Report The 2020 Election Seen Through Legislative and Administrative Eyes

Executive Summary  

In May 2023, the National Conference of State Legislatures convened three focus groups—one for Democratic lawmakers, one for Republican lawmakers and one for local election officials—to investigate the impacts of COVID-19 and the 2020 election on policymaking on election administration in 2021 and 2022. The lawmakers all chaired chamber committees with jurisdiction over elections.  

The goal was to determine whether COVID (or the 2020 election) marked a sea change for policymakers and administrators, or whether that unprecedented year was an aberration that had little effect on elections. In particular, the focus groups concentrated on absentee/mail voting—how its use changed in 2020 based on the pandemic, how the policy and adaptations were viewed from three vantage points, and how the 2020 experience will color future policymaking.  

This report has three key components. First, the report lists eight takeaways from the focus groups, both generally and with details specific to each group.  

The report then lists policy options that arose organically during the focus groups. These options don’t necessarily relate to the pandemic, the 2020 election or absentee voting. They are included because the focus-group format allowed for the discussion of tangents—an indicator of what is on the minds of participants more broadly.  

Finally, the report includes advice from local election officials to legislators. Again, this project didn’t aim to collect advice, but the local election officials appeared eager to share, so their suggestions are included. The appendix covers the selection of members and methodology for the focus groups.  

NCSL acknowledges generous support from the MIT Election Data + Science Lab to make this work possible. We also thank Kathleen Hale and Mitchell Brown, both political science professors at Auburn University, for their guidance from the inception of the project to its completion.

Focus Group Outcomes in Brief  

All three groups—Republican election chairs, Democratic election chairs, and local election officials (LEOs)—showed confidence in the general conduct of U.S. elections, while acknowledging room for change. Members of all three groups expressed frustration over skeptical narratives about the 2020 election specifically, which cast doubts on election administration generally. Participants say the continued presence of election skepticism compels them to continue responding to questions and concerns with reliable information.  

Republicans showed a strong interest in ensuring consistent and accurate election processes; a theme was skepticism about whether absentee/mail ballots are as secure as in-person votes, and especially methods used to verify the voters’ identities. Republicans also were acutely aware of the election skeptics in their caucuses and among their constituents, and expressed frustration with the narrative that there is something wrong with elections, given that they themselves know elections are well-run (even though mistakes can and do happen). None expressed doubt about their state’s, or the nation’s, 2020 presidential election outcome.  

Democrats focused on extending policy changes made during the pandemic to ensure that voters who were uncomfortable with in-person voting could still vote. In general, these Democrats came from states that made no-excuse absentee voting more readily available, and they either have made those changes permanent for future elections or hope to do so. They expressed frustration with the efforts of both the minority party and LEOs in their states to slow down the adoption of Democrats’ preferred reforms, even though they all acknowledged the LEOs’ expertise. While recognizing that election skepticism continues, Democrats heard less of it, and therefore had to respond to it less often than their Republican counterparts.  

LEOs were very aware that they are not policymakers—their role is to implement decisions lawmakers make. These administrators expressed frustration with lawmakers who may not seek their expertise as they consider policy changes. They saw themselves as able to articulate the perspective of voters, who may be confused by rapid and frequent changes in election procedures, as well as their own analysis of potential administrative and fiscal outcomes from policy changes. The officials wish lawmakers and others in powerful or influential positions supported their profession more strongly, given the prevalence of election skepticism. And they are weary from explaining their processes to assure those who doubt them—yet remain committed to doing so.  

Focus Group Outcomes (in Eight Takeaways)  

Taking the three groups together, many of the same topics were discussed and are described below as “takeaways.” Each of the three groups had different perspectives on each of these takeaways, and those group-specific perspectives are provided. Digging even further, quotes or summations of individual perspectives are parsed. To see the group-specific or individual analyses below the takeaway level, click the See More button in each section. 

Republicans: Republicans expressed annoyance with suggestions that the 2020 election was rigged, or that the outcome couldn’t have been correct.  

• “It’s not just election integrity, but just as important, the perception of integrity.”
• One respondent said election deniers were often from out of state. "We run really good elections and have never had a problem.” 
• “We have great elections, secure elections. We do it right! I learned you need to tell everyone that.” 

