Trust in Election Results
Electoral integrity is not a feeling. It is the sum of thousands of decisions and actions—documented, checked, and verified. People can shout about fraud or fairness, but underneath the noise, the integrity of an election is built on systems that leave a trace. If we want to defend democracy, we must support these systems and the people that are part of them. Trust isn’t built by telling voters the system is sound; it’s built by giving ordinary people the tools to see how the system works and explaining any mistakes along the way. When actions and decisions are visible to the public in a way they can understand, trust stops being fragile and becomes part of the system.
Over 98% of election jurisdictions in the U.S. have voters mark a paper ballot or use machines that produce an auditable paper record.
Source: Electoral Assistance Commission 2024 Survey
Judicial Elections
State courts decide 95% of cases in the United States, shaping the lives of millions. Nearly 9 out of 10 state judges must stand for election at some point, and what was once a quiet corner of democracy has become one of its most expensive, with multimillions in spending. One study has revealed that 90% of voters believe that campaign cash affects judicial decision making. This isn’t just about money—it’s about power. State courts are now deciding the nation’s most pivotal issues: voting rights, redistricting, reproductive decision-making, and more.
Because they are deciding divisive cases, judges face escalating threats and violence. Hence, judicial elections are at the epicenter of a growing storm. As attention builds ahead of the congressional mid-term elections in 2026, protecting these state judicial races from the same political currents that carry executive and legislative elections should be a priority, not a blind spot.
33 states are holding supreme court elections in 2026 and 30 states in 2028 –which represents 40% of all state supreme court seats over the next three years.
Source: Ballotpedia
Political finance in the United States plays a defining role in shaping democracy— determining who runs for office, how campaigns are conducted, and how policy priorities reach the public. The rising cost of election campaigns has made candidates increasingly dependent on large donors, political action committees, and the influence of independent expenditure. This has fueled bipartisan concern about transparency, access, and the perception that money can distort representation and policy outcomes. Recognizing that money will always influence politics, we need a nonpartisan, integrity-based approach focused on accountability and transparency.
Political Finance
Sensible campaign finance regulation is a cross-partisan issue. A 2024 poll found 82% of registered voters view the influence of money in politics as a threat to American democracy.
Source: American Promise
Election claims and disputes
Election lawsuits are overwhelming courts with cases that are costly, slow, and politically charged. Many are dismissed on procedural grounds—fueling claims that courts “refuse to hear evidence” and deepening mistrust in democracy. Yet every state already has a faster and more effective (but underused) legal way to resolve many of these disputes: administrative election dispute resolution (AEDR), required under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Strengthening these systems is a missed opportunity. Effective administrative election dispute resolution can deliver timely, fact-based resolutions, educate the public, and prevent costly, polarizing court battles (while preserving the fundamental right to access the court via appeal or judicial review). States need assistance to create transparent, impartial, and efficient systems that reduce litigation burdens and demonstrate that election systems are self-correcting and accountable.
The volume of election litigation has more than doubled since 2018. In 2024, state courts heard more election lawsuits than federal courts did in 2022 and 2024 combined.
Source: State Democracy Research Initiative, University of Wisconsin Law School.