Clear all

10 results found

reorder grid_view

Who Voters Trust for Election Information in 2024

February 26, 2024

A record number of voters will head to the polls this year, with more than 50 countries comprising half the planet's population due to hold national elections in 2024. This coincides with the wide and growing availability of sophisticated AI technology that will supercharge misinformation and cyberthreats.To limit the spread of inaccurate or deceptive election information, we must understand how Americans get their information to begin with and how they feel about it. To answer these questions, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the States United Democracy Center, and the Integrity Institute joined together to administer a national survey exploring Americans' election information habits.We show how Americans consume, share, and assess election news in a crucial election year, uncovering new learnings after a similar survey was conducted by BPC in advance of the 2022 midterm election.

The Reality of Full Hand Counts: A Guide for Election Officials

February 6, 2024

Election officials in some jurisdictions are being pressed to consider replacing their automated vote-counting systems with full hand counts.Full hand counts are different from limited hand counts, which are common and play a valuable role in elections. Limited hand counts are often used during the audit process, for example, to make sure automated counting systems produced accurate results.In full hand counts, human teams manually tabulate every ballot and every contest, and their results are used as the official results. As this resource will show, this kind of effort to replace a modern voting system with a full hand count practically guarantees complexity, higher costs, delays, and mistakes.

A Democracy Crisis in the Making: Year-End Update

December 7, 2023

As the 2024 election approaches, state legislatures continue to propose and enact laws that expose our election system to partisan disruption and manipulation. These laws ultimately increase the risk of subversion — that is, a declared outcome that does not reflect the true choice of the voters. They also abandon long-standing principles of nonpartisan election administration and instead allow for — or even encourage — dysfunction, misinformation, confusion, or manipulation by partisan actors.Our organizations have been tracking this trend for three years, since the 2020 election. In that time, state legislatures have introduced more than 600 of these bills, and 62 have become law in 28 states. As we noted in our Report earlier this year, the 2022 elections were largely successful and free of serious subversion efforts. But we remain concerned that recently enacted laws could help precipitate a crisis — particularly in an election involving a candidate at the top of the ticket who has already attempted to subvert an election. At the very least, these laws will make it harder for professional election administrators, who already face a rise in unjustified suspicion and unprecedented levels of harassment, to do their jobs on behalf of our democracy.This year-end update to our June 2023 Report reviews some of the major developments that we have seen this year. Some states warrant particular attention. In North Carolina, a legislative supermajority has engineered a host of changes in election oversight that could open the door to partisan interference, confusion at the polls, gridlock during the certification process, or doubt about the results, in addition to disinformation at each of those steps. In Texas, two laws enacted this year targeted the state's most populous and diverse county, abolishing the county election office and empowering the state to take control over election procedures under flimsy pretexts and with partisan motives. In Wisconsin, some legislators, relying in part on baseless conspiracy theories, have repeatedly sought to remove the state's top nonpartisan election official, so far without success.

The Financial and Economic Dangers of Democratic Backsliding

July 11, 2023

As attention shifts toward 2024 U.S. electoral contests, it is important—for the American public generally and for U.S.-based institutional investors specifically—to remain cognizant of the very real threats to U.S. democracy. Investors often treat the United States as an exceptional market, by virtue of its size, liquidity, and global role. Indeed, cross-national academic analyses in political economy and finance often exclude the United States, because it is an outlier in many ways.Yet these same features also heighten the potential impact on investment portfolios of political shifts in the United States. Most institutional investors' portfolios are overweight in U.S. investment, the result not only of the United States' important global position, but also of a more general "home bias" among investors. A large negative shock to U.S. assets and markets would heavily impact these overweight portfolios. Moreover, given the position of the United States globally, U.S.-based shocks would likely reverberate throughout the global economy. This spillover, as evidenced by the 2007-2008 U.S. subprime crisis, would likely generate far-reaching effects. It therefore is difficult to "flee to safety" when the United States—typically viewed as a safe haven when political risk elsewhere increases—experiences heightened political risk.Polities in which the rule of law is less well-respected often experience a decline in firms' activities and innovations. The uncertainty associated with an erosion of democratic values can generate volatility as well as higher costs of capital, for business as well as for municipal and sovereign borrowers. When the institutions of democracy are strong, volatility in economic policy appears less worrying to investors; in the face of institutional decay, however, weak policy is likely to have more negative effects. And, to the extent that democratic backsliding is associated with populist—nationalist, anti-foreigner, and anticosmopolitan— ideologies, it threatens the liberal international order on which so much U.S. prosperity has rested.This report therefore argues that U.S. institutional investors have a fiduciary duty to continue to closely monitor the political risks associated with potential democratic erosion in the United States. The paper begins by conceptualizing democratic backsliding and summarizing the state of democracy, both globally and in the United States. The report then discusses existing academic scholarship on the ways in which political risk matters for economic and financial outcomes, including fixed income, equities, and longerterm investment. The bulk of this work analyzes political risk in other countries and regions, including advanced as well as emerging and frontier market economies. The report then discusses what lessons these analyses hold for the United States. It concludes with a discussion of what institutional investors can do to monitor and respond to these risks.

A Democracy Crisis in the Making: 2024 Election Threats Emerging (June 2023)

June 8, 2023

In April 2021, we published the first edition of A Democracy Crisis in the Making: How State Legislatures Are Politicizing, Criminalizing, and Interfering with Election Administration. That Report identified a burgeoning trend in state legislatures: bills that would increase the risk of election subversion—that is, that the declared outcome of an election does not reflect the true choice of the voters. Through the 2021 and 2022 state legislative sessions, we tracked nearly 400 legislative proposals that would make election subversion more likely. Fifty-six of them ultimately became law in 26 states.In the two years since our first Report, the danger of election subversion has drawn wider attention. During the 2022 midterm elections, the future of nonpartisan election administration was a campaign issue. Exit polling showed that "democracy" was a top concern for voters. That election came and went without major crises, and the accurate results were ultimately certified on time and in accordance with the law. Moreover, voters in certain states decisively rejected election deniers, whose beliefs were rooted in the baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump. Some states are moving towards proactively safeguarding against election subversion by advancing legislation to enhance security and privacy protections for election workers or refocusing investigative efforts on improving voter access.

