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

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less