Democrats: Democrats were annoyed with some Republicans in their chambers, believing they allow skepticism to go unaddressed. At the same time, they recognize that they, as Democrats, must be careful about how they speak about elections, and not add to skepticism. Skepticism seemed to be their strongest worry: “We’ve all realized this last cycle the fragility of voter confidence.”  

• “I’ve cautioned my skeptical colleagues to be careful about what they say in public—your words will be taken out of context to show that if Democrats are skeptical about something, it must be really terrible. We have to be diligent about how we speak about elections publicly.”  
• In agreement with the above comment, “Part of that is transparency. We count differently than other states, and that’s fine! Any decision you make, the public has to trust and understand it.”  
• One participant lauded their Republican secretary of state, who “stood up to Trump” and defended the state’s elections.  
• “No Republicans were concerned that the mail ballots that helped elect them were fraudulent,” noting that sometimes these same people remained skeptical of mail voting in general.  

Local election officials (LEOs): The LEOs, as a group, agreed that unfounded concerns prompted either by changes made during the pandemic or the disbelief in the outcome of the 2020 presidential election drove legislative action on topics that were not central to the mission of running elections. In other words, enactments in 2021 and 2022 didn’t address what LEOs thought were core issues. LEOs also worried that rapid policy changes (and particularly policy reversals) can sow confusion, which makes fertile territory for misinformation to gain a foothold. 

• “I would’ve liked to see the legislature show confidence and support in the state’s elections. They were dead silent in 2020 and 2021. None of them would make a statement to the public, but they would call me personally to say they trusted the state’s elections.”  
• I’ve heard of problems about ballots in trash bins at the post office for years, but I’ve never seen evidence of it.” (Other LEOs showed agreement.) 
• “Thinking about 2020 is painful, kind of a trigger.”  

Republicans: Republican legislators came from states that, on the whole, made fewer temporary changes to elections policy in 2020 than other states—and these states were more likely to revert to their pre-pandemic status in 2021 and beyond. This focus group saw the pandemic as a one-time event that did not have a lasting impact on their elections.  

• “The pandemic didn’t change anything on the front end” referring to how ballots were cast. “It’s the vote counting that was of interest.”  
• “We had finished session the week before everything started shutting down when COVID hit,” and therefore the legislature was not involved in emergency responses.  
• “We didn’t really make a lot of changes. We stayed with what we’d been doing in the past.” 

Democrats: For Democratic participants who came from states that were not traditionally heavy users of absentee/mail voting, 2020 brought substantial changes to how people voted, with surges in the use of absentee/mail voting. For states that were already mostly mail, very little changed in 2020. 

• From a participant from a heavily mail state, “We didn’t do much in response to the pandemic; most of what we do was in place before the pandemic.”  
• From a participant from a second majority-mail state, “We did make adjustments in terms of vote centers, ballot tracking, ballot curing, a variety of things, and allowed more time for ballots to be returned.” 
• Participants named actions their states had taken to facilitate no-excuse absentee voting, such as dropping a requirement for witness signatures on mail ballots, permitting ballot processing to begin earlier, and sending applications for absentee ballots to inactive voters. The last choice opened that state up to criticism.  

LEOs: In general, the local election official group reported that their legislatures were not very involved in decision-making in 2020. In two states where the legislature did engage, the LEOs felt the legislature’s actions led to both confusion for voters and to decisions that election officials opposed.  

• “We didn’t want the legislature to get involved in 2020, but they felt they had to do something.” 
• “I don’t remember my legislature doing a lot; it was mostly our state election board that made changes.” 
• “The legislature did nothing; not one thing. Everything was done by rule from the SOS, and the legislators weren’t happy with some of those rules.” 

Republicans: On the whole, Republicans took for granted that in an emergency it was someone else—likely the secretary of state or governor—who had decision-making authority, such as the ability to delay primaries, extend no-excuse absentee voting to all voters, or take other actions. At the same time, participants were clear that they, as lawmakers, hold the power to create election laws and that emergency powers delegated to the executive branch do not permit instituting procedures that are outside of existing state law. In particular, in states where the governor or secretary of state was of the opposite party, emergency decisions made were not always accepted—and there was modest interest in reducing executive power during future emergencies.  

• “Our governor tried to cancel the spring election three days before it happened, so we scrambled to get it put back on.”  
• In one state represented in the focus group, the legislature revisited in 2021 the governor’s authority to call an emergency, by adding that for any emergency that lasts two weeks or longer, the legislature must be called into session.  
• “COVID exposed our inadequacies in our state. The changes that were made were not from us (the legislature); they were changes by the governor—and those changes were not in accord with state law.” 

