When the Ballot Fails: Election Integrity, Public Trust, and National Security

Abiraami Elangovan

Edited by Samantha Tonini, Amanda Mortensen, Judge Baskin, and Sahith Mocharla

Democracy is fundamentally the collective will of the people. It follows, therefore, that Democratic institutions are defined by the expressed will of their citizens––by voting. These institutions then inevitably fail when citizens stop believing that their ballots matter. Over the last two decades, even as American election security has improved, public trust in it has stagnated and even decreased among certain groups. This creates a paradox where public trust is detached from the very systems that are constantly trying to improve to preserve it. This paradox has only been exacerbated by recent mass hysteria around election fraud, which came to the fore in the 2020 election and the subsequent events of January 6th, 2021. In an age of increasing public scrutiny and distrust in the federal election process, election integrity has emerged not only as an issue of civic participation, but also national security.

Are American Elections Actually Secure?

Scrutiny regarding election integrity is not new to Americans. The most famous, landmark case of public distrust in federal elections dates back over two decades to the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Albert ‘Al’ A. Gore Jr. This election was defined by an incredibly close race, hinging on a razor-thin margin of 537 individual votes in Florida. In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount of ballots that did not indicate a presidential choice—concurrent with then-Vice President Gore’s contest—citing that “there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt” [1]. However, the U.S. Supreme Court promptly granted a stay, or temporarily suspended, the Florida Supreme Court’s order—controversially, as the stay was at presidential candidate Bush Jr’s request. SCOTUS stated in a 5-4 decision that no constitutional recount could be held in the limited time remaining due to inconsistent recount procedures across the state [2]. This decision sparked public controversy, as many perceived it to be politically driven, undermining the public faith held in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

This controversy paved the way for the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which made sweeping reforms to standardize and modernize the nation’s voting processes. HAVA’s reforms included replacing obsolete machinery like punch-card and lever machines with more modern voting technology, improving voter accessibility, and creating statewide voter registration databases in an attempt to restore public trust in elections and mitigate potential future mishaps like those of the 2000 election [3]. Unfortunately, the numbers seem to suggest that these attempts are not working. A poll conducted by Gallup in 2024 revealed Republican confidence in the accuracy of presidential elections has dropped by a whopping 57 percentage points since 2008, from 87 to a mere 28 percent [4]. Despite HAVA’s attempt to legitimize and modernize American elections, public confidence has remained fragile in the years succeeding Bush and only declined since then—especially among Republicans—as party polarization and the spread of disinformation has increased [5]. 

Distrust in the security of American elections is especially rooted in claims of election fraud, particularly following then-president-elect Donald Trump’s claims of illegal non-citizen voting in 2016. However, nearly every study conducted over the last decade regarding election security has shown that attempted fraud is generally rare, done at the individual level, and has minute to negligible impacts on the overall election results. A study done by the Brennan Center for Justice following the 2016 fraudulent voting claims found only an estimated total of 30 non-citizen votes in over 23.5 million ballots cast across 8 of 10 jurisdictions with the highest non-citizen populations. In other words, “improper noncitizen votes accounted for 0.0001 percent of the 2016 votes in those jurisdictions” [6]. In the ten counties with the highest non-citizen populations, only one reported any non-citizen voting, that too consisting of fewer than 10 votes [7]. Non-citizen voting is thus inflated to be a much larger issue in election integrity than it actually is, causing statistically unwarranted public distrust, widespread disinformation, and a loss of institutional authority and legitimacy. Following the 2020 election, Trump once again raised election fraud concerns. Top Federal government officials from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released a statement in response that “the November 3rd [2020] election was the most secure in American history,” and “there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised” [8]. Despite these affirmations, President Trump has maintained his original stance. These repeated fraudulent allegations have thus come up with little or no proof to back them up time and again, even as American elections have increasingly become less vulnerable to fraudulent voting. 

In addition to independent studies and federal statements, the courts have also repeatedly dismissed allegations of election fraud, most notably from Trump. Of the 62 cases brought forward by Trump’s campaign and allied groups following the 2020 election, not a single allegation of election fraud was proven in court to be backed by credible evidence [9]. Courts across the country dismissed many of these cases—ranging from ballot-counting and eligibility challenges to claims about the constitutionality of the process—for lack of merit and in some instances even sanctioned plaintiffs for filing baseless claims [10]. These decisions from judges across the ideological spectrum highlight both the lack of existing evidence to support recent allegations of voter fraud and, more importantly, the effectiveness of current legal and procedural safeguards in protecting election integrity, despite being insufficient in upholding public trust. 

