Confidence in Mail Voting and Disputed Election Results

Confidence in Mail Voting and Disputed Election Results

1. Broad Public Confidence in Elections in the U.S. – but Partisans Differ Over Concerns About Access, Security

   Pew Research Center, 2026-10-20 · supports

   “We surveyed 5,062 U.S. adults, including 3,917 registered voters, from Sept. 28 to Oct. 4, 2026. ... 90% of those who back Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives in this year’s elections are confident that if noncitizens try to vote they will be stopped. A far smaller share of Republican candidate backers – 45% – are confident that noncitizens will be prevented from casting ballots. Still, Republican voters express a higher level of confidence that noncitizens will be stopped from voting than President Donald Trump’s voters did in 2024 (35% then). ... 90% of Republican voters are at least somewhat confident in this. A narrower majority of Democratic voters (72%) express confidence that all qualified voters will be able to vote if they want to. ... 64% of Democratic voters say they are confident mail and absentee votes will be counted as voters intend – down from 88% in the 2022 midterm elections and 85% among Kamala Harris’ voters in the 2024 presidential election. 42% of GOP voters say they are confident mail and absentee votes will be counted as intended – modestly higher than in past recent elections. ... 19% of Republican voters mention concerns about illegitimate voters casting ballots, or fraudulent votes. In contrast, Democratic voters are more likely to raise concerns about legitimate voters being denied access (10%) or interference with election administration by the Trump administration (11%). ... Roughly three-quarters of mail and absentee voters (76%) are confident votes cast this way will be counted as voters intend. By comparison, about half of in-person voters (47%) are confident this will happen.”Hide quote

   We surveyed 5,062 U.S. adults, including 3,917 registered voters, from Sept. 28 to Oct. 4, 2026. ... 90% of those who back Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives in this year’s elections are confident that if noncitizens try to vote they will be stopped. A far smaller share of Republican candidate backers – 45% – are confident that noncitizens will be prevented from casting ballots. Still, Republican voters express a higher level of confidence that noncitizens will be stopped from voting than President Donald Trump’s voters did in 2024 (35% then). ... 90% of Republican voters are at least somewhat confident in this. A narrower majority of Democratic voters (72%) express confidence that all qualified voters will be able to vote if they want to. ... 64% of Democratic voters say they are confident mail and absentee votes will be counted as voters intend – down from 88% in the 2022 midterm elections and 85% among Kamala Harris’ voters in the 2024 presidential election. 42% of GOP voters say they are confident mail and absentee votes will be counted as intended – modestly higher than in past recent elections. ... 19% of Republican voters mention concerns about illegitimate voters casting ballots, or fraudulent votes. In contrast, Democratic voters are more likely to raise concerns about legitimate voters being denied access (10%) or interference with election administration by the Trump administration (11%). ... Roughly three-quarters of mail and absentee voters (76%) are confident votes cast this way will be counted as voters intend. By comparison, about half of in-person voters (47%) are confident this will happen.

2. Partisan Split on Election Integrity Gets Even Wider

   Gallup, 2024-09-25 · supports

   “Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are very or somewhat confident that the votes for president this year will be accurately cast and counted. ... This has led to a record-high 56-percentage-point partisan gap, with 84% of Democrats versus 28% of Republicans having faith in the accuracy of the vote. ... At the same time, the percentage of Americans saying they are “not at all confident” in the vote has steadily climbed from 6% in 2004 to 19% today. ... In 2004, when George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were more confident than Democrats ... Americans are far more positive about the integrity of the vote at their own polling place, as 76% say they are very or somewhat confident the votes will be accurately cast and counted there. ... Seventy-four percent of Republicans versus just under half of independents and fewer Democrats say each of these irregularities will be a major problem across the country. ... Smaller percentages of all party groups -- 37% of Democrats, 34% of Republicans and 32% of independents -- expect eligible voters to be prevented from voting. ... the percentages of Democrats and independents calling this a major problem spiked in 2020, to 62% and 47%, respectively.”Hide quote

   Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are very or somewhat confident that the votes for president this year will be accurately cast and counted. ... This has led to a record-high 56-percentage-point partisan gap, with 84% of Democrats versus 28% of Republicans having faith in the accuracy of the vote. ... At the same time, the percentage of Americans saying they are “not at all confident” in the vote has steadily climbed from 6% in 2004 to 19% today. ... In 2004, when George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were more confident than Democrats ... Americans are far more positive about the integrity of the vote at their own polling place, as 76% say they are very or somewhat confident the votes will be accurately cast and counted there. ... Seventy-four percent of Republicans versus just under half of independents and fewer Democrats say each of these irregularities will be a major problem across the country. ... Smaller percentages of all party groups -- 37% of Democrats, 34% of Republicans and 32% of independents -- expect eligible voters to be prevented from voting. ... the percentages of Democrats and independents calling this a major problem spiked in 2020, to 62% and 47%, respectively.