Democrats: Democrats were not dissatisfied overall with the assignment of emergency powers or the actions taken in their states. This is not surprising, given that executive actions focused primarily on making absentee/mail voting more available—policies Democrats mostly favor, with or without a pandemic. Also, six of the nine states represented in this group had the governor of the same party as the legislature in 2020. While being of the same party does not make cross-branch conflict impossible, it lessens it. In most cases, Democrats proceeded to make the temporary changes of 2020 permanent.  

• During COVID, the executive branch allowed no-excuse absentee voting even though the state constitution doesn’t allow it. “Republicans said the Democrats were just looking for excuses to use a system that was illegal under the state constitution.”  
• “Contingency, or emergency planning, is an executive branch task.”  
• Our secretary of state is our most vocal opponent; he likes to fight with legislators and wants to be in power. He doesn’t like that he doesn’t have real authority, so he likes to say the legislators’ decisions will be awful, when in fact he’s wrong. He’s often aligned with clerks, but also is often a single player.”  
• In one state, before it shut down because of COVID, the secretary of state met with the legislative chairs and outlined what he thought they would need to do for elections, and then he did it.  

LEOs: No election officials voiced concern about who had the authority to make decisions during an emergency. There were, however, a few questions about whether decisions made by the state board or chief election official had gone too far. For instance, was a state election official authorized to establish drop boxes or send absentee ballot applications, if no law governed this? And were local election officials authorized to make their own decisions, given the unprecedented terrain and sometimes a lack of statutory or other guidance from the state? Some election officials saw their state legislature as sidelined during the initial decision-making on how to respond to COVID. If statewide election officials also didn’t take action, the LEOs were left to make decisions on their own, which sometimes led to inconsistent procedures within a state. Another subset of this focus group was pleased with how their legislature, and more likely their chief election official, responded. 

• “There were citizen concerns about our elections in 2020. After that, the legislature felt like they had to address those concerns” by passing new laws. An example: prohibiting sending pre-filled absentee ballot applications, something that had not been done prior to 2020.

Republicans: For members of the Republican focus group, COVID was of little significance in legislative sessions in 2021 and 2022. The prevailing sentiment was that COVID was over and it was back to business as usual. Changes made in 2020 to adjust to COVID were considered one-time changes, and most states reverted back to previous practices. Republican-led legislative action focused on securing election processes, including ensuring that chain of custody is maintained and operations are transparent. In 2021, well over 3,000 election-related bills, with more from the Republican side than ever before. (Of the total, 290 were enacted—on par with previous years.) 

• “I feel like most of the election issues are unrelated to COVID.”  
• We want “to settle things down after a tumultuous two years past COVID, letting people breathe,” before moving forward with possible changes.  
• “Our previous secretary of state sent a letter to all voters asking if they’d like to get an absentee ballot, and for just one election or several. That became a thing, and now we have a new secretary” (since the old secretary lost a primary to an opponent who made clear they would not promote absentee voting). 
• After his committee passed 30 bills out to the full chamber to vote on, all focused on aspects of securing election processes, one legislator said, “That’s a lot to consider.” 

Democrats: Members of the Democratic focus group used their states’ 2020 experience with increased absentee/mail voting as proof-of-concept as they considered future changes. Several of the states represented in the group did make permanent their 2020 temporary changes. One policy choice from 2020 that did not get adopted anywhere on a permanent basis was providing absentee ballot applications to all voters.  

• “My state sent applications for absentee ballots to the inactive voter list (this opened us up to criticism).”  
• One Democrat said hearing claims of ballot harvesting without support of evidence was tiring.   

LEOs: LEOs were not interested in opining on whether more or less absentee/mail voting is appropriate. They have focused in the last two years largely on running smooth elections.. They were concerned that the flood of legislation in 2021 and 2022 implied the existence of problems that, in their opinion, did not exist.  

• One participant suggested that some of the legislation in their state was fueled by lobbyists, some of whom were working off misinformation.  
• “If there are no incremental changes, and you have a sea change, voters get confused.”  
• “The legislature is not thinking about the burden those changes place on the administrators; and in two years we could see the shift go in the other direction!” 

