The elections are just days away. In this final stretch, NCSL asked nine experts common questions about how prepared states are to continue their long tradition of running excellent elections.

At this point, state lawmakers have determined through statute the processes they want to see used before, during and after the elections. These include different voting options, time-tested methods for counting ballots and procedures to double-check their work through canvassing, certification and postelection audits. Details may vary, but the basic outline is the same nationwide.

While lawmakers' work is done until new sessions begin in 2025, it's time now for election officials to do what they do best: Make voting available to all eligible citizens according to state laws.

Here's how the experts responded to NCSL's questions.

Charles Stewart III, director, MIT Election Data and Science Lab

Depending on the laws in each state, voters often have a choice to vote in person at an early voting site, by an absentee (or mail) ballot, or on Election Day at a traditional polling place. What do you expect this year, and does it matter how voters choose to cast their ballots?

Based on what we saw in 2022 and in the primaries in 2024, I am expecting that the use of the three voting modes will be halfway between what it was in 2016 and 2020. In round numbers, that works out to about half the ballots being cast on Election Day, 30% by mail and 20% early in-person.

Of course, it will be different in different states. In recent years, mail balloting has been more widely adopted in the Northeast and in the South, and we're seeing a small resurgence of Election Day voting.

How voters choose to vote will matter a little bit to voters and a lot to administrators. For administrators, the more voters choose different ways to vote, the more complex the administrative challenge becomes.

Tammy Patrick, CEO for programs, National Association of Election Officials

Since 2020, we've heard repeated concerns about election personnel-that burnout is high and they are facing threats in ways they haven't before. How is the elections community coping with these stresses?

Ten years ago, the Presidential Commission on Election Administration recommended increasing the professionalization of the election administration field to provide continued education and training, a support network for distributing information, and a uniform understanding of laws and policies. States that have invested in certification programs, supported state election associations, and allocated funding to expand access to resources benefit at this moment because it allows officials to maintain continuity of operations when personnel changes or catastrophe strikes.

State and local officials have benefited from these relationships and convenings by having access to de-escalation techniques and safety measures to implement and by learning about efficiencies in serving their voters. One of the most significant impacts, however, is the understanding and knowledge that election workers are not alone in this-that they are seen, heard and appreciated.

Pam Smith, president and CEO, Verified Voting

It's understandable that Americans want to know that their elections are providing correct outcomes. Can they rely on the official results? Are those results double-checked in some way?

Yes! Most states conduct routine postelection audits to ensure votes are counted as cast; state law usually requires this process. A typical postelection audit is a transparent check on counting equipment that can help confirm election results before they are final (the details vary by state). It includes a hand tally of a portion of the ballots by bipartisan teams of election workers. The public is welcome to observe-the process is meant to be as transparent as possible. A well-conducted audit provides strong evidence the outcome was fair. While discrepancies sometimes happen, an expanded audit or a full recount can ensure every vote was counted correctly.

Kim Wyman, senior fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center

The public and the media want results on election night-but sometimes, in some places and especially when a race is tight, they don't get what they want. What have states done to prepare for that now, given that there are true deadlines for reaching final outcomes?

The one thing I predict about this year's election is that we will not know the winners on election night, at least not officially. Media outlets project winners-but those are unofficial. Election officials report the results and account for ballots in the same way banks protect and account for money. Absentee ballots, early voting and same-day registration policies increase voter accessibility. They also increase the need for additional security measures, like signature verification, provisional ballots and ballot reconciliation that may slow ballot counting. Laws for certifying election results vary in each state from days to weeks. We'll need patience in November, as accurate results are more important than speedy ones.

Marci Andino, vice president, Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center

Since 2016, when cybersecurity for elections first hit the national stage, a lot has changed. Where are we now in terms of protecting against cyber disruptions, intrusions or data security?

I'd say 2017 is when cybersecurity for elections hit the national stage. That's when the Department of Homeland Security designated elections as a critical infrastructure, allowing its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to partner with states on cyber protections. The Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center was created a year later, and our mission is to increase the cybersecurity posture of state, local, tribal and territorial election offices. Based on the work states have done with help from CISA and us, elections are better protected than ever-but also, it's not time to declare victory. From a state perspective, we've got lots to offer and most of it is no-cost or low-cost; ask me all about it! As for this year, generative AI is new to elections and amplifies risks that already exist. For example, generative AI greatly improves the quality of phishing emails and makes it faster and easier to spread false or inaccurate information.

Rebecca Green, associate professor, William & Mary Law School

It's normal to have no one other than voters, poll workers and poll watchers in polling places. What role do the poll watchers play, and how do they connect with election officials? Is there any cause for concern about them doing their work?

Far from being a cause for concern, poll watchers are an integral part of the U.S. election system. They help ensure elections are conducted lawfully and fairly. In most states, candidates and political parties appoint poll watchers. In others, members of the public can serve. Poll watchers register with election officials prior to the election according to state law. They adhere to strict rules designed to ensure they do not disrupt election processes they observe. State laws also ensure poll watchers have adequate access to election processes at polling sites and counting operations so they can perform their crucial function.

Walter Olson, senior fellow, Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies

Congress clarified much about how the Electoral College works between the last presidential election and this one, and states adjusted their laws accordingly. Can we assume a smooth process this year?

Although bad actors may try to exploit weaknesses and there will always be surprises, the general defenses for a smooth process are in better shape than ever. State compliance with the 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act is reasonably good, with deadlines and responsibilities clarified. Last time around, state legislatures and courts were vital bulwarks against the process getting pushed off constitutional track, and I expect them to be just as staunch this time. As for wild cards, the prospect for faithless electors seems to be at a low ebb, given the Supreme Court's 2020 Chiafalo v. Washington decision blessing state regulation of electors when states choose to require electors to cast their votes for the candidate they represent.

Amy Cohen, executive director, National Association of State Election Directors

This year at NCSL, we're hearing a lot about "information" on how, when and where to vote, as well as about how elections are managed, that is purposely or accidentally incorrect. How have election officials prepared for that?

Lack of understanding breeds confusion, and confusion breeds conspiracy. To interrupt this cycle, election officials have prioritized education about the mechanics of elections in a way that we haven't traditionally seen. Whether it's through videos, social/traditional media, FAQ pages on websites, one-pagers/graphics or in-person/virtual events, election offices are more assertively educating the public about how elections work so the public is better prepared when they are exposed to false or misleading information. Election officials can't be everywhere, though, so these educational resources also allow other community members, including legislators and legislative staff, to share accurate information about elections with constituents more easily and direct them to election officials, who are the best source for accurate, reliable information about elections.

Wayne Williams (R), former secretary of state, Colorado

We hear that increasing transparency for election processes will increase trust in the outcomes. Is that true, and if it is, what can states do to increase transparency? And is there a limit to transparency?

When elections are conducted transparently, voters have more confidence in the outcomes. But no one-particularly not the government-should be able to determine how a particular individual voted.

States take steps to balance transparency and the right to a secret ballot. Prior to the election, states establish the laws and standards and create accurate and verifiable voting rolls. During the election itself, states use bipartisan judges and observers and voter-verifiable paper ballots, together with a secure chain of custody of the ballots, to protect the sanctity of the process. Following the close of voting, prompt reporting of the results and then an audit of those results increased trust in the outcome. Transparent processes lead to trust in outcomes.

NCSL's website is the place to go for election news this year. Also, follow our X account to receive breaking news on election night, and find us on Facebook and LinkedIn to watch town halls where NCSL experts will break down exactly what happened.

Wendy Underhill directs NCSL's Elections and Redistricting Program. The responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Public link

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