Election Certification: What It Is (and Is Not)
In recent years, election certification has gone from a boring bureaucratic duty to a hotly contested step in the election process. A basic misunderstanding of what certification is and is not drives much of this debate. State legislatures are increasingly called upon to weigh in, but they must first understand that election certification is a ministerial act that indicates the conclusion of the vote-tallying process—not an endorsement of the election results or a forum for investigating irregularities.
Since 2020, more than 30 election officials have refused to certify election results in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. When state law leaves the purpose of certification unclear, it puts local officials in an awkward position. Forcing them to interpret their responsibilities on the fly—often under political pressure and tight timelines—leads to uneven practices across counties, unnecessary delays, and public confusion. Even when elections are conducted properly, inconsistent certification can cast doubt on results and erode trust.
At its core, election certification is a ceremonial act. It marks the end of the vote-counting process and allows the election process to move forward. Certification does not investigate irregularities, resolve disputes, or declare an election legitimate; rather, it simply confirms that all ballots have been counted according to the law.
Allegations of misconduct or administrative errors deserve serious attention, but they belong in the justice system where investigators and courts have the tools to examine evidence, issue subpoenas, and deliver binding decisions. Local officials responsible for certifying elections are not equipped to play that role, nor should anyone ask them to do so.
Recognizing these risks, several states and the federal government have taken steps to clarify that certification is a ceremonial and administrative duty—not a discretionary one. These reforms protect election officials, provide clarity to candidates and voters, and help ensure elections conclude in a predictable and orderly way. Where state law is ambiguous, legislation defining the ministerial nature of certification is prudent. On the contrary, proposals that encourage officials to withhold certification based on subjective concerns are counterproductive and risk turning routine administrative steps into flashpoints that undermine confidence in the system.
Election administration is central to the functioning of our representative system of government. Conducting elections in a secure and responsible manner remains one of the most important duties our states carry out. Allegations of irregularities and challenges to election results should be taken seriously; however, certification is not the proper forum for those actions. In order to strengthen public trust while providing clarity and protection for election administrators, state law must clearly distinguish between the administrative step of certifying the completion of vote counting and the legal processes used to contest and investigate results.