Republicans: Constituents come to them with unfounded fears about election accuracy and security. It is this high level of concern that compels their caucuses to propose legislation that they see as bolstering election integrity, with a particular interest in the fine points of absentee/mail voting, such as whether to permit drop boxes and how to verify voters.  

• “Public perception is everything.”  

Democrats: Democrats were likely to hear from advocacy groups (a proxy for their constituents) about voter turnout and voting access. With that in mind, the changes precipitated by COVID put wind in their sails for policymaking in 2021 and 2022.  

• In 2022, in places within one state where Republicans are dominant, 85% of voters voted by mail, as opposed to 90% in Democratic strongholds. Given that, “There’s some resistance, but not much.”  

LEOs: Election officials are aware of the politics in their states and try to steer clear of political controversies. The bylaws of some state associations even include prohibitions on engaging in politics or policymaking. This group is concerned about how policy changes affect voters, and, as election officials, they get caught up in voter confusion.  

• In one state, the political shift in the legislature in 2022 led to a flood of legislation in 2023. “I’m concerned that if there’s a (political) shift again, what will happen. Will we lose what we’ve implemented?” 

Republicans: The members of the Republican group say they regularly consult with their LEOs and trust them to a high degree. They appreciate when LEOs speak with one voice and recognize that may not always be the case. It is possible that Republicans sometimes use the argument that a Democrat-backed policy, such as increasing early in-person voting or extending no-excuse absentee voting, will be costly to local jurisdictions as a reason to oppose such policy changes.  

Also, this group recognized that some of the proposals offered by their caucus members, such as hand-counting ballots or extending recounts, are costly, and they oppose these measures.  

• “As a former election official, I’d be turning my back if I didn’t talk to them (LEOs) every step of the way.”  
• “We had a lot of county auditors testifying and I valued their input because they’re the ones doing the work. I always voted with the county auditors.”  
• “We listen to the clerks about the practicality of running elections.”  

Democrats: While this group recognized the expertise that LEOs bring, they also expressed frustration because LEOs can be naysayers to their reform proposals. In their states, Democrats—the majority party—had more policies they wanted to enact than Republicans did. While acknowledging that unfunded mandates are a burden for local jurisdictions, some of this group questioned whether LEOs recognize when the legislature makes changes that save them money too. A couple members of this group suggested that policies brought forward by LEOs might provide financial efficiencies for their offices but at a “cost” paid in voter convenience. For instance, consolidating polling places may be efficient, but if it means a polling place is farther away for voters, especially seniors, is that efficiency worthwhile?  

• “The clerks association is very present in our state and if clerks are against a bill, it won’t pass.” 
• “I want to give clerks a shoutout for defending democracy—they’re fabulous and powerful because they know everyone.” 
• One legislator said that the idea of a clerk being powerful hadn’t dawned on him until he was chair. He now hears from legislators who are scared of their clerks because the clerks might not be happy with them.  
• In one state, the focus group participant said that clerks will weigh in on all election bills, and the state association and the individual clerks weren’t always on the same page.
• “We work really closely with our election officials.” In this state, LEOs push back when they feel the legislature was putting a lot of extra work on them, especially with redistricting happening at the same time as proposed election policy changes. “Some of that push back was valid.” 
• “I think election officials have realized that it’s best to get on board with the legislature and work with them to tweak things; it is more effective to amend a bill than to just oppose.” 

LEOs: All members of the LEO group wanted more opportunity to provide substantive feedback on legislation from beginning to end. Whether supporting a bill they believe will bring security or efficiency to their operations, or opposing a bill they believe will create voter confusion or make their jobs unnecessarily harder, they would like to be consulted early. They want to be able to provide their professional analysis of the consequences (intended and not) of legislation.  

• “Committee chairs on elections insist that legislators must talk to clerks before they will hear the bills.” 
• One LEO said her state’s election officials’ association hired a lobbyist. “Previously our association said ‘we don’t get involved in policy and just focus on whether it can be administered’; we’ve veered from that. We’re a much stronger and more credible organization now.” 
• In another state, “the relationship between the secretary of state and the legislature is rocky; what has happened after 2020 is that the legislature is more willing to listen to the association. The bar was so low before, though.”  
• “Legislators need to understand that voters need a period of education; we can’t just snap and make something happen or make it make sense to voters.” 