Thus, historical record, empirical research, and judicial response collectively demonstrate that American elections are secure and that widespread claims of fraud are false or exaggerated. But while fraudulent voting claims have been dismissed, their impact on public trust in federal elections still persists. This disjunction between the documented increase in the security of American elections and rising partisan distrust reflects a concerning reality of eroding democratic legitimacy—one driven by increased political polarization and the normalization of election denial.

Declining Public Trust in Election Integrity

Public trust in election integrity has been relatively steady across the American public over the last two decades, with only minor decreases over the years. However, it has not remained equally steady across both major political parties. In a Gallup poll taken before the 2024 presidential election, “fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are very or somewhat confident that the votes for president this year will be accurately cast and counted” [11]. While this count is similar to the previous presidential elections since 2008, it masks the widening polarization between Americans. In fact, Gallup recorded a “record-high 56 percentage-point partisan gap, with 84% of Democrats versus 28% of Republicans having faith in the accuracy of the vote” [12]. The partisan fragmentation of democratic trust is an issue that transcends election integrity and threatens the very basis of American democracy itself.

This decline in trust is partly attributed to the erosion of longstanding federal voting protections, particularly those established under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act (VRA), a defining piece of the sweeping civil rights legislation of the 20th century, broadly enforced the 15th amendment and prevented discriminatory voting practices [13]. The act was largely successful in expanding political participation within marginalized communities such that “the disparity in registration rates between white and black voter rates dropped from nearly 30 percentage points in the early 1960s to 8 percentage points just a decade later” [14]. Largely viewed as instrumental in reforming disparate voting practices and crucial to election security, its recent weakening in the landmark case Shelby County v. Holder (2013) sparked strong public scrutiny regarding equal representation in elections. 

Shelby essentially swept away a key provision of the VRA that protected voting rights for marginalized groups. This provision, Section V, protected 15th Amendment voting rights by requiring jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory voting practices to notify the U.S. Department of Justice or federal courts before implementing changes to their voting procedures [15]. Here, federal intervention in state election affairs was justified because it is expressly allowed when state laws are proven to be unconstitutional, as were the discriminatory voting practices in many states at the time. In 2012, Shelby County, Alabama filed a suit against Eric Holder Jr. in his role as Attorney General, claiming Section V to be unconstitutional. According to Shelby County, Section V violated both Tenth Amendment and Article I federalism principles by imposing unjustified federal oversight in state elections. They claimed that the coverage formula used to determine which counties must obtain preclearance from the federal government failed to reflect current conditions, thus violating the principle of equal sovereignty of the states enshrined in the Tenth Amendment [16]. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shelby County in a 5-4 decision, declaring this provision to be “based on an old formula” and no longer applicable until Congress invents a new coverage formula [17]. Crucially, by essentially suspending preclearance, Shelby transformed enforcement of the VRA into one congressionally beholden as opposed to constantly active.

Studies done by the Brennan Center for Justice in 2023 show the adverse effects of Shelby as early as a decade after its ruling. In the ten years since preclearance was overturned, The Brennan Center recorded that “at least 29 states have passed 94 laws that make it more difficult to vote, particularly for communities of color” [18]. Many of these states previously required preclearance to make such changes to their voting processes but were now able to do so with little to no oversight under Shelby. Uncoincidentally, the turnout-gap between white and black voters grew by a shocking 9.2 to 20.9 percentage points in 5 of the 6 states originally covered by Section V over this decade [19]. While this widening gap may have been caused by a variety of reasons, one thing is clear: the trends of equal voter access that SCOTUS used to suspend preclearance have reversed themselves with alarming speed, almost directly following Shelby. Although this decision did not directly render elections less secure, it weakened voter protections and contributed to perceptions that the electoral process has become more susceptible to partisan influence. 

In addition to the erosion of historic voting protections under Shelby, recent attacks on inclusive voting practices have raised concerns about the disenfranchisement of women, minorities, and disabled people across the United States. Such attacks undermine election integrity by creating a system in which access to the ballot is not uniformly protected. President Trump’s executive order (EO) on “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” made in March of 2025, particularly raised such concerns. This order instituted several changes to the election process, including but not limited to requiring documentation of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, expanding federal access to citizenship verification, prioritizing enforcement against non-citizen registration, and refusing to count mail-in ballots that arrive late—even if postmarked by the deadline [20]. This creates direct voter accessibility issues, as over 21 million Americans lack ready access to the required documents (such as passports, birth certificates, or naturalization certificates), and the majority of married American women have legal names that do not match the maiden names on their birth certificates. Additionally, seeing as mail-in ballots are largely used by disabled and elderly voters who cannot physically visit the polls, this new condition raises several red flags concerning the potential disenfranchisement of entire groups of voters [21]. Moreover, data from the Pew Research Center shows that Democrats are nearly twice more likely to vote by mail-in ballots than Republicans, meaning restrictions on mail-in ballots may also produce partisan disparities in accessing the ballot [22]. These technicalities would allow this EO to block millions of Americans from voting and thus lower public trust in non-partisan election integrity [23]. 

