Lessons from the States: Building Trust in American Elections
Author
Read the Series
Part 1: Arizona
Part 2: Georgia
Part 3: Pennsylvania (Coming Soon)
Media Contact
For general and media inquiries and to book our experts, please contact: pr@rstreet.org.
One unique aspect of America’s electoral system is its high degree of decentralization, whereby state and local governments retain primary responsibility for election policy and administration in their respective jurisdictions. As a result, differences that arise across the nation provide opportunities for states to learn from one another about the strengths and weaknesses of various election policies.
For example, some states impose strict requirements for voters to present photo ID at the polls, while others do not. Meanwhile, although the growing adoption of early and mail-in voting in recent years has expanded access and choice for voters, it has also created administrative complexities that can lead to delayed reporting in some jurisdictions. And primary election design—ranging from closed partisan contests where candidates compete for the nomination of their political party to all-candidate primaries where all competitors appear on a single ballot regardless of party affiliation—meaningfully impacts both voter participation and electoral incentives.
To explore these differences and promote cross-state learning, R Street developed a series of policy studies focused on the unique blend of election policies in states across the country. Starting with three swing states that have played pivotal roles in recent federal elections—Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania—these papers will offer practical lessons to help states continue refining their own election processes while guiding others in efforts to enhance accessibility, integrity, and public trust.
Part I focuses on Arizona and its lengthy experience implementing a citizenship verification requirement, heavy reliance on mail-in voting that sometimes introduces administrative challenges, and use of an open primary system that allows participation by the state’s large population of independent voters.
Part II highlights Georgia as a longstanding leader in election administration, including its best practices around voter list maintenance, voter ID, and election law training for law enforcement. At the same time, the state’s heavy reliance on electronic voting machines and runoff elections presents opportunities to strengthen its system further.
Part III turns to Pennsylvania, highlighting opportunities to streamline the state’s mail-in voting system, increase voter participation in the state’s primary elections, and build trust in the process through existing list maintenance procedures and stronger voter ID requirements.
Together, these studies seek to provide policy insights that can help build trust in American elections.