Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How the rest of the world avoided Covid election chaos

curbside voting in Miami, Florida

Many states have made changes to election laws in response to the pandemic. And those changes have led to hundreds of lawsuits.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

With only a handful of days until Election Day, some voting procedure questions are finally being resolved. The Pennsylvania Legislature declined to allow election officials to process absentee ballots before Nov. 3. The Michigan Legislature grudgingly allowed earlier ballot processing, in some counties. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott's decision to reduce the number of ballot drop boxes is still in court.

These issues are all part of a great battle over election procedures during the pandemic. Most states expanded early voting and mail-in ballots this year, and those changes have been the center of a mind boggling 377 lawsuits, according to the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project.

We're not the only country holding elections during Covid-19. But a look at what has happened elsewhere presents a dramatic contrast with the United States, where public-health decisions became a partisan legal conflict.


Queensland, Australia, will hold a state parliament election on Oct. 30, with the Electoral Commission of Queensland in charge. The ECQ is an independent statutory body, and it used its authority to roll out expanded early voting and a longer application period for postal ballots. The commission also expanded a new vote-by-phone system for people who can't make it to the polls. None of these changes needed approval by the Queensland Parliament, and none were challenged in court.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In New Brunswick, Canada, the September state parliament elections saw a 100-fold increase in mail-in voting. Procedures were set by Kim Poffenroth, the chief electoral officer and supervisor of political financing. Poffenroth is a career civil servant nominated by a commission representing academic, judicial and legislative backgrounds. By law, the chief electoral officer must be nonpartisan and may not vote.

The New Brunswick vote wasn't flawless. Registration errors led to college students being disenfranchised. There's an identity-based divide between the province's French and English speaking populations, with the potential for much partisan animosity. Nevertheless, there wasn't a single court challenge to the new election procedures.

Back on April 15, South Korea became the second country to conduct national elections during the pandemic, and turnout was the highest since 1992. Massive changes to election procedures were required, including the implementation of a new vote-by-mail system. Extensive safety precautions included temperature checks of all voters. Testing and contract tracing confirmed that no Covid-19 transmissions occurred.

These adaptations weren't ordered by the country's parliament or the federal government. They came from South Korea's National Election Commission, an independent body established in the country's constitution. The commission has full authority over administrative decisions. There was one lawsuit.

These examples illustrate how much the United States is an outlier when it comes to election administration. Our system puts people with close ties to political parties in the driver's seat, determining not just broad policy but also the details of election administration. State legislatures (which express the view of the majority party) are deciding when election officials can open their mail, and governors (who often lead their state party) are deciding things like the distribution of drop boxes.

Debates about elections administration here tend to be dominated by accusations against the individual parties, rather than a recognition that a system that lets parties micromanage elections will always have problems. Recently, Republicans have been more often accused of limiting voter access. But Democrats were guilty of the same sins throughout the Jim Crow era.

If we want a path to national sanity after all this is over, it's time to start thinking seriously about putting nonpartisan election administrators in charge.

Kevin Johnson is founder and executive director of Election Reformers Network. Read more from The Fulcrum's Election Dissection blog or see our full list of contributors.

Read More

The election went remarkably well. Here's how to make the next one even better.
Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

The election went remarkably well. Here's how to make the next one even better.

We haven't yet seen evidence that would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election — even with the unprecedented challenges of a global pandemic, the threat of foreign interference, civil unrest and greater turnout than any time since 1900. That counts as a resounding success.

Once the final tallies are certified, we need to thank the election administrators and poll workers whose heroic efforts preserved American democracy. After that, we need to assess what worked best and what needs to improve, so we can identify achievable steps to make future elections even more secure.

Based on what we know so far, here are five things that should be on the U.S. elections to-do list:

Keep ReadingShow less
Georgia voting stickers
Stop the presses, says appeals court, even if that means longer Georgia voting lines
Jessica McGowan/Getty Images

The three steps to ensure a well-run runoff in Georgia

Hold the champagne: The 2020 Election Season isn't over just yet. Neither of Georgia's Senate races resulted in a victor on Election Day, sending both contests to January runoffs that will likely determine control of the U.S. Senate. And while many folks are understandably focused on the political repercussions of these races, I'm pulling for a different candidate: democracy.

While Georgia will likely conduct a risk-limiting audit and recount of the presidential election later this month, the state appears to have done a good job administering the 2020 presidential election. As a former election administrator and expert on the integrity of elections, my assessment is there is no reason to question the integrity of the election outcome. If any concrete evidence suggesting that wrongful disenfranchisement has or will affect the accuracy of the outcome, that assessment could change. Right now, there isn't.

Regardless, these are three steps Georgia officials could take now to ensure the integrity of the state's runoff elections in January:

Keep ReadingShow less
Even if it's not official, Republicans should acknowledge Biden's win

Even if it's not official, Republicans should acknowledge Biden's win

The nation has a new president-elect, Joe Biden. At the same time, there is no official president-elect, because the electoral process itself hasn't yet reached that point.

How can both these assertions be true? And if they are, how are Americans supposed to understand that? Most importantly, how can Americans of opposite parties get on the same page, so that we can move forward together as one country, as our new president-elect in his impressive victory speech is urging us to do?

When it comes to ending elections, there are actually two different processes at work, and they operate on different timelines.

Keep ReadingShow less
What's next for U.S. democracy after the president's stress test?
Jay Cross/Flickr

What's next for U.S. democracy after the president's stress test?

In another assessment of the 2020 vote so far, Election Dissection sat down with Laura Williamson, who works on voting rights and democracy at Demos. We spoke about President Trump's election night remarks as a stress test for the United States. Williamson had plenty to say about the state of the elections and some things that need fixing after the votes are finally counted.

What was your reaction to the president?

The president's remarks and actions are a test of our ability to show up, as a people, to mass mobilize and resist his authoritarian calls to end the counting. The basis of our democracy is that we pick our leaders. It's not the president or the courts that choose. So it's a test of our ability as a people to resist what is so clearly an anti-democratic attack.

And Americans are rising to the test. We're seeing masses of people calling for every vote to be counted. They're showing up and exercising their political power. We flexed our political power one way, by voting before or on Election Day. Now we're exercising it again in a different way — showing up in the streets and demanding every eligible vote is counted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why street protests may not be the best strategy to protect the election

Why street protests may not be the best strategy to protect the election

In the months leading up to Election Day, civil society organizations carried out an extraordinary effort to make sure people across the country knew what to expect. That laid the groundwork for the core messages that have dominated in recent days: Every vote needs to be counted; the system is not broken just because it is taking longer to determine the winner; and election officials are in charge and will get the job done.

News organizations have amplified these messages. They have impressively stepped up to the challenge of covering this complicated, highly contentious election. The result has been much more calm during an uncertain post-election period than might have been expected. A development that many feared could trigger chaos — President Trump unilaterally declaring victory — has been a bit like the proverbial barking dog ignored by the passing truck.

Keep ReadingShow less