A Democracy Crisis in the Making: How State Legislatures are Politicizing, Criminalizing, and Interfering with Election Administration (August 2022)

August 24, 2022

In the 21 months since the 2020 election, we have seen a breakdown in the longstanding consensus that election administration belongs in the hands of professional, dispassionate experts, and that naked political interference in vote counting is anathema to a functioning democracy. Over the course of 2021 and into 2022, state legislatures have embarked on a sweeping campaign to propose, consider, and, in some cases, enact measures that increase the risk of election subversion—that is, the risk that an election's declared outcome does not reflect the choice of the voters.In May, we published the 2022 edition of our ongoing analysis of these efforts that identified a pattern across more than 30 states of lawmakers menacing independent and accurate election administration through proposals that, if enacted, would impact practically every step of the electoral process.Since the release of our May report, the landscape has only darkened. In this update, we describe three evolving trends—each of them a distinct threat, but connected in the danger they pose to the future of free and fair elections. As we explain in Part I, the number of bills that heighten the risk of election subversion has increased. In Part II, we detail a gathering storm cloud as the Supreme Court prepares to consider a case that could rewrite constitutional elections doctrine with an extreme legal theory, upend decades of election law, and accelerate election subversion efforts. Finally, in Part III, we discuss how the insider threat trend—misconduct by officials in trusted election administration roles—has sharpened. With an election less than three months away, it is imperative that these threats be acknowledged and mitigated.

A Democracy Crisis in the Making: How State Legislatures are Politicizing, Criminalizing, and Interfering with Election Administration (May 2022)

May 19, 2022

One year ago, we published A Democracy Crisis in the Making: How State Legislatures are Politicizing, Criminalizing, and Interfering with Election Administration. We warned that state legislatures were considering a range of bills that would increase the risk of election subversion--that is, the risk that the purported outcome of the election does not reflect the choice of the voters. State by state, legislatures had moved to seize power from professional, non-partisan election administrators and to needlessly expose the running of elections to partisan influence and disruption. As we explained in our initial Report, this trend increases the risk of a crisis in which the outcome of an election could be decided contrary to the will of the people.Since our first Report, this effort by state legislatures has not receded. In fact, it has accelerated. This year alone, lawmakers have introduced scores of new bills that increase the likelihood of election subversion, whether directly or indirectly. In some cases, the potential subversion is quite direct--for example, bills that give the legislature the power to choose a victor contrary to the voters' will. In others, the impact is less direct but still dangerous. Some bills would introduce dysfunction and chaos into the election system and could lead to delay, uncertainty, and confusion, all of which could provide cover for subversion.

Replacing the Refs: Tracking the Trend of Election Deniers Running for Statewide Office in 2022

January 27, 2022

Since 2020, lies and conspiracy theories have continued to fuel efforts to undermine our free and fair elections. The anti-democracy playbook is simple: Change the rules, change the referees, in order to change the results. This tool tracks Election Deniers running for office at the statewide level. In 2022, there will be contests for governors, attorneys general, and secretaries of state — the statewide officials who run, oversee, and protect our elections.

Is democracy failing and putting our economic system at risk?

January 4, 2022

The rule of law and democracy are crucial to capital markets. A free market balanced by a democratically elected, transparent and capable government, and a strong civil society ("an inclusive regime") yield stable growth rates and greater social welfare. Conversely, threats to democracy are threats to the private sector, which is why business leaders and institutional investors cannot afford to remain on the sidelines when such threats emerge.This paper explores the state of American democracy and whether it constitutes a systemic risk that impacts fiduciary duties. The paper proceeds in three parts. In the first, we assess the question of whether American democracy is backsliding towards failure, and argue that it is. In the second, we will examine whether democratic failure represents a systemic risk, and conclude that it does. In the third part, we offer some preliminary thoughts about what steps major private sector actors may undertake as part of their fiduciary responsibilities given the threats to U.S. democracy and markets.

A Democracy Crisis in the Making: How State Legislatures are Politicizing, Criminalizing, and Interfering with Election Administration (April 2021)

April 22, 2021

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, a wave of legislative proposals to remake election law has swept across the country, state by state. One organization, the Voting Rights Lab, has identified more than 2,000 bills that deal in one way or another with the way elections are administered.Among this group, one set of consequential proposals has flown under the radar. They involve efforts to alter basic principles about how elections should be administered and aspire to put highly partisan elected officeholders in charge of basic decisions about our elections. In 2021, state legislatures across the country--through at least 148 bills filed in 36 states --are moving to muscle their way into election administration, as they attempt to dislodge or unsettle the executive branch and/or local election officials who, traditionally, have run our voting systems. This attempted consolidation would give state legislatures the power to disrupt election administration and the reporting of results beyond any such power they had in 2020 or indeed throughout much of the last century. Had these bills been in place in 2020, they would have significantly added to the turmoil that surrounded the election, and they would have raised the alarming prospect that the outcome of the presidential election could have been decided contrary to how the people voted. These are substantial changes that, if enacted, could make elections unworkable, render results far more difficult to finalize, and in the worstcase scenario, allow state legislatures to substitute their preferred candidates for those chosen by the voters. American democracy relies on the losers of elections respecting the results and participating in a peaceful transition of power. If, instead, the losing party tries to override the will of the voters, that would be the death knell for our system of government.