Merloe is a member of the Election Reformers Network Advisory Council and provides strategic advice on democracy and elections in the U.S. and internationally.
Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee recently announced “the most extensive and monumental election integrity program in the nation’s history,” involving 100,000 “dedicated volunteers and attorneys across every battleground state.” The plan is to deploy election workers, poll watchers, challengers and “aggressive attorneys” to targeted areas in “an historic collaboration between the RNC, the Trump Campaign, and passionate grassroots coalitions who are deeply vested in fighting voter fraud.”
Should this be cause for alarm about potential disruptions of the 2024 elections? The answer is: It depends — on their actions and what others do to better ensure a credible process.
In the announcement, RNC Chair Michael Whatley said the lawyers and volunteers “are committed to the sanctity of our elections.” Who can take issue with that — unless the effort spuriously depicts non-existent widespread election fraud as has been proclaimed by passionate groups welcomed into the initiative by, among others, the director of the RNC’s Election Integrity Department, Christina Norton, during an April 4 call posted online.
The New York Times reported in late April that the RNC effort will target Democratic districts, including cities and African-American neighborhoods. The reporters pointed to new RNC leadership driving this initiative, including Whatley, Norton, Co-chair Lara Trump and Christina Bobb, senior council for election integrity. Bobb is among the 18 people indicted April 24 on felony charges for her role in the Arizona scheme to undo Joe Biden’s election by presenting fraudulent presidential electors to Congress.
One concern about deploying election monitors who are both partisan and convinced that widespread fraud exists is that they may see things that are not there or interpret things incorrectly (like believing someone passing a ginger mint is really illegally passing a USB drive). Having lost more than 60 court challenges, when wrongly declaring the 2020 elections suffered widespread fraud, election deniers only doubled down. And, they have since concocted bogus theories and faulty evidence of voter registration fraud (a rising battle arena), mailed ballot fraud and conspiracy theories about “rigged” election technologies. And now they are falsely claiming that throngs of undocumented immigrants are pouring into the country to illegally vote for Biden.
Needless to say, if such passionate grassroots volunteers are to be integral to the 100,000 strong effort, they will face a daunting challenge in developing accurate observations required for genuine election monitoring and reliable evidence required to back up legal cases. Given the flood of post-election challenges following the 2020 election and the breadth of 2024 cases already lodged, it is possible to see the risks of challenges based on flimsy evidence. We can only hope that rigorous training based on established principles and good practices will lead to accurate, constructive reports.
The 100,000 person effort will monitor logic and accuracy testing of voting machines as well as procedures for early voting, Election Day voting, mailed ballot processing, and post-election canvassing (vote counting and tabulation), audits and recounts. The passionate volunteers are to be linked with a hotline in each key state that is tied to a state party “war room” and litigators at the ready. All of this will take place in the age of social media and the likelihood of deep fakes. Any problem — real or imagined — could easily become a viral source of information or disinformation potentially affecting voter participation and public confidence in the elections.
The potential for physical confrontations at the polls and other election facilities also is concerning in light of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the peaceful transfer of the presidency, Trump not ruling out violence should he lose the 2024 election and his inflammatory campaign rhetoric. Passionate volunteers on a crusade against improbable election fraud going to precincts with heavy Democratic Party support, including large cities and African American neighborhoods, could generate confrontations, with images that negatively affect public opinion about the elections.
What should be done to safeguard the elections?
The first thing to do is educate yourself about election processes, whether you are a voter, an activist or a journalist. It will be invaluable to know what procedures prevent illegal voter registration and ensure the proper functioning of electronic voter lists (pollbooks) at voting places, what mechanisms protect the security of voting and vote tabulation, how the integrity of mailed ballots is secured, what the proper roles of poll watchers are, and more. Simultaneously, get a sense of how your state and local election administration conduct themselves.
Such learning is important for personal understanding and interactions with others should incidents flare up in the heat of elections. Good places to start are secretary of state websites, which often describe election procedures. Some media outlets are developing learning tools, like SpotlightPA ’s Elections 101 pages, while the Election Reformers Network and the Bridge Alliance are collaborating in the Election Overtime Project to present such materials for six battleground states. Plus, the Brennan Center for Justice, Votebeat and others are reliable sources.
Direct civic engagement is crucial for safeguarding elections. Engaging with efforts to recruit polling officials is important. That can be done by reaching out to local county election boards about poll worker opportunities and encouraging other reliable people to do so. The Election Assistance Commission provides resources on being a polling official and a way to contact local boards across the country as National Poll Worker Recruitment Day (the Aug. 1) approaches.
Joining or otherwise supporting voter registration efforts helps to realize universal and equal suffrage. Nonpartisan national efforts, like VoteRiders, engage volunteers nationally while providing information and assistance to individuals in each state. There is an array of national and state-specific organizations that focus on voter-registration and turnout, some targeting traditionally disenfranchised communities.
Volunteering with candidates and political parties to encourage voting and safeguard electoral integrity is also crucial. Party/candidate poll watching and related monitoring is a public service, not a gladiatorial contest. Such monitors can reassure their party’s supporters that the process is being protected and can help encourage officials to ensure smooth processes, even identifying and alleviating problems as they develop. Proper training emphasizes cooperation, rather than conflict with election officials, opponents’ poll watchers and voters — both inside and outside voting and canvassing centers.
In many elections that I’ve observed, internal reports of party election monitors played a critical role in helping candidates accept that the process was credible, even when they lost, and at times provided the factual basis for electoral challenges. Those circumstances typically required strong election administration and good-faith actions of well-trained party agents. Many other countries have the advantage of respected nonpartisan election monitors and international observers who are trusted to report accurately, but who, unfortunately, do not play major roles in the United States. That places a heightened obligation on journalists to understand election intricacies and accurately cover electoral controversies.
“All eyes on the election process” is a fitting call this year, but like observing any phenomenon, accurate monitoring requires refining one’s understanding of it. Learning and engaging are essential to safeguarding the credibility of elections, and helping others to see accurately is part of bolstering democracy. No time is more important for that than the next few months as we move toward Nov. 5, 2024, and Jan. 6, 2025.




















Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.