Republicans: The Republican focus group members were on a spectrum when it came to absentee/mail voting, with one end represented by one participant who preferred that Election Day be restored as the norm for voting, to the other end where a couple participants saw absentee/mail voting as an acceptable choice, especially if local clerks were on board. While no participant mentioned a desire or plan to curtail absentee/mail voting (other than reverting to pre-2020 processes), potential security concerns were frequently noted, along with how easily verifiable absentee/mail ballots are, and whether processing ballots can begin prior to Election Day (while not releasing totals).  

• One participant commented that it is problematic to rely on a postmark because they are no longer uniformly used by the U.S. Postal Service.  
• “The people absolutely loved being able to vote a month early” by absentee ballots during COVID, but fellow “Republicans didn’t like it being so open, so they rolled it back to three days.” 
• “Our previous secretary of state sent a letter to all voters asking if they’d like to get an absentee ballot, and for just one election or several. That became a thing, and now we have a new secretary” because the previous one was beaten in the primary. 
• “We decided that was not a good idea so we didn’t do it,” referring to encouraging more absentee voting during COVID.  
• “Our state just had indictments for vote buying! That’s why it is so strict on absentee voting.”  
• “I don’t like the idea, of ‘just go out and vote!’ Go vote, but only on the races you’re informed about. I want informed, responsible voters. I respect the institution of Election Day voting and I want to keep it that way.” 

Democrats: Democrats uniformly favored expanding absentee/mail voting, believing that voters want it and benefit from it. This includes going to “mostly mail” systems. Almost all changes in this direction that were adopted in 2020 were kept or expanded, such as opening or maintaining online portals to request an absentee ballot.  

• “We have the mail-in ballot approach; everyone gets a ballot. There is no request for an absentee ballot any longer; COVID caused us to just do away with all of that.”  
• “For 2022, mail-in voting is permanent for the general election but not for primaries. The governor was skeptical, but after they did it in 2020 and it was OK, now mail ballots are optional for towns and there are some moderate Republicans who want to make mail voting universal for town elections.”  
• “The legislature made 2020 changes that increased absentee voting permanent in 2022, and allowed online absentee ballot requests through a portal.”  
• “Republicans pushed back on mail voting, but after we did it in 2020, they said ‘Oh, that’s not such a big deal’” (This legislator noted that Republicans may have changed their minds from opposing mail voting because they still won seats where they expected to win.)  
• “We had the same kind of debates on whether mail is secure, but it was less hardcore opposition and more general skepticism of mail voting.”  
• “Republican rhetoric in my state was different. By the time we made changes in 2021, Republican leaders had embraced mail voting to be competitive in their races saying ‘embrace it or die.’”  

LEOS: Election officials neither favored nor opposed absentee/mail voting, recognizing it is not their role to determine policy. However, they were keenly aware of the politics in their own states which can lead to different outcomes. As implementers of policy, their concerns were how they can adapt to a) policy changes when they come too quickly, and b) the choices voters make on how they want to cast their ballots. If rules change and voter behavior is unpredictable, then the LEOs are uncertain how to deploy their resources between in-person voting or more absentee/mail voting. They were in agreement that more absentee/mail voting has a small positive influence on turnout. 

• “We can’t get any more closed down on mail voting than we already are. Mostly it is voter preference at this point; when we opened up mail voting in 2020 it didn’t really catch on.”  
• “If both sides encourage vote-by-mail, turnout will go up.”  
• “In 2022 we were back to normal mail voting. I think mail voting will drop significantly if our state decides to offer more early in-person voting.”  
• “Many proponents of Election Day voting were elected during the past election; there’s a push to make it harder to request an absentee ballot, such as requiring more information to request it.”  
• “One of the many things that worries me is that we made adjustments to resources to accommodate how voters are casting ballots, such as lot of polling place consolidations. If in-person voting inches up, that has huge implications, such as lines at polling places, and the need to recruit more poll workers. The combination of policy options and narratives from social media could depress vote-by-mail turnout and shift us to more in-person voting which could create those staffing/line challenges.”  
• In a state with mostly mail elections, one LEO reported, “On the mail process specifically, it’s an ongoing conversation” in the legislature.  
• In another state with robust mail voting, “Vote-by-mail won’t go away. Some in the legislature have tried the past few years, but it’s just too popular. Voters trust the system.” 

Republicans: Republicans expressed greater interest in how absentee/mail ballots can be secured than on whether more absentee/mail voting should be permitted. The discussion included requirements for ballot chain of custody, whether an excuse should be required and how ballots can be returned.  

