The Frontlines of Election Falsehoods: Election Administration Narratives in Battleground States

The decentralized nature of election administration in the United States means that every state—and even election jurisdiction—has its own rules for voting and ballot counting. In 2020, variances in election procedures were misconstrued, and in some cases weaponized, to support baseless claims of fraud and question the legitimacy of the election. These narratives disproportionately impacted battleground states, in some instances resulting in refusals to certify election results, seemingly endless audits of election results (sometimes with dubious procedures), laws that hinder election administration, and increased harassment toward election workers. 

This year, false narratives about election systems are again gaining traction in key swing states. In the post-election period these narratives could be further disseminated by foreign adversaries and other malign actors seeking to sow confusion about the election’s outcome and the trustworthiness of the system. The widespread accessibility of artificial intelligence tools could enable the fabrication of images or videos that “depict” vote tampering or other discrepancies.

The battleground states will be pivotal in deciding this year’s election and on the frontlines of the fight against election administration falsehoods. To prepare for information threats this November and beyond, we break down key differences in election administration in the battleground states that could be misconstrued or exploited to raise doubt about the integrity of the election. 

Arizona: Proof of Citizenship

For the past two years, Arizona lawmakers have pushed to enforce new laws requiring documented proof of citizenship to vote in elections. The effort, which has faced continued legal challenges on the basis that it could block tens of thousands of voters, has resulted in Arizona’s adopting two ballots for November: “full ballot” and “federal only”. Voting on the full ballot, which includes state and local races, requires documented proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization document. Voters who fail to provide such proof—instead relying on attestation of citizenship per federal law as mandated by the National Voter Registration Act—can vote only in the federal election.

These changes have created some complications in election administration. In September, election staff in Maricopa County discovered that a glitch in Arizona’s driver license database had erroneously given nearly 218,000 voters with unconfirmed citizenship status access to the full ballot. Though the Arizona Supreme Court, citing due process and equal protection concerns, confirmed that these voters will be allowed to vote on the full ballot, this incident comes amid baseless claims that have surged across the country that noncitizens will be voting in large numbers this year. Unfortunately, this false notion could become a focal point for challenging this year’s outcome or undermining trust in the election process, particularly in Arizona, already a hotbed for such allegations.

Georgia: Counting Ballots by Hand

In September, the Georgia State Board of Elections approved a rule requiring poll workers to count by hand all ballots cast on Election Day and compare the total to that generated by voting machines. Election officials and voting rights groups were quick to criticize the decision, warning that it would delay the reporting of results and introduce risk of human error that could open doors for false information about the election.

While a Georgia judge recently temporarily halted the rule from going into effect before Election Day, mistrust of voting machines rooted in false conspiracies persists. If the race in Georgia is as close as it was in 2020, it is possible that the revocation of hand-counting—and another judgement that blocked new rules that could have disrupted or delayed the certification of results—could be used as fodder to spur false narratives about the accuracy of the vote count.

Michigan: Election Recounts

In July, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a bill into law that seeks to reduce the number of frivolous election recounts by limiting requests to cases where there is a “reasonable chance” that the number of challenged ballots could change the outcome of an election. Shortly after the law’s passing, false information about the conditions for obtaining a recount gained momentum online, including accusations that the bill does not allow recounts on the basis of fraud, and that the bill will undermine fair electoral processes. The law does not go into effect until next year, but the Republican National Committee (RNC) has threatened to sue Michigan election officials. The RNC alleges that the law is an attempt to change recount procedures ahead of November’s vote. 

Controversy and bad information about the recount law comes amid recent allegations of double voting in Michigan’s summer primary. Four voters from St. Clair Shores were charged because they allegedly intentionally cast absentee and in-person ballots. Three assistant clerks were accused of illegally helping them alter their voting records. This case underscores that Michigan is catching and swiftly prosecuting fraud where it exists, even if the extra votes did not impact the outcome. However, such incidents combined with misinterpretations of the bill could be used to undermine trust in the election process.

Nevada: Extended Vote-Counting Deadlines

Nevada is one of eight states where elections can be conducted entirely by mail. Following changes to voting rules made during the COVID-19 pandemic, Nevada allows for mail-in ballots postmarked on Election Day to be accepted and counted if they are received by county election officials within four days. This extended deadline will cause slower reporting of final results than in other states and potential confusion in a tight race if these last ballots to be counted overturned earlier results. State officials reported that for Clark County alone, which includes Las Vegas, nearly 40,000 valid ballots came in after Election Day in 2022.

In May, former President Donald Trump’s campaign and the RNC filed a lawsuit challenging Nevada’s receipt deadline. They argued that ballots that arrive after Election Day should be invalid because the practice violates federal law. Though the lawsuit was dismissed, arguments to invalidate mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day could resurface if this year’s margins in the state are close.

North Carolina: Ballot Access After Hurricane Helene

As early voting begins across the country, state and election officials in North Carolina are working to ensure victims of Hurricane Helene can vote in November. Less than two weeks before Election Day, many roads still remain impassable, and several counties are only just starting to restore water and power on a limited basis. To address voting challenges, the bipartisan State Board of Elections approved emergency measures that include allowing counties to modify polling places and extend the deadline for absentee voting. Election officials are trying to contact voters who requested absentee ballots. Officials are also receiving updates about road access from the US Postal Service to figure out how to best deliver the ballots.

False information about Helene’s destruction and the government’s response flooded social media in the weeks since the disaster. There have been false claims that the federal government is purposely blocking aid in an attempt to keep victims in Republican strongholds from voting. Such claims threaten to cloud and hinder recovery efforts. Allegations that the storm—or the government’s failure to respond to the crisis—disenfranchised voters could resurface in the post-election period.

Pennsylvania: Mail-in Ballots

Pennsylvania is one of seven states that does not allow “pre-processing” of mail-in ballots, which means election workers cannot start the time-consuming task of verifying signatures, opening envelopes, or sorting ballots until 7:00 am on Election Day. With more than 1.7 million Pennsylvanians already requesting mail-in ballots so far this year—a number that will only increase through the October 29 deadline—counting all ballots necessary to confirm results in a state with close margins will likely take days, leaving an opening for doubt and narratives of fraud to flourish.

On top of potential delays, ongoing lawsuits, including those challenging a rule that would allow voters to correct mail-in ballot errors, could further feed narratives about mail-in ballots that raise doubt about the Commonwealth’s election outcome.

Wisconsin: Ballot Drop Boxes 

In July, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to reinstate the use of ballot drop boxes, overturning a decision it made less than two years ago that nearly banned their use. While the decision effectively returns the policy to what it was in 2020—leaving it to local communities to decide whether to use them—distrust of drop boxes stemming from false claims that they can facilitate fraud continues to have a grip on the state. Just weeks before the election, the Wisconsin Elections Commission reported that there were only 78 drop box sites in 42 communities statewide compared to more than 500 drop boxes in over 430 communities in 2020. Moreover, a Wisconsin mayor who opposed the court’s ruling faces criminal charges for unilaterally removing his city’s drop box. Distrust of drop boxes threatens to hinder accessibility to voting in a critical battleground state and could again be exploited after Election Day to fuel conspiracies of “ballot harvesting” if margins are close.

Conclusion

Differences in election administration across states are often focal points for false narratives that question election outcomes and, in turn, democracy itself. This is most pressing in battleground states. As we head into what will likely be another hotly contested election, it is critical that voters remember that these divergences exist before making assumptions about developments in other states. Voters must also trust information from government sources, especially state and local election officials. This will help minimize the impact of harmful narratives that degrade trust in our election systems.