This academic paper focuses on election misinformation, fraud narratives, or public misperceptions and their effects on confidence in U.S. elections. It is relevant because beliefs about fraud and exposure to misleading claims are central mechanisms through which confidence in election outcomes rises or falls. For this dataset, it helps capture the most recent post-2020 trust environment and the continuing effects of election denial, security concerns, and polarization.
Resources
Use our resource library to explore the latest research in the field of election science.
This academic paper examines the administrative practices, official communications, or legal steps that help voters understand and trust election outcomes. It is relevant because trusted, timely, and nonpartisan communication is one of the main tools election officials and civic groups use to counter distrust. 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 paper reports opinion or survey evidence about trust, legitimacy, political polarization, and confidence in U.S. elections. It is relevant because it documents how confidence in election results interacts with broader trust in democracy and political institutions. 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 academic paper focuses on election misinformation, fraud narratives, or public misperceptions and their effects on confidence in U.S. elections. It is relevant because beliefs about fraud and exposure to misleading claims are central mechanisms through which confidence in election outcomes rises or falls. For this dataset, it helps capture the most recent post-2020 trust environment and the continuing effects of election denial, security concerns, and polarization.
In this brief, authors discuss how election websites are a primary touchpoint for voters seeking reliable guidance on registration, polling locations, and voting procedures. By prioritizing easy access and transparency, authors state that election offices can bolster trust and engagement, strengthening the democratic process.
The report finds people who expressed higher levels of confidence that their vote would be counted as intended were more likely to vote. This pattern was consistent across partisan groups and most prominent among independents; If Americans felt more confident about the security of the 2024 election, turnout could have increased by 3.0-3.7 percentage points; If all Americans felt the highest levels of confidence going into November 2024, as many as 4.7-5.7 million more voters may have cast a ballot.
This report focuses on two of the most salient topics in list maintenance policy discussions today: mobility and citizenship.
CEIR has surveyed states about voter registration database security every two years since 2018. These surveys have demonstrated widespread best practices in respondent states.
The results indicate that state mail voting laws (universal mail voting or no-excuse absentee mail voting) and more widespread use of mail voting ballots can boost turnout in primary elections, particularly when combined with open or nonpartisan primary rules.
This research finds that when people vote by mail, they are more likely to successfully identify the candidates that are best aligned with their preferences.
This research analyzes the demographics of voters whose mail ballots are rejected in Washington and Colorado. It finds that younger voters and voters of color are more likely to have their ballots rejected due to a non-matching signature; however, almost half of these rejections are ultimately incorrect and are cured by the voter. Additional findings show that the experience of having a ballot rejected in one election, even if the issue is resolved through ballot curing, reduces the voter’s likelihood of participating in subsequent elections.
This research finds evidence which implicates evaluator bias as the primary driver of racial disparities in vote by mail signature verification.