As the 2022 midterms approach, about 300 people are running for federal or statewide office who have denied or questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Inevitably, some of these candidates will lose their race. It seems likely that some of those candidates will refuse to concede, deny the legitimacy of their loss, and call for sham reviews of the election.
How do we distinguish these investigations from true post-election audits, which play a key role in ensuring confidence in election outcomes?
CDT just published De-Weaponizing and Standardizing the Post-Election Audit, a new report that can serve as a guide as ballots are counted, results are certified, and post-election audits and reviews begin to take place. The report also offers several paths forward for improving post-election audits in 2024 and beyond.
When an election is free of major problems, a post-election audit is one of the strongest ways to generate convincing public evidence that an election was conducted properly and to build confidence in our democracy. But, in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, we have seen a number of “sham reviews” that seem intended to instead damage confidence in the outcome of a well-run election.
For example, the Cyber Ninjas review of the 2020 presidential election in Maricopa County, Arizona, was widely denounced by election experts as a sham and a perversion of a true post-election audit. It was carried out by inexperienced and politically biased actors, it damaged election security, and it necessitated the replacement of election equipment, costing Arizona taxpayers millions of dollars. Sham reviews like the one in Maricopa weaponize the trusted role that post-election audits typically play in elections.
Our report describes the principles that distinguish good post-election audits from sham reviews, drawing on previous work by groups like Verified Voting, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Bipartisan Policy Center Task Force on Elections, and the National Association of Secretaries of State. It describes recent sham reviews, including “fraudits” like the one in Maricopa County. And it delves into more recently reported breaches of election equipment; for instance, election officials secretly allowed inexperienced and biased actors to copy software and data from the election system.
We explore a number of policy options that could help improve post-election audits and create obstacles for sham reviews and breaches that undermine confidence in democracy. Some policy options include the creation of standards for post-election audits or a credentialing system for post-election auditors who would gain access to election equipment.
Read the full report here.
| |