3. Confidence in Election Integrity Hides Deep Partisan Divide

   Gallup, 2022-11-04 · supports

   “More than half of Americans have consistently expressed confidence in the accuracy of elections throughout Gallup's trend since 2004, but confidence was highest leading up to the 2004 presidential and 2006 midterm elections. ... In most election years since 2004, Gallup has found that Americans who self-identify with the political party of the incumbent president have expressed greater confidence in election accuracy -- with two exceptions, 2008 and 2020. In October 2008, during the global economic crisis, Republicans' and Democrats' confidence in the accuracy of that year's presidential election each fell to 57% ... In 2020, amid then-President Donald Trump's public questioning of the validity of mail voting in the upcoming election, Republicans' confidence in voting integrity dropped to a new low of 44%, while Democrats' confidence remained high, slightly higher (76%) than in the previous election year. The current 45 percentage points that separate Republicans' (40%) and Democrats' (85%) confidence represents the largest gap Gallup has recorded on this measure since 2004.”Hide quote

   More than half of Americans have consistently expressed confidence in the accuracy of elections throughout Gallup's trend since 2004, but confidence was highest leading up to the 2004 presidential and 2006 midterm elections. ... In most election years since 2004, Gallup has found that Americans who self-identify with the political party of the incumbent president have expressed greater confidence in election accuracy -- with two exceptions, 2008 and 2020. In October 2008, during the global economic crisis, Republicans' and Democrats' confidence in the accuracy of that year's presidential election each fell to 57% ... In 2020, amid then-President Donald Trump's public questioning of the validity of mail voting in the upcoming election, Republicans' confidence in voting integrity dropped to a new low of 44%, while Democrats' confidence remained high, slightly higher (76%) than in the previous election year. The current 45 percentage points that separate Republicans' (40%) and Democrats' (85%) confidence represents the largest gap Gallup has recorded on this measure since 2004.

4. U.S. Trust in Elections Diverges From Global Pattern

   Gallup, 2026-10-07 · supports

   “Forty-nine percent are confident in electoral honesty, while 51% are not. Americans’ relative lack of confidence in the integrity of elections is nothing new — it has averaged 45% since 2006 — but who lacks confidence is. In 2026, 63% of Democrats are confident in the honesty of elections, higher than either Republicans (37%) or political independents (35%). The World Poll has asked about party identification in the U.S. only since 2024, when there was a 55-percentage-point divide in confidence between Democrats and Republicans. This divide closed to just four points in 2025 but has reopened this year ... In 2026, confidence in the honesty of elections is, for the first time, significantly higher among Americans who disapprove (52%) of their country’s leadership than approve (41%) ... Over the past two years, an average of 46% of approvers have expressed confidence in the honesty of elections, compared with 48% of disapprovers. ... In 2025 (with final global data collection not yet complete in 2026), a median of 70% of approvers of their national leadership had confidence in the honesty of their elections, compared with 30% of disapprovers — a gap of 40 points. ... No other country in the world in the past 15 years has seen this pattern, in which people disapproving of their leadership are significantly more confident in the honesty of elections than those approving of their leadership. ... From 2006 to 2020, there was a consistent and large gap in electoral confidence between Americans who approved of and those who disapproved of U.S. leadership under the administrations of George W. Bush (averaging 35 points), Barack Obama (averaging 30 points) and Donald Trump (averaging 35 points). After Joe Biden won the presidency in the 2020 election, the results of which Trump challenged, this confidence gap ballooned to 51 points.”Hide quote

   Forty-nine percent are confident in electoral honesty, while 51% are not. Americans’ relative lack of confidence in the integrity of elections is nothing new — it has averaged 45% since 2006 — but who lacks confidence is. In 2026, 63% of Democrats are confident in the honesty of elections, higher than either Republicans (37%) or political independents (35%). The World Poll has asked about party identification in the U.S. only since 2024, when there was a 55-percentage-point divide in confidence between Democrats and Republicans. This divide closed to just four points in 2025 but has reopened this year ... In 2026, confidence in the honesty of elections is, for the first time, significantly higher among Americans who disapprove (52%) of their country’s leadership than approve (41%) ... Over the past two years, an average of 46% of approvers have expressed confidence in the honesty of elections, compared with 48% of disapprovers. ... In 2025 (with final global data collection not yet complete in 2026), a median of 70% of approvers of their national leadership had confidence in the honesty of their elections, compared with 30% of disapprovers — a gap of 40 points. ... No other country in the world in the past 15 years has seen this pattern, in which people disapproving of their leadership are significantly more confident in the honesty of elections than those approving of their leadership. ... From 2006 to 2020, there was a consistent and large gap in electoral confidence between Americans who approved of and those who disapproved of U.S. leadership under the administrations of George W. Bush (averaging 35 points), Barack Obama (averaging 30 points) and Donald Trump (averaging 35 points). After Joe Biden won the presidency in the 2020 election, the results of which Trump challenged, this confidence gap ballooned to 51 points.

