Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Harris County election mistakes

Harris County election mistakes

Harris County Elections staff conduct logic and accuracy testing in preparation for last year's general election

Getty Images

Levine is an elections integrity fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which develops strategies to deter and defend against autocratic efforts to interfere in democratic institutions.

Krystyna (Krysia) Sikora is a program assistant for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, where she serves as the assistant to the director.


Earlier this month, Harris County sued the State of Texas to temporarily block a law, known as Senate Bill 1750, that would eliminate the Harris County elections administrator position effective September 1st. Harris County really messed up its administration of the 2022 midterms, but removing its top administrator position with less than two months to go before the start of early voting for a countywide election is likely to cause more problems than it solves. Harris County needs more checks and resources behind their election officials, not an elimination of the top election position altogether. While the lawsuit is ostensibly about preserving a critical election position, beneath the surface it is also about the weaponization of mistakes to justify the takeover of election operations.

The 2022 midterms were not the first time Texas’ most populous county experienced election administration problems. On Election Day in 2022, more than a dozen voting locations ran out of ballot paper. As had occurred in past elections, there were widespread reports of voting machine malfunctions, paper jams, and unusually long lines. Several polling places failed to open on time for various reasons, including election workers quitting, not showing up, or not being given the keys required to operate voting equipment.

The mishaps did not impact Harris County’s election results, but they were significant enough to justify greater state oversight of the county’s election administration. However, rather than taking the opportunity to help Harris County improve its elections, state officials wielded the mistakes to increase partisan control over election processes in a way that could further cast doubt on the legitimacy of its elections. In addition to Senate Bill 1750, Governor Greg Abbott also recently signed Senate Bill 1933 into law, which authorizes the secretary of state to essentially take over Harris County’s elections on vague grounds, as well as Senate Bill 1070, which enabled Texas to resign from the Electronic Registration Information Center, an interstate compact that allows states to share information to help maintain accurate voter rolls. Another proposed bill would give an Abbott-appointed official authority to order an entirely new election in Harris County if 2% of its polling places run out of ballot paper for an hour. The bills were justified by the false claim that the election problems were deliberately orchestrated to disenfranchise certain voters.

Harris County is not alone in facing repercussions from election errors. A new report by the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund examines election administration mistakes made in three pivotal counties across the United States—including Harris—during the 2022 and 2020 elections, and how those mistakes were subsequently weaponized. For example, misreported results in Antrim County, Michigan served as the basis for a swarm of conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines, which subsequently sparked the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. Likewise, after Maricopa County, Arizona reported issues with vote-counting machines reading ballots printed on site, losing candidates claimed malfeasance and sued to overturn and rerun the election. The claims underlying the suit were found to be without foundation. The weaponization of election mistakes is likely to increase in the run-up to the 2024 General Election as long-serving election officials leave their posts and less experienced—or ill-intentioned —officials replace them, risking more mistakes.

In a voting system as complicated as those in the United States, mistakes are bound to happen.

But without more evidence they are not signs of malfeasance. State lawmakers should bolster election administration processes through proactive, intermittent reviews that enable all counties to improve their administration of elections, making legislation like that adopted by Texas misguided. State lawmakers should strive to improve systems before problems arise, such as adopting vote counting timelines that can ensure election officials can accurately count ballots without unnecessary pressure. And if a mistake is made, post-election audits are an important tool for verifying results amid skepticism.

As polarization continues to prevail, it is more important than ever that our democratic institutions cooperate with and support one another. This includes our election system. Heading into 2024, less than half of Americans have high confidence that the votes in the next presidential election will be counted accurately. It is not too late to begin fixing this problem, but it will require political leaders to support their fellow election officials, not weaponize their mistakes for partisan gain. As the Harris County situation demonstrates, the latter risks undermining the work of election officials and casting doubt on legitimate results.


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less