In addition to potentially disenfranchising countless eligible Americans and discouraging civic participation by creating high voting barriers, many argue that this EO infringes upon states’ rights to administer their own elections. Under the Elections Clause of Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, states have the full right to “determine the ‘Times, Places and Manner’ of holding federal elections, while Congress has the power to ‘make or alter’ such rules” [24]. Of course, states cannot violate constitutional rights, such as the 14th Amendment right to nondiscriminatory voting access, but they otherwise have autonomy separate from federal authority regarding the conducting of elections. Trump’s voting EO thus oversteps the role of the federal government in administrating elections, because unlike the VRA, it is not a direct response to the constitutional violations of voter rights by states, nor is it protected under the Elections Clause of the constitution. Although the federal government has the ultimate authority to make or alter election regulations under the Elections Clause, only Congress—not the president—has the power to enact these changes through legislation [25]. The order not only creates strict, unjustified rules regarding voting procedures that should otherwise be left to the states to decide—and have furthermore been blocked by several courts—but also threatens states by withholding funding if they do not comply. 

The erosion of historical voting protections and growing federal intervention make a strong case for public distrust in the integrity of elections. Interestingly, however, those who reported lowered trust in election results are mainly conservatives who supported these changes to voting procedure. Rather than citing reduced voter protections, many instead echoed the same reasons as the White House for distrust in election results: widespread non-citizen and fraudulent voting, which have repeatedly been proven to be insignificant concerns in election results. Although these concerns are contradictory, they do not erase the fact that public trust in American elections is decreasing on a partisan level, nor do they ameliorate the adverse effects that this declining trust has on both the domestic political climate and national security.

Election Integrity as a National Security Issue

Declining public trust in election integrity is not merely a domestic concern. Distrust directly threatens the United States’ national security by undermining the institutional authority of the federal government and endangering democratic stability through the (misguided through potentially well-intentioned) justification of political violence and normalization of election denial. 

Trust in the election process is necessary for peaceful transitions of power and democratic legitimacy. In instances where this process is not respected, either through perceived election fraud or election denial, people begin to lose faith in this system, which could eventually lead to the collapse of democratic institutions [26]. A key example of such a failure of democratic legitimacy is in the events of January 6th, 2021. Rioters claimed the election was stolen from presidential candidate Donald Trump, with little to no evidence other than the claims of Trump himself [27]. Trump’s words alone sparking an insurrection reflects a pre-existing distrust in the election process, combined with partisan polarization so deep that party loyalty outweighed voters’ commitment to democratic norms themselves. In participating in the insurrection, rioters undermined the institutional authority of the United States and jeopardized national security.

There are real, tangible domestic risks that come with such extreme distrust in our democratic institutions. The justification of political violence and normalization of election denial to achieve ‘justice’ where constituents may not feel it was delivered is one such risk, with January 6th once again serving as a prime example. Although the elections in question were organized professionally and efficiently, these risks created an atmosphere of threats, harassment, and violence against election administrators. This environment caused “serious concern and made recruiting election workers a challenge” [28]. According to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), these unfounded concerns and aggressive doubts of election integrity only helped both foreign and domestic sources sow doubt and delegitimize the electoral process in order to undermine the United States government’s stability [29]. 

When large segments of the public reject election outcomes and doubt the fundamental institutions of democracy, the federal government’s ability to govern is limited, creating mass disorder, increased political violence, and chaos. This increasingly volatile situation not only breeds domestic homeland threats, but also exposes the nation to an extremely vulnerable state against foreign interference. Thus, the declining public trust in elections and increasing denial of election outcomes directly contributes to national security threats and destabilizes our democratic institutions.

Reconciling Public Trust, Federal Authority, and Election Security

In the light of the declining public trust in election integrity and its devastating consequences for the United States, it is imperative to restore confidence in the electoral process in order to preserve American democracy. Addressing these issues would require a three-pronged approach: increasing transparency in election administration, promoting states’ rights in elections, and combating election-related disinformation through media literacy campaigns.

