Resources

This report from Verified Voting compares audit and recount laws in seven 2024 swing states, clarifying differences between audits and recounts for public understanding.

This report supports automated independent audits as a complement or alternative to other post-election audit methods. It may be useful for administrators or policymakers in comparing auditing approaches.

This report analyzes a Maryland bill that would require risk-limiting audits after statewide elections, including fiscal and administrative implications.

This report summarizes projections of how many people with disabilities would be eligible to vote in the November 2024 elections, using data from the Census Bureau’s 2018-2022 American Community Survey combined with Census Bureau population projections for 2024. The report breaks down key demographic characteristics of eligible voters with disabilities.

This report and the guidelines contained therein explain how a successful accessible RCV ballot works for voters with disabilities. The goal of this work was to create a universal design for a Ranked Choice Voting ballot that would work for the most voters without special settings needed.

This report describes qualitative research conducted to gain deeper insights about how voters mark, review, verify, and cast their ballots. It is part of the work to update the human factors—accessibility, usability, and voter privacy—requirements in federal voting system standards and fill gaps in our understanding of how voters interact with ballot marking devices.

This review of the literature was done for research to understand how voters approach the task of marking, reviewing, verifying, and casting a ballot. It includes not only research on voting systems and voting, but on related issues of trust, privacy, and mental models. This report is a companion to the research report NIST GCR 24-051 How Voters Review and Verify Ballots.

This research finds that Black and Native Americans have lower levels of trust in elections when compared to white Americans. Asian Americans are not statistically unlike whites in their level of trust, and the trust gap that exists for Latines is partially explainable by demographic characteristics such as education and income.

Using a preregistered survey experiment of nearly 10,000 Americans, this article shows that informing voters about longer-than-expected vote counting time induces a large, significant decrease in trust in the election. However, viewing a “prebunking” video in advance of being informed of the delay in results more than makes up for the delay-induced decrease in election trust.

This post-election survey reports on how Americans cast ballots in 2024 and how confident they were that votes were counted accurately.

This academic article examines how unsupported fraud claims or misperceptions about voting affect confidence in election outcomes and perceived legitimacy. It is relevant to the dataset because it connects election rules, information environments, or administrative performance to public confidence and perceived legitimacy. For this dataset, it helps capture the most recent post-2020 trust environment and the continuing effects of election denial, security concerns, and polarization.

This RAND resource addresses technology, misinformation, political violence, or public communication risks that could affect trust in the 2024 election environment. It is relevant because confidence depends not only on actual system security but also on whether voters understand the safeguards protecting registration, voting, and counting. For this dataset, it helps capture the most recent post-2020 trust environment and the continuing effects of election denial, security concerns, and polarization.