Election Integrity & Secretary of State Perceptions

Election Integrity & Secretary of State Perceptions: Synthesis and Actions

Objective and context: This qualitative study examined how voters perceive election administration, the Secretary of State’s (SoS) role, and trust in electoral systems. Across three lines of inquiry-core responsibilities and trust, “make voting easier” pledges, and candidates’ stances on 2020-respondents converged on a pragmatic, process-first mindset that favors predictable, transparent, and audited systems over personalities.

What voters expect from the SoS-and how trust is earned: The dominant view is a “quiet, administrative steward” who preserves integrity with predictable rules, accurate voter rolls, voter‑verifiable paper ballots, risk‑limiting audits, secure chain‑of‑custody, and clear certification timelines. Trust is conditional and system-oriented: people reported roughly “more‑than‑half” trust-often around 7/10-when the office stays procedural and non‑performative (James Hartley: “I trust the process more than the person… at a 7 or 8/10 if it’s quiet administration”). Trust collapses with grandstanding, last‑minute rule changes, opaque audits, or perceived partisan purges (Brenda Leblanc: “Keep elections clean and boring”). Notably, some highlight that in their state the SoS does not run elections (Ashley Young, Clint Ferguson), shifting evaluation toward records/business service metrics rather than election promises.

“Easier, faster, accessible” is welcomed-if paired with guardrails: Support rises when specifics replace slogans: voter‑verifiable paper, routine RLAs, explicit chain‑of‑custody, bipartisan/independent oversight, and published metrics (wait times, rejection/cure rates, audit results). Respondents want pilots, vendor transparency (publish contracts/exit terms), and a formal pre‑election procedural freeze (e.g., 90 days) to avoid late changes (Karen Middleton: “Paper first, audits always”). Accessibility priorities include extended hours, staffing-especially in rural areas-and language access (Heather Rojas: Spanish materials and a Spanish hotline), with one conservative-leaning respondent emphasizing photo ID and limits on ballot harvesting/mass mailouts (Clint Ferguson).

2020 denial is broadly disqualifying for this office: There was near‑universal rejection of SoS candidates who deny the 2020 results. Voters want a boring, competent steward who accepts certified outcomes and focuses on technical fixes (paper, RLAs, observers, logs). Some allow conditional reconsideration only if a candidate explicitly affirms the certified 2020 result and offers a detailed, lawful, nuts‑and‑bolts plan (Brenda Leblanc; Karen Middleton; Ashley Young).

Persona correlations and nuances:

• Older, higher‑income professionals: Prioritize governance rigor-published metrics, vendor transparency, RLAs, and aversion to performative politics (Hartley, Leblanc, Middleton).
• Rural, mid/low‑income: Trust county clerks/poll workers; want practical access fixes (more poll workers, rural early‑vote sites) and role clarity when SoS authority is limited (Young, Ferguson).
• State‑structure aware: In states where SoS doesn’t run elections, evaluate on records/business SLAs (turnaround, fees, data quality) and expect messaging that stays in lane (Young, Ferguson).
• Urban, Spanish‑speaking, non‑citizen: Trust hinges on Spanish materials, bilingual staff, and assurances that immigration data won’t be repurposed (Rojas).
• Conservative security‑focused: Support audits/chain‑of‑custody alongside prescriptive restrictions like photo ID and no mass mailouts (Ferguson).

Recommendations (actionable and evidence‑aligned):

• Adopt a public “Boring Is Good” stewardship pledge and explicit role clarity to deter grandstanding and align promises with authority.
• Launch an Elections Transparency Dashboard with wait times, rejection/cure rates, audit schedules/results, and incident logs; offer CSV/API access.
• Codify a 90‑day pre‑election procedural freeze; publish a governance calendar for guidance, testing, L&A, and certification milestones.
• Issue a County Support Kit: chain‑of‑custody templates, observer rules, training checklists; resource local admins whom voters already trust.
• Stand up bilingual materials and a Spanish hotline window; recruit/train bilingual poll workers; provide explicit privacy assurances.
• Publish redacted vendor contracts and procurement principles, including exit clauses.
• Where SoS doesn’t run elections, publish records/business SLAs and performance dashboards.

Risks and guardrails: To avoid politicization backlash, use bipartisan validators and consistent, plain‑language releases; phase data with QA and labeled limitations; never overpromise beyond statutory authority; address county capacity with micro‑grants/templates; manage vendor constraints via redactions and principle‑based transparency.

Next steps and measurement:

1. 0–30 days: Publish pledge + role clarity; adopt freeze policy; release County Support Kit v1; Spanish info pack + hotline hours; vendor transparency post; metrics page MVP.
2. 30–60 days: Go live with dashboard MVP; finalize observer/audit package; pilot county MOUs; records/business SLAs (where applicable).
3. 60–90 days: Run access‑with‑guardrails pilots (extended hours, staffing, tracking paired with paper + RLAs); publish interim results; expand county onboarding and data QA.
4. E‑90 to Election Day: Maintain freeze; weekly dashboard updates; publish RLA plans; surge county support.
5. Post‑election (≤14 days): Publish RLA results and an after‑action report.

KPIs: Public Trust Index (target +0.5; sustain ≥7.5 pre‑election); Dashboard Coverage (≥50% counties by 90 days; ≥75% by E‑60); Freeze Compliance (100%); Audit Transparency Timeliness (≥95% within 14 days); Language Access Coverage (100% of top pages/notices in Spanish with QA).