50 states, 50 election processes

Tuning into election night news coverage can lead to a lot of questions.

Why are some states able to determine winners faster than others? How is it that states can flip so dramatically from one candidate to another? Why are long lines an issue in some communities but not others?

Questions like these have rankled some in recent years to the point of outright but misguided rejection of valid results.

"Election administration mostly happens in the background, and most individuals don't realize the United States is unique in that its electoral system is highly decentralized," said Michael Ritter, an assistant professor in the Department of Politics, Philosophy, and Public Affairs at Washington State University.

Ritter continued, "We have 50 states that administer elections differently, with different registration laws and a lot of authority and responsibility extending down to county governments. So, if you're a voter who sees election events happening differently than what you're used to in other states, it can lead you to suspect that foul play is occurring, when in fact other states just have different election rules."

As an example, Ritter pointed to the 2020 Presidential Election. Early results in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania favored Donald Trump, as in-personvoters largely swung Republican. But projections swung heavily toward Joe Biden as time went by and hundreds of thousands of absentee and mail-inballots were subsequently counted. Different states have different laws on when absentee or mail ballots can be counted, and Trump's lead in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin evaporated when these ballots were counted, which in these states can only began on Election Day. Some individuals suspected foul play in these states, when in fact these developments were simply reflections of state election laws.

How states administer elections and the laws that govern those processes make a significant impact, not just in how quickly results are known, but in perceptions of the validity of elections. Their laws and processes, however, must comply with federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

Understanding these differences, therefore, is critical.

State vs. federal

In the earliest years of the United States, elections were irregular and less formal. White land owners showed up when an election was called and voted by saying their choice out loud.

As processes became more formalized, who was able to vote and how changed dramatically. Constitutional amendments provided previously disenfranchised people with the right to vote and eliminated barriers like the Poll Tax, which required would-bevoters to pay money to register.

The federal government also enacted laws requiring states and municipalities make voting easier for elderly voters and those with disabilities. And in the wake of the 2000 Presidential Election, Congress approved the Help America Vote Act in an effort to streamline the voting process, update elections equipment and require states to create voter registration lists.

The authority of the federal government has been successfully challenged, however, as was the case in 2013 with the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County vs. Holder. That decision rolled back provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including the requirement that states and localities with a history of voter suppression seek approval from the U.S. Justice Department in making changes to election law.

Several states responded by making changes to voter registration requirements and election law, prompting legal challenges by advocacy groups. The boundaries of voting districts and the potential for gerrymandering remain an oft-discussed and legally relevant issue for states across the country.

Pros and cons of local control

In a recent study, Ritter developed an index to evaluate how well counties across the country do administering elections.

He and his coauthor found significant variance in how well localities carry out their responsibilities, with non-whiteand less wealthy voters more likely to live in communities with fewer resources available to election workers. Fewer resources means it can be more difficult for these communities to produce educational material on the election and to count and certify results in a timely fashion. It's a job made even more difficult in some states that forbid the tabulating of mail-inballots until Election Day.

"Having millions of ballots to count in such a short period of time means it could take longer to know the outcome of an election and it may be more likely that election workers may make a mistake in processing a ballot," Ritter said.

It's imperative that election results be known quickly, as delays can depress voter confidence, Ritter added. These inequalities, as well as the chance that authorities wield their power against certain groups of voters, as was done under Jim Crow laws in the past, are major arguments in favor of a centralized elections system.

A decentralized elections system gives states and localities the freedom to meet the needs of their unique communities. The dispersal of elections offices also makes wide scale fraud far less likely.

One bright spot, Ritter found, is that municipalities across the country, including many in Washington, are improving each presidential election cycle. They're doing this by providing more information and resources to voters as well as making it easier for voters with disabilities to cast their ballots. In Washington state, voter information pamphlets are distributed to millions of people for primary as well as general elections.

One advantage of the decentralized elections system is that states and localities have the freedom to meet the needs of their unique communities. A state like Alaska has to contend with a lot of land and a relatively sparse population, a set of much different challenges than a state like Massachusetts. And the highly dispersed nature of elections offices makes wide scale fraud far less likely, as Cornell Clayton, director of WSU's Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service, highlighted as part of the center's work on behalf of the Election Integrity Initiative.

Targeting a decentralized system in hopes of influencing the results would mean infiltrating numerous entirely separate systems across dozens of states that are equipped specifically to deter this type of event.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.