• “If you can’t show chain of custody, your evidence isn’t admissible in court. Same here, with elections. It is a lot of signing (by bipartisan teams as ballots are transferred from the polling place to the county office), but when you’re talking about election integrity, and if you’re going to get into prosecuting someone for fraud, you’ve got to be able to make that case. We did so by requiring signatures and photo ID attached to the application. It’s like crime: If someone sees all these security measures, tracking procedures in place, that alone may stop someone from fraud.”  

Democrats: Democrats recognize security concerns are important both for ensuring only valid ballots are counted and for the perception that systems are reliable—so long as those security concerns do not hurt voter turnout. 

• One Democrat-led state increased the frequency of its voter list maintenance after it made no-excuse absentee voting easier in 2020.  
• “Republicans weren’t the hurdle that needed to be overcome; instead, we had to overcome the issue of having sent the ballot applications to inactive voters.”  

LEOs: Election officials were not eager to add major new verification measures to absentee/mail voting processes; as a group they think complicating the process will cause problems for them and confusion for voters.  

• In one state where temporary system for mail voting was added in 2020, an LEO said, “It took a lot of education. Lots of smaller counties just ignored the new option.” 
• In another state, legislative action on absentee/mail voting led to “less uniformity in the process.” 

Policy Options

During the course of the three focus groups, policy options (and the perspectives focus group members took on them) that did not directly relate to either the pandemic or the conduct and outcome of the 2020 election surfaced. NCSL has included them to provide insight into broader views of election administration in the United States, and perhaps indicate where lawmaking may go in the next couple of years may go.  

Processing absentee/mail ballots before Election Day: In states where processing absentee/mail ballots cannot begin prior to Election Day, timing became an issue in 2020 both for getting results out and for causing a “red mirage/blue shift” perception that left casual observers thinking there might be something wrong. In one state, the legislature was asked to consider changing its policy just two weeks before Election Day 2020, and there wasn’t time to do so. Said one Democratic participant, “In 2020 and 2022, for the first time there was a stark difference between in-person and mail ballot results.” A Republican participant noted the same thing: “In this state, in the largest city, President Trump was running ahead with in-person voting, but when the absentee ballots were counted, he lost.” 

Early in-person voting: Some see early in-person voting as a good alternative to increasing absentee/mail voting, in that both provide voters with options to vote before the official Election Day. (One Republican participant championed making voting on Election Day the standard again.) In one state that has both no-excuse absentee voting and early in-person voting, the number of days for early voting was decreased from 14 days to 10, saying that resource allocation dictates supporting voters where and when they choose to vote. A Democrat said “Election Day is anticlimactic; it used to be fun, but now no one is there! As campaigners, the legislative participants are adjusting how and when they campaign, perhaps sending two mailings (one for people who like to vote early, and one for those who wait until the last minute)."  

Drop boxes and ballot collection: Just as states have gone in every direction on whether to require, prohibit or regulate drop boxes, the groups differed. One Republican saw his state’s decision to prohibit drop boxes as a security measure; two Democrats said their states enacted a law after 2020 to require at least one drop box in each town. Legislation since 2020 has been about clarifying whether drop boxes are permitted, and how many are required or permitted, and with what security features, such as 24-hour cameras. As for ballot collection, one Democrat said, “The biggest back-and-forth on the Senate floor was over ballot harvesting and drop boxes, I don’t want to hear ‘ballot harvesting’ again.” No Republicans in the focus group referenced ballot collection or ballot harvesting.  

Poll watchers: Democrats did not discuss poll watchers. Republicans were divided on this, but spent time discussing how poll watchers add an element of security to an election and at the same time can be intrusive into election processes. One Republican commented, “My state didn’t have poll watchers to speak of until this election,” and another said, “I’m worried about poll watchers breathing down the necks of poll workers.” LEOs were also divided; one person said he’d like to see more watchers, because each watcher who goes back to their community and says things were well done helps calm the waters: “This might be crazy, but one of the issues I have in my jurisdiction is an almost lack of observation because they (the public) trust my office. I would love to see something to incentivize observation and change the law to help them see more of what we’re doing.” Another LEO responded with “Observation can be helpful, but it can hurt too.” 

