Design is destiny; the standards we set determine the quality of what we achieve. Our Constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government relies on free, fair, and honest elections to select our representatives and leaders.
Federal elections are conducted by the states and each state has different election laws. In Idaho, you must show a government issued photo ID or sign an affidavit before casting you ballot but in California, it is illegal to ask voters to show identification before voting. The only valid reason for the California law is to facilitate election fraud.
According to an April 2024 Rasmussen survey, 28% of likely voters say they’d be willing to engage in illegal voting activity if it would help their preferred candidate win and 20% of people who voted absentee ADMIT to violating election law. Roughly 10% said they would alter or destroy a ballot for an opposing candidate if given the opportunity.
Our election system depends on the honesty of the people participating in the system but apparently one in five people, by their own admission, lack the required integrity. This explains the declining trust in our elections. A 2022 Pew research poll shows one in three citizens are not satisfied with the election systems.
To restore integrity and trust we need a unified set of election standards which shall be used by our local, state and federal legislators as a metric for reviewing and revising election law to ensure free, fair, and honest elections where the outcome is accepted by all citizens of good will.
On January 2nd 2021 the 28 members of the Citizens Committee for Election Integrity met in the Lincoln Auditorium of the Idaho Capitol and adopted the following standards:
1. All voting processes, other than those needed to preserve the privacy of a citizen’s vote, must be open and available for direct observation, with no minimum distance requirements, and audit by agents of the candidates or parties.
2. All election materials must have a secure chain of custody at all times.
3. Election officials must be accompanied by observers when accessing any election materials. Records of the chain of custody shall be complete and available for audit.
4. All votes, regardless of voting method, shall be held to equal standards.
5. Voters shall only be qualified electors that are able to verifiably provide their government issued photo identity before being issued a ballot. Voters who provide false information, including information of voter qualification, should face severe penalties.
6. As a condition of being issued a ballot, the voter’s identity and signature must be recorded in a permanent record (Poll Book).
7. Original Ballots must have a physical form that allows voting choices to be examined and properly interpreted by the naked eye.
8. Ballots must have features designed to prevent counterfeiting.
9. An auditable system for tracking the status of all ballots must be implemented and maintained in the State of origin. The total number of printed ballots must equal the sum of the number of cast ballots, spoiled ballots, and unvoted ballots.
10. Ballot tabulation must be conducted by two independent and unrelated systems. The difference in totals between the two systems must be less than one half the margin of victory or 0.1% of the vote total, whichever is less. Tabulating machines must only tabulate and not modify ballots in any way, or be connected to the internet.
11. Before the results of an election can be certified, the ballot counts must be reconciled with the voter records. The margin of uncertainty must be less than one half the margin of victory or 0.1% of the vote total, whichever is less.
12. Lists of qualified electors must be purged of unqualified persons 180 days before an election. Voter Rolls should be vetted and compared with available government records to identify duplicate or ineligible registrations.
13. Laws and regulations governing an election may not be changed for 180 days prior to that election.
14. All election records should be retained and preserved for not less than 22 months.
15. Voter identification for provisional ballots must be verified, with information provided by the voter, prior to that ballot being counted.
These standards should be adopted by the federal government for federal elections and the state governments for state and local elections. Legal action could then be taken to compel election laws to meet these standards.
We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to establish standards for fair and honest election that will protect the democratic processes of our republican form of government.
We need unified election standards and we need them now.
It’s just common sense.
2 replies on “Democracy Needs Election Standards”
These are EXCELLENT standards! You have indicated that the Citizens Committee for Election Integrity adopted these standards; however, does that mean that the Secretary of State and the State of Idaho have adopted them?
That is what MUST happen and I’m not sure that has happened. This meeting was in 2021. It is my understanding that poll-watchers currently are limited on how close to the “counting” they can stand or sit. In my view, that is simply wrong. A poll-watcher should be able to sit beside a counter. If the system and those who count the votes are to be trusted, there needs to be complete transparency.
In order to have free, fair and honest elections we need these standards in place NOW.
Most of these points SOUND good and we already have a lots of these in place in Idaho. But there are issues that make me wonder WHO was on this Citizens Committee?
For instance, #1 – a). NO distance requirements? We once had a “watcher” sitting NEXT to a ballot box ASKING the voters questions and we have had watchers at early voting sitting so close to the check-in area they were listening in and looking at voters information while they were signing the poll books or registering to vote with their FULL INFORMATION VISIBLE to the watcher. Where is the protection for the voter not just their vote? There is a difference between REQUESTING voter info for mailers or walking precincts and OBSERVING a voter in real time. Most voters were NOT happy with the proximity of the watchers and their nosiness. b). ANY AUDIT by campaigns/parties or one triggered by the legal standards? Can ANY candidate demand an audit because they don’t like the outcome even if the numbers are NOT close? WHO would conduct this audit?
#2 makes sense.
#3 -a). OBSERVERS? Does that mean that all campaigns needs to have “observers” at the elections offices every day from the time any employee is in the building watching their every move? Election employees “access” election materials on a DAILY basis weeks from an election because there are REASONS to access those materials that have NOTHING to do with “fraud” but are part of the job duties. Perhaps the committee needs to tour a few election offices and see the security standards ALREADY in place before they make suggestions. b). Define “election materials”. EVERYTHING we use for an election is an “election material” from the supplies given to the judges to the ballots ordered, verified, counted and placed in the ballot boxes then SECURED for the polling places, to the scanners tested and used for early voting to the tabulators tested and used for counting at the end of election day , etc. Are they REALLY calling for “observers” who have NO IDEA what they are doing spending every day “watching”? We had watchers at the 2022 primaries and some of them came WITH AGENDAS. Others complained because they “heard something”. A few RECORDED the voters and poll workers doing their jobs WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR PERMISSION. Sending UNTRAINED OBSERVERS into any Elections Office or polling place to “monitor” only adds to the problems especially when they are looking for trouble and have no idea what the process is to put on an election.
#4 and #5 make sense,
#6 needs clarification.
#7 thru 9 sound good.
#10 – DEFINE. Does this mean tabulators from two different companies? Taxpayers need to pay for redundancy? Are we inferring costly hand-counting? This point almost ASSUMES premeditated nefarious intentions on the part of the election officials. IF the tabulators COULD be altered, wouldn’t the nefarious employees alter BOTH systems? Hand-counting is rife with mistakes, takes much longer, and who says those people doing the hand count will NOT CHEAT? Who checks the counts of the counters? #11 – 13 make sense.
#14 needs more definition. In Idaho we keep some records for 60 days and others for up to 5 years.
#15 should definitely be used where they allow provisional ballots. We do NOT use provisional in Idaho and REQUIRE proper identification and proof of Idaho residence before we register ANY voter. I was forced to turn away a few on Nov 5 because they had NO allowable ID or could not PROVE they lived in Idaho for at least 30 days.
I am not opposed to recommendations for BASIC standards that make sense as long as we are NOT infringing on the Constitutional rights of the STATES to conduct elections.