Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What voters need to know about the presidential election

House chamber

Rep. Scott Perry objects to Pennsylvania's certification of its Electoral College vote during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 7, 2021.

Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

It is quite clear that the presidential election is going to be incredibly close. In each of the seven swing states, the margin of error is less than 2 percent.

As citizens, this is not something to fear and it is critically important that we all trust the election results.

As part of our ongoing series for the Election Overtime Project, today we present a guide explaining in detail what you, as a voter, need to know about the role of state legislatures and Congress in a presidential election. The guide was prepared by the Election Reformers Network, a nonprofit organization championing impartial elections and concrete policy solutions that strengthen American democracy.


Once Election Day has come, state legislators have no role in determining presidential results

  1. They can pass laws before the election deciding how the state will select its electors (winner-take-all, by congressional district, etc.).
  2. They cannot change how the state selects its electors after the elections.
  3. They cannot select a different set of electors than those chosen based on the certified results.
  4. They do not certify the presidential results in their state.

Candidates and parties

Candidates and/or parties have many opportunities to ensure the accuracy of the count. They have no legitimate grounds to claim they legally won once results showing they did not are final, and all court cases are resolved.

  1. Candidates and/or parties can designate observers to watch important election processes, in accordance with state law.
  2. Candidates in close elections can observe and/or request recounts in most states.
  3. Candidates and parties can contest results in court.

Courts

Elections are conducted according to procedures set by law; courts are the backstop candidates and officials use to ensure the law is followed.

  1. Courts can order election boards, canvas boards and similar bodies to certify results if they refuse to do so.
  2. Courts cannot hear (and must dismiss) challenges if the court lacks the authority to hear the case, if the plaintiff lacks the right to bring the case, or if there is insufficient evidence or legal basis to continue the case.
  3. Courts can hear and decide challenges to the election results if there is sufficient evidence that the votes were not cast or counted according to law.

Results: Election laws alone determine when results are final

  1. Media projections have no bearing on the results.
  2. Whether a candidate concedes has no bearing on the results (though failing to do so can create risks of political violence).
  3. The election result and selection of electors in a state becomes final when the governor (or other executive per state law) issues the Certificate of Ascertainment within 36 days of Election Day (by Dec. 11).
  4. The Certificate of Ascertainment is subject to change by court order if there is a successful legal challenge before the meeting of electors (Dec. 17).

Congress

The role of Congress is extremely limited, and Congress does not actually “certify” presidential results.

  1. Congress can witness the vice president counting — without discretion — each state’s official certificate of electoral votes.
  2. Members of Congress can object to counting electoral votes on a very limited set of grounds that are extremely unlikely to occur. (For example: Did the elector vote for a president who is over 35, as required by the Constitution?)
  3. Members of Congress cannot object to the results in any state so long as those results have been certified according to law.
  4. In the very unlikely event that no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives picks the president (with each state's delegation having one vote) and the Senate picks the vice president.

Read More

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

A deep dive into ongoing threats to U.S. democracy—from MAGA election interference and state voting restrictions to filibuster risks—as America approaches 2026 and 2028.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

Tuesday, November 4, demonstrated again that Americans want democracy and US elections are conducted credibly. Voter turnout was strong; there were few administrative glitches, but voters’ choices were honored.

The relatively smooth elections across the country nonetheless took place despite electiondenial and anti-voting efforts continuing through election day. These efforts will likely intensify as we move toward the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. The MAGA drive for unprecedented mid-decade, extreme political gerrymandering of congressional districts to guarantee their control of the House of Representatives is a conspicuous thrust of their campaign to remain in power at all costs.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

Major redistricting cases in Louisiana and Texas threaten the Voting Rights Act and the representation of Black and Latino voters across the South.

Getty Images, kali9

The Voting Rights Act Is Under Attack in the South

Under court order, Louisiana redrew to create a second majority-Black district—one that finally gave true representation to the community where my family lives. But now, that district—and the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA)—are under attack. Meanwhile, here in Texas, Republican lawmakers rammed through a mid-decade redistricting plan that dramatically reduces Black and Latino voting power in Congress. As a Louisiana-born Texan, it’s disheartening to see that my rights to representation as a Black voter in Texas, and those of my family back home in Louisiana, are at serious risk.

Two major redistricting cases in these neighboring states—Louisiana v. Callais and Texas’s statewide redistricting challenge, LULAC v. Abbott—are testing the strength and future of the VRA. In Louisiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide not just whether Louisiana must draw a majority-Black district to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, but whether considering race as one factor to address proven racial discrimination in electoral maps can itself be treated as discriminatory. It’s an argument that contradicts the purpose of the VRA: to ensure all people, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity to elect candidates amid ongoing discrimination and suppression of Black and Latino voters—to protect Black and Brown voters from dilution.

Keep ReadingShow less