have a secure democracy if we do not protect the security of the people who administer our elections,” Hardmon said. “We are very concerned about the potential for those threats to escalate into violence caused by the deliberate spreading of lies about the security and accuracy of our elections.”

Pennsylvania: Task force addressing threats

Earlier this year, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro created an Elections Threats Task Force that includes members in federal, state, and local law enforcement, as well as election administration officials. The group meets monthly to share information and coordinate response in the event of threats. Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt said at a September event that the Department of State had also been conducting tabletop exercises that included what to do if there was a threat of violence at a polling place.

Abigail Gardner, a spokesperson for Allegheny County, the state’s second largest and home to Pittsburgh, said the county elections office is in regular contact with state and local law enforcement about protecting polling places. Poll workers have also been provided instructions on de-escalation tactics. She said the county has not received any credible threats.

Karen Chillcott, Erie County clerk, said the county’s election office has recently tightened its security protocols. Partitions were added in the lobby of the office to separate staff from the public, and windows were installed so that the public could continue viewing ballot counting.

“We’re trying to balance transparency with our security,” she said. Some workers who were on hand for the 2020 protests at the county courthouse are still traumatized from the experience, she said, and the county is already facing increasing pressure from agitators this time around.

She is concerned that the activity might dissuade poll workers from coming to work on Election Day. Threats against election workers are “really counterproductive to democracy,” she said.

Texas: Poll workers equipped for quick response

In Dallas County — a populous, Democratic-leaning county in an otherwise Republican state — officials have revamped poll worker training to include more strategies to prevent and respond to issues of voter or poll worker harassment. Their training for poll workers includes de-escalation techniques and gives specific instructions on how to respond to potential threats or reach out to police.

“Every vote center judge is equipped with a smartphone and detailed contact information for local law enforcement, and poll workers are trained to follow a well-defined plan that prioritizes the safety of voters and election staff,” said Nic Solorzano, spokesperson for the department.

As in other states, the county has participated in tabletop exercises that have involved state and local agencies — the Dallas County Sheriff’s office, the Texas Department of Homeland Security, and local and state emergency management — to ensure a coordinated response in the event of an emergency.

Solorzano said that the elections department “remains cautious yet optimistic,” and that despite heightened tensions “our focus is on preparation, not fear.”

“Our priority is that voters in Dallas County feel secure and confident when casting their ballots, and we are fully committed to maintaining a safe and welcoming environment at all vote centers,” he said.

Wisconsin: Arena available for poll worker training

Milwaukee Election Commission Executive Director Paulina Gutiérrez said the state’s largest city has been working with law enforcement since early summer to prepare for the possibility of violence during voting. They have hosted training sessions with their staff, and worked with the federal government to conduct security reviews of voting facilities.

The city also planned to offer two training sessions for poll workers that would include “de-escalation training and how and when to call the police.” For larger trainings, they planned to use the Milwaukee Bucks’ arena, which the team has donated for the cause.

This will only get more focused as the election draws closer, Gutiérrez said.

“This past week, I already had five [discussions] with our first responder partners,” she said in late September.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org. Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org. Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org. Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org. Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.