Vox reader Jason Taylor writes: Should voters be concerned about the possibility of Trump election deniers being in positions of power to count votes in Trump’s favor that he did not receive in the upcoming election? Thank you for your time and consideration of my question.

---

One of the defining — and troubling — facts of our current political era is that the loser of the previous election maintains he didn’t lose it at all. To this day, Donald Trump refuses to admit he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden, a stance that many of his followers have gotten in line behind, including some who’ll hold positions of power in this November’s contest. 

That has understandably spurred concerns like the ones you’ve raised about the current cycle. 

Despite these troubling developments, however, election law experts say that voters should know ample protections are in place to bar election deniers from messing with the vote count or its eventual certification. 

“There are multiple safeguards built into the process to prevent that kind of thing from happening,” says Gowri Ramachandran, the director of elections and security at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to voting rights. 

What safeguards are in place for ballot counting?

Let’s start with the process of counting ballots.

“The count involves so many steps, so many layers of double-checking and supervision, that it would be virtually impossible to fake even a single ballot,” Evelyn Smith, an election worker in Michigan, told the Washington Post in 2020. 

These safeguards include the presence of independent observers at ballot counts, post-election audits to verify the results, and rigorous record-keeping to keep tabs on voter participation. 

This all starts with the submission of ballots. When people vote in person, poll workers keep a clear tally of how many people have voted, which is later checked against the number of ballots coming from each precinct. Similarly, when people vote by mail, election workers confirm that each ballot corresponds to a real person and keep track of how many ballots are coming in. 

In most cases, the ballots are counted by machines, and those have to undergo their own rigorous “logic and accuracy” tests by election officials before they can ever be used. 

Ballots cast in person are often tabulated on location at the precinct, and that information is printed out on a physical receipt and stored on a memory card. Typically, these results are recorded at the precinct, and both the receipt and memory card are also transmitted in a secure box to a central location. 

Mail-in ballots are also tabulated at either a polling station or central location after being verified. In rare instances — usually in much smaller counties and towns — ballots are counted by hand, a practice that’s increasingly less common because it’s prone to errors and delays. When hand counting is used, it’s usually done in teams to reduce mistakes. 

Regardless of whether ballots are counted by machine or by hand, independent observers, or members of both parties, are able to watch as votes are submitted and tallied, adding another layer of security. (These policies vary by state but most places allow some transparency into different steps of the process.)

Such protocols make it difficult for potential bad actors to manipulate the count. 

Many states have post-election audits as well to catch if something is amiss with the vote tally. In these audits, state or county officials will hand count a sample of the ballots in each precinct to spot-check for discrepancies.

“Audits would find out if bogus votes were added to the real vote totals,” says Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a Stetson University law professor and elections expert. 

Candidates, as well as the two parties, are also able to lodge a complaint or mount a legal challenge if they believe there have been any irregularities. 

What about election certification? 

In recent elections, certification of the results has been another point in the process when some officials have caused delays or questioned the outcome. 

Typically, certification is a routine part of any election and basically just involves county and state election boards verifying the results after they’ve been tallied. In 2020 and 2022, however, there were examples of officials and federal lawmakers refusing to do so.

In 2020, the Wayne County, Michigan, Board of Canvassers initially deadlocked 2–2 when two Republican commissioners refused to declare Biden the winner. Following significant backlash, they eventually changed their votes. 

Shortly after that, 147 federal Republican lawmakers infamously voted to challenge the election results during Congress’s certification process on January 6, 2021. Despite their objections, the certification was completed, and since then, Congress has passed updates to the Electoral Count Act to make the threshold for challenging the results much higher.

In 2022, the Republican-led election commission in Otero County, New Mexico, also refused to certify primary results due to their alleged distrust in Dominion voting machines. The New Mexico secretary of state ultimately obtained a state Supreme Court order requiring the commission to certify, and they later did. 

In past instances, local officials either relented or were ordered by a court or state officials to move forward with the certification of the results. Experts note that the same is likely to occur this time around if there are more attempts to delay or deny certification. 

If state-level officials like the secretary of state tried to block a legitimate outcome from moving forward, the candidates and parties could similarly take the issue to court. 

Experts note that they aren’t especially concerned that efforts to stymie certification would be successful, though they do note that bad actors could cause delays and confusion that might fuel misinformation. 

“There is a potential for there to be uncertainty,” says UCLA election law professor Rick Hasen. 

So, what should we be worried about this election? 

The experts I spoke to broadly emphasized that they have faith in the election system. Despite this, Trump could still foment distrust much like he did in 2020 and gin up violence or unrest as a result. 

That possibility, and a potential reprisal of the January 6 insurrection, is unfortunately its own concern. 

“When people hear this kind of disinformation over and over and over again, it does lead to real harmful consequences,” Ramachandran told Vox. 

All this is to say that one of the largest threats this election faces is many voters’ lack of confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome, even if counting and certification all go according to plan.

This story was featured in the Explain It to Me newsletter. Sign up here. For more from Explain It to Me, check out the podcast. New episodes drop every Wednesday.

This post was originally published on this site