Election Crimes: One member of the Republican focus group brought up election crimes; this topic did not surface with Democrats. LEOs felt legislators paid more attention to crime after the 2020 election than was warranted, with the example of creating election crime units. One Republican said, “we haven’t had a single incidence of election fraud of any significance in 30 years,” but did say that his state made a statutory distinction between an inadvertent error and an intentional bad action, such as voting twice.  

Electronic (or online, or internet) voting: All participants understood that electronic voting is only used in specific and limited circumstances, and in some states is nonexistent. LEOs did not address electronic voting beyond that. A minority of the Democratic focus group were more inclined to see electronic voting as the inevitable future, “like it or not,” and willing to run pilots. Using internet voting for people with disabilities as well as overseas voters was of mild interest. Republicans were entirely opposed to expanding electronic voting in any way. A typical comment: “With the path we’re going, someday, one state is going to allow people to roll out of bed and vote by punching on their phones. I want to be the resistance to that.”  

Hand counting of all ballots: This concept surfaced in several states represented in the Republican focus group, and no participants favored this idea. 

Advice From Local Election Officials to Legislators 

LEOs were in accord in wishing legislators consulted with them throughout the policymaking process, and often phrased their comments as advice for legislators. A summation of their comments:  

• “I would’ve liked to see the legislature show confidence and support in the state’s elections. They were dead silent in 2020 and 2021.” (This participant said individual legislators called to assure them that they trust their state’s elections, but those legislators didn’t make public statements to that effect.)  
• All agreed they would like to have their legislators, or anyone from the public, tour their office and see how things are done, believing that the more people see, the more their confidence will grow and they can spread their confidence to others.  
• Legislators should consider what decisions can be left to clerks to manage based on their local community, as opposed to mandating all details at a statewide level. (NOTE: Allowing variation has a downside, too—it is the state’s responsibility to ensure all voters receive equal treatment.) 
• “Legislators need to understand that voters need a period of education; they can’t just snap and make something happen, or make it make sense to voters.” 
• Legislation to permit the use of vote centers (where anyone in a jurisdiction can vote at any polling place, and polling places are fewer in number but larger facilities) would help because “these had been proven to have worked in emergency situations, such as hurricanes. Vote centers are easier for poll worker staffing too.” 
• One participant noted that bills introduced with the narrative of fixing potential fraud, imply fraud has happened—when fraud by individuals is rare.  
• Poll workers are needed even more than poll watchers; the election officials would like legislators to encourage people to sign up to serve.  
• When writing laws relating to poll watchers or election observation, one LEO suggested opening up more processes than just voting itself for observation. The ability for observers to watch the voter verification process for absentee/mail ballots may need to be explicitly added to statutes.  
• When considering poll watchers or election observation, remember there is a push-pull between access for the observers and not interfering with the workers doing the election. 
• Civics in high school isn’t always taught, and because it is not, “it creates a situation where mis/dis/malinformation has very fertile ground.” (One person suggested a “Schoolhouse Rock” video specific for each state; another participant suggested a K-12 curricula on civics that includes voting.) 

Appendix: Selection Criteria and Focus Group Process  

In February 2023, NCSL emailed potential attendees with the agenda and expectations for the focus groups, calling out these topics for discussion: 

• The pandemic (and each state’s response).  
• How the experience of the pandemic and their state’s response affected planning. 
• Increasing use of absentee/mail voting. 

Invitations were sent to 35 Republicans, 23 Democrats, and 18 LEOs, resulting in six participants in the Republican group, 10 participants in the Democratic group, and 11 participants in the LEO group.  

In the Democratic legislators focus group, one participant represented an “all mail” state; another participant came from a state where over half the voters vote by mail. The rest came from states with no-excuse absentee voting, but not a strong tradition of absentee voting.  

In the Republican group, no legislators came from states that were heavy users of absentee voting, and two legislators came from states that did not permit no-excuse absentee voting. In other words, these participants were from states where in-person voting, and for the two members, in-person voting on Election Day, was the norm before 2020.  

No Republican participants identified as “election skeptics” and instead saw themselves as “mainstream.” This distinction did not surface in the Democrats’ group.  

In conjunction with the focus groups, NCSL provided a 30-minute overview of election legislation in 2023, and all participants toured the Chicago Board of Elections office.  

NCSL acknowledges generous support from the MIT Election Data + Science Lab to make this work possible. We also thank Drs. Kathleen Hale and Mitchell Brown, both from Auburn University, for their guidance from the inception of the project to its completion.