Many claims of election fraud stem from blind-faith belief in what party leaders say due to partisan loyalty with little to no evidence of any actual wrongdoing. While it may not be able to completely prevent this issue, greater transparency may mitigate public distrust through clear, accessible reporting of voting procedures, ballot handling, and results. A study by MIT’s Election Data and Science Lab found that there is a “large gap between how voters think election administrators secure elections and the actions election administrators take” [30]. In fact, more than two thirds of respondents said they would be more confident if they knew the measures that were actually in place [31]. Allowing citizens to understand the full election process could thus lessen the influence of partisan narratives and disinformation, particularly surrounding claims about non-citizen voting, while allowing voters to be more aware of their role in the process.

Equally important to preserving public trust in the elections process is ensuring states keep their autonomy in deciding the time, place, and manner of running elections, as they were designated to in the Elections Clause of the Constitution. Providing federal oversight—rather than interference—over elections is key here in balancing the constitutional roles of both the federal and state governments while protecting voter rights. This ensures states are able to run elections best for the citizens of that state while also preventing federal overreach and potential disenfranchisement of voters as Trump’s EO could cause. 

Finally, media literacy campaigns are instrumental in fighting disinformation and encouraging civic participation that may have been lost due to declining trust in the integrity of elections. Meta-analytic data from the Journal of Health Communication shows that government messaging campaigns are effective in changing public opinion and behaviour [32]. Consistent with these findings, states that invest more in voter education campaigns tend to exhibit higher levels of public trust in the election process [33]. These campaigns can inoculate the public against indoctrination or harmful rhetoric, potentially preventing events like January 6th from happening again. Promoting knowledge and understanding of democratic processes can thus help reinstate lost faith in the ballot and restore true democracy through increased, educated civic participation.

Ultimately, the security of American elections relies not only on technological and legal safeguards, but also public confidence engendering the legitimacy of the process itself. By combining transparency, federal and state cooperation, and robust public education, policymakers can protect election integrity, sustain democratic legitimacy, and mitigate national security risks. In doing so, the United States fortifies not only its democracy, but also the institutional foundations that sustain it.

---

[1] Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

[2] See [1].

[3] Help America Vote Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666.

[4] Jeffrey M. Jones, Partisan Split on Election Integrity Gets Even Wider, GALLUP (2024), https://news.gallup.com/poll/651185/partisan-split-election-integrity-gets-even-wider.aspx

[5] Public Trust in U.S. Elections Is Decreasing. Should It Be?, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/public-trust-us-elections-decreasing-should-it-be

[6] Michael Waldman, The Myth of Widespread Noncitizen Voting, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE (2024), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/noncitizen-voting-missing-millions.

[7] See [6].

[8] Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees, CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY, https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election-infrastructure

[9] Litigation Related to the 2020 Election, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections

[10] See [9].

[11] See [4].

[12] See [4].

[13] The Voting Rights Act Explained, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-act-explained

[14] See [12].

[15] Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013).

[16] See [14].

[17] See [14].

[18] Kareem Crayton & Kendall Verhovek, Shelby County v. Holder Turns 10, and Voting Rights Continue to Suffer from It, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE (June 20, 2023), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/shelby-county-v-holder-turns-10-and-voting-rights-continue-suffer-it

[19] Kevin Morris, Peter Miller & Corin Grange, Racial Turnout Gap Grew in Jurisdictions Previously Covered by the Voting Rights Act, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE (Aug. 20, 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/racial-turnout-gap-grew-jurisdictions-previously-covered-voting-rights

[20] Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, THE WHITE HOUSE, https://www.whitehouse.gov/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/

[21] Who Votes by Mail?, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/who-votes-mail

[22] Voters’ and Nonvoters’ Experiences with the 2024 Election, PEW RESEARCH CENTER (Dec. 4, 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/12/04/voters-and-nonvoters-experiences-with-the-2024-election/

[23] The SAVE Act: New Bills Would Block Millions of Americans from Voting, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, https://www.brennancenter.org/new-save-act-bills-would-block-millions-americans-voting

[24] States, Not the President, Run Elections in America, STATE COURT REPORT, https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis/states-not-president-run-elections-america

[25] Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/clause-1/

[26] Ricardo González, Bernardo Mackenna, Andrés Scherman & Alfredo Joignant, Fairness Beyond the Ballot: A Comparative Analysis of Failures of Electoral Integrity, Perceptions of Electoral Fairness, and Attitudes Towards Democracy Across 18 Countries, 84 ELECTORAL STUDIES 102628 (2023).

[27] Here’s Where Jan. 6 Trials Stand, PBS NEWSHOUR, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/heres-where-jan-6-trials-stand

[28] Final Report of the ODIHR Election Observation Mission to the United States of America, ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE OFFICE FOR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/elections/usa/580111

[29] See [26].

[30] Can Official Messaging on Trust in Elections Break Through Partisan Polarization?, 55 BRITISH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE (2023).

[31] See [28].

[32] See [28].

[33] See [28].