Election Deniers Seek Voting Control in 23 States

A comprehensive investigation has uncovered a concerning trend sweeping across American politics: in 23 states, including five critical presidential swing states, candidates who have publicly denied or challenged the results of the 2020 presidential election are actively running for positions that grant them direct authority over certifying future elections. This development raises significant questions about election integrity and the future of democratic processes in key battleground regions.

The report highlights a deliberate strategy by election-denying candidates to position themselves within the electoral system itself. By seeking offices that oversee vote certification and election administration, these candidates would gain substantial influence over how elections are conducted and validated. This includes positions such as secretaries of state, state election board members, and other roles with direct oversight of voting procedures and result certification.

Among the notable candidates pursuing such positions is Rep. Andy Biggs, a Republican from Arizona, who voted against certifying the 2020 election results during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives. Biggs is currently running for governor in Arizona, a state that serves as one of the most competitive swing states in presidential elections. His candidacy exemplifies the broader pattern of election-denying candidates seeking positions of electoral authority.

The distribution of these candidates across 23 states demonstrates that this phenomenon is not isolated to any single region but represents a nationwide movement. The inclusion of five major swing states—states that have historically determined the outcomes of presidential elections—makes this trend particularly significant for the future of American electoral processes. These swing states include Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona, all of which played pivotal roles in the 2020 election.

The implications of this development extend far beyond individual campaigns. If election-denying officials gain control of election certification processes, they would possess the power to potentially challenge, delay, or reject election results based on false or unsubstantiated claims. This could fundamentally undermine the legitimacy of election outcomes and erode public confidence in democratic institutions. The certification process is a critical safeguard that ensures elections are conducted fairly and results are accurately recorded.

Election experts and democracy advocates have expressed alarm at this trend. Many argue that allowing individuals who have already demonstrated a willingness to reject election results into positions where they can influence future certification represents a direct threat to the integrity of American democracy. These candidates have shown through their past actions that they are willing to disregard factual evidence regarding election outcomes.

The 2020 presidential election saw numerous unfounded claims of widespread fraud despite extensive investigations, audits, and court proceedings that found no evidence of fraud affecting the outcome. Nonetheless, many Republican candidates and officials have continued to promote these false narratives. Their pursuit of election administration positions suggests an intent to use these offices to further their agenda regarding election denial.

State-level election administration has become increasingly politicized in recent years, with control over these offices now viewed as strategically important by both major political parties. However, the specific focus on election-denying candidates represents a new phase in this political competition. Rather than simply disagreeing on policy matters, these candidates have already demonstrated a fundamental rejection of electoral outcomes.

The report's findings underscore the importance of the 2024 election cycle for determining the direction of American electoral governance. The candidates running for these positions will likely face scrutiny from election protection advocates, media organizations, and opposing political campaigns. Voters in these states will be asked to decide whether individuals who have rejected previous election results should be entrusted with certifying future ones.

In Arizona, where Biggs is running for governor, the state has already been at the center of election integrity debates following 2020. The state experienced multiple recounts and audits, all of which confirmed the legitimacy of the original results. Despite this, election denial has remained a significant force in Arizona politics. Biggs' campaign reflects the continued prominence of these narratives within certain political circles.

Similarly, other swing states mentioned in the report have experienced intense scrutiny regarding their 2020 election procedures. In each case, comprehensive reviews, audits, and court challenges have validated the election results. Yet candidates who dispute these findings continue to seek positions of electoral authority. This pattern suggests a coordinated effort rather than isolated incidents of individual skepticism.

The report serves as a call to action for voters and election protection organizations. Understanding which candidates are running for election-related positions and what their records show regarding past elections is crucial for informed voting. Transparency regarding these candidates' positions and track records can help voters make decisions that protect electoral integrity in their states.

Looking ahead, the outcomes of these races will have profound implications for how American elections are conducted and certified in the coming years. If election deniers gain office, they could potentially introduce new obstacles to smooth election administration or challenge future results based on the same unfounded theories that characterized post-2020 disputes. Conversely, if voters reject these candidates, it would signal continued commitment to evidence-based election administration and acceptance of electoral outcomes.

The findings highlight the critical importance of election administration as a political issue in contemporary American democracy. No longer can these positions be viewed as purely technical or bureaucratic roles. They have become frontline positions in debates about the legitimacy and integrity of American elections themselves. The stakes for the 2024 election cycle have thus been raised considerably for voters in the 23 states identified in the report.