| Prior to the 2024 US Presidential Election, APSA’s Diversity and Inclusion Programs Department issued a call for submissions, entitled 2024 APSA Post-Election Reflections, for a PSNow blog series of political science scholars who reflect on key moments, ideas, and challenges faced in the 2024 election. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors and contributors alone and do not represent the views of the APSA. |
Redefining ‘Integrity’ – Reflections on Electoral Policy Change
by Christina Barsky, University of Vermont, Amanda Clark, University of Texas at Dallas, and Monica Bustinza, Engage Miami
The impact of the “Big Lie” and the years of lawsuits following the 2020 election created, or added to, an atmosphere of mistrust in elections and government institutions. In the lead-up to 2024, these claims spawned a host of Republican-led new policy recommendations. Around the country, efforts to establish election fraud hotlines, increasing hurdles to accessing the ballot, and establishing extrajudicial policing units, a proliferation of law changes focused on election “integrity” have taken root. Recent actions including the President’s Executive Order (EO) number 14248 (“Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”) and the introduction of Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (“SAVE Act”) indicate that false claims of stolen elections and voter fraud remain top of mind for Republican lawmakers.
Our research explores whether today’s election “integrity” measures have been introduced not because they effectively address an issue, but rather due to a policy window created by political pressure, national politics, and/or public rhetoric.Integrity used to mean that the process of voting was transparent, fair, and accurate for everyone eligible to vote in U.S. elections.
Voter fraud is exceptionally rare; election officials across the country, through audits, testing, and collaboration with federal officials to secure the vote, have always brought the integrity of the process to the forefront. Yet, we see a renewed push to reframe every election error or mistake as a “crime”. Our new research is reviewing the tactics behind this reframing of election integrity, the diffusion of new, more stringent rules impacting both administrators and voters, and the creation of units with police powers outside of the normal electoral process.
Reviewing data from the National Conference of State Legislatures election law database, we have found a large increase in the number of bills being introduced across the country pertaining to “election crimes”. From 2020 to 2021, there was a 149% increase alone (from 85 to 209 bills introduced). We also see diffusion across the states as 40 states in 2021 had bills introduced compared to only 26 in 2019. The bills run the gamut from introducing temporary legislative task forces to discuss changing election law to establishing public hotlines for the reporting of election fraud to full blown offices of election crimes like Florida’s Office of Election Crimes and Security housed in the state’s Attorney General’s office.
Employing Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) (1984) we hypothesize that a new policy window opened in the wake of the 2020 election.
Elections, because of their planned and predictable nature, have not historically been considered policy windows. However, the framing of the 2020 election as ”stolen” may provide a unique opportunity for policy entrepreneurs to propose or enact their preferred policies. The introduction of specialized units and other measures to address election integrity outside of the normal process after 2020, reinforces the depiction of policy windows as moments when problems (i.e., alleged electoral fraud) and policy/solutions (i.e., creating units to combat fraud) intersect. It also underscores the importance of timing and other strategies used by legislators to change policy within complex political environments. Our research explores whether today’s election “integrity” measures have been introduced not because they effectively address an issue, but rather due to a policy window created by political pressure, national politics, and/or public rhetoric.
There are legitimate questions as to whether or not these bills indicate a true move towards criminalizing errors in the voting process or serve as a signal to national party leaders that individual state legislators are on board with the reframing of election integrity as a major policy problem. Yet, the increase in attention this issue has received has brought up interesting questions about the allocation of sparse funding for election administration, the criminalization of regular election processes like voter registration, and what kind of powers these extraneous units will have in the future.
There are legitimate questions as to whether or not these bills indicate a true move towards criminalizing errors in the voting process or serve as a signal to national party leaders that individual state legislators are on board with the reframing of election integrity as a major policy problem.For example, in Florida, supervisors of elections (SOEs) are responsible for verifying ballot initiative signatures as a regular function of their job. In 2024, an amendment on abortion rights was added to the ballot after reaching the required number of signatures as verified by county SOEs. However, employees of the Office of Election Crimes and Security showed up at the homes of voters who signed the petition asking them to verify if they really signed the petition. Opponents of the measure argued this was just extra verification while proponents argued that this was harassment of voters whose signatures had already been verified by their county SOE.
We are interested in how this reframing of election integrity will impact the administrative burden on election officials, voting rights, and efficiency and economy of our public services. Likewise, we are concerned that the rapidity of election law changes may result in confusion and fear in the electorate and that the criminalization of honest mistakes in a human-administered activity (voting) may lead to fewer, less well-trained administrators overseeing America’s democratic process. Inventing policy solutions for a problem that does not really exist drains resources away from things that election officials say could actually increase election integrity like updated software, increase security, and better pay for employees and poll workers.
Amanda D. Clark, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Instruction with the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas. She is also the Director of the Initiative for Civic Leadership at UT Dallas. Dr. Clark’s research focuses on election administration, citizen engagement/democracy, and governance. Her work includes examining the public service motivations of poll workers, the impact of the Help America Vote Act on Florida election law and administrative burden, and strategies for election workers dealing with emotional labor in their positions.
Christina Barsky, Ph.D., M.P.A. is an Associate Professor and Director of the Master of Public Administration at the University of Vermont. As a practitioner-academic, her work is centered on the dynamics of citizen-state interactions at the frontlines of democratic society. She uniquely bridges theory and practice in public administration, focusing on the critical intersection of elections, democracy, and public service and offering actionable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and educators.
Monica A. Bustinza, Ph.D. serves as the Senior Democracy Programs Director at Engage Florida, where she leads the organization’s efforts to increase youth civic participation through voter registration, Get Out The Vote (GOTV), and student fellowship programs. Her research explores the intersection of policy and practice in election administration, with particular attention to local policy implementation, administrative burden, and voter engagement. Dr. Bustinza is also an affiliated scholar at the University of Miami, contributing to academic discourse and applied research in democratic governance.