Resources

The guide provides a basic framework for testing risk limiting audits in diverse contexts by outlining foundational prerequisites and operational, legal and regulatory considerations

This MIT Election Data + Science Lab analysis explains the 2020 “blue shift,” where later-counted ballots disproportionately favored Democrats, and why that pattern mattered for public interpretation of results.

Report offering solutions on how public information campaigns by state election officials could mitigate polarized trust in election integrity.

This paper shows how reporting data at the ballot-card level can reduce risk limiting audits sample sizes and improve audit efficiency.

This report discusses ballot-accounting audits as a complementary check to tabulation audits, emphasizing reconciliation and chain of custody.

This report provides a national overview of post-election audits, audit types, history, and state practices across the United States.

Employing national surveys from 2012, 2016, 2018, and 2020, this paper that beliefs in election fraud are common and stable across time, and only occasionally relate to partisanship.

In this paper, authors argue that risk limiting audits can verify tabulation of paper records but cannot by themselves ensure ballot marking device printouts reflect voter intent if voters do not verify them.

This report finds that the disinformation campaign surrounding the risk of voter fraud associated with mail-in ballots follows an elite-driven, mass media model.

In this report, Morrell guides jurisdictions through planning and conducting risk limiting audits pilots, including stakeholder preparation, logistics, and post-pilot evaluation.

There is increasing evidence that voters’ confidence in the outcome of elections, and more specifically, that their vote was counted accurately, is dominated by the whether the voter supported the winning or losing candidate in an election. Authors ask whether this winner (loser) effect is consistent over time and parties. Additionally, they test whether the strength of this effect on voter confidence varies across electoral level (i.e., confidence in a county, state, and nations vote counting).

Utilizing the 2008–2016 Survey on the Performance of American Elections (SPAE), the analysis finds that wait times have a negative effect on confidence as do challenges with the voting equipment and voter registration.