5. How We Voted in 2024

   MIT Election Data and Science Lab, 2025-07 · supports

   “During presidential election years, the nationwide confidence measure particularly reflects the well-known winner-loser effect, where supporters of the presidential winner experience a rise in confidence while supporters of the loser see a decline. In 2016, 80% of Republicans stated they were very or somewhat confident that votes across the country were counted as intended (nationwide confidence), compared to 69% of Democrats. ... In 2024, 88% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats expressed confidence in the nationwide vote count, compared to 22% and 93% in 2020, respectively. ... Since 2008, support among Republicans has steadily increased to the point where it is nearly unanimously favored by Republican respondents (92.4% support in 2024). Support among Democrats weakened in the early years covered by the data but has rebounded in recent years.”Hide quote

   During presidential election years, the nationwide confidence measure particularly reflects the well-known winner-loser effect, where supporters of the presidential winner experience a rise in confidence while supporters of the loser see a decline. In 2016, 80% of Republicans stated they were very or somewhat confident that votes across the country were counted as intended (nationwide confidence), compared to 69% of Democrats. ... In 2024, 88% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats expressed confidence in the nationwide vote count, compared to 22% and 93% in 2020, respectively. ... Since 2008, support among Republicans has steadily increased to the point where it is nearly unanimously favored by Republican respondents (92.4% support in 2024). Support among Democrats weakened in the early years covered by the data but has rebounded in recent years.

6. Partisanship and Voter Confidence, 2000–2012 (VTP Working Paper #125)

   Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, 2014-06-01 · supports

   “Using approximately 30 national surveys over the past decade, we find a consistent relationship between voting for the winner and confidence in election administration. ... Across the decade, aggregate confidence in the country's vote declined about 30 percentage points. However, this overall decline is due almost entirely to a forty-point decline among Republicans during this period. ... among those who voted for the winning candidate, confidence in one's own vote increases by about 20 percentage points after an election. Among those who voted for the loser, confidence declines slightly, by about 2 percentage points.”Hide quote

   Using approximately 30 national surveys over the past decade, we find a consistent relationship between voting for the winner and confidence in election administration. ... Across the decade, aggregate confidence in the country's vote declined about 30 percentage points. However, this overall decline is due almost entirely to a forty-point decline among Republicans during this period. ... among those who voted for the winning candidate, confidence in one's own vote increases by about 20 percentage points after an election. Among those who voted for the loser, confidence declines slightly, by about 2 percentage points.

7. Voter Confidence in the 2018 Election: So Long to the Winner’s Effect?

   Election Updates (Charles Stewart III, MIT), 2018-12-19 · complicates

   “For the past two decades, Americans have consistently exhibited a “winner’s effect” in judging whether votes were counted fairly in elections. The 2018 election broke that pattern. ... Good electoral news for Republicans was followed by a 14-point increase in Republican confidence and a slight decrease in confidence among Democrats. In 2016, the even-more-dramatic electoral results produced an even greater shift in partisan confidence. One month before the election, Democrats were more confident by a margin of 15 points. Right after the election, Democrats were less confident, by 13 points.”Hide quote

   For the past two decades, Americans have consistently exhibited a “winner’s effect” in judging whether votes were counted fairly in elections. The 2018 election broke that pattern. ... Good electoral news for Republicans was followed by a 14-point increase in Republican confidence and a slight decrease in confidence among Democrats. In 2016, the even-more-dramatic electoral results produced an even greater shift in partisan confidence. One month before the election, Democrats were more confident by a margin of 15 points. Right after the election, Democrats were less confident, by 13 points.

8. It’s Largely a Rigged System: Voter Confidence and the Winner Effect in 2016 (Political Research Quarterly)

   Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies (Betsy Sinclair, Steven S. Smith and Patrick D. Tucker), 2018-04-21 · supports

   “Second, literature on voter confidence has established a “winner effect”—voters who cast ballots for winners are more likely than voters on the losing side to believe their vote was counted correctly. ... In this paper, we find that the “winner” effect mitigates the effects from strong pre-election cues from elites.”Hide quote

   Second, literature on voter confidence has established a “winner effect”—voters who cast ballots for winners are more likely than voters on the losing side to believe their vote was counted correctly. ... In this paper, we find that the “winner” effect mitigates the effects from strong pre-election cues from elites.

9. “Procedural Polarization: How Election Rules Shape Voters’ Confidence” (Joshua Clinton, American Political Science Review; abstract)

   Election Law Blog (Rick Hasen, reproducing the APSR abstract), 2026-05-11 · complicates

   “Prior research demonstrates voters’ confidence in elections depends on whether their preferred candidate wins, but does agreement with the electoral rules being used also matter? Leveraging growing procedural polarization in election laws, public opinion data from 2008 to 2024, and a large-scale survey experiment conducted before the 2024 election, I show that agreement with election procedures matters for voter confidence beyond well-established effects related to partisan control and electoral outcomes. Observational and experimental analyses consistently reveal that voters are less likely to express confidence in election results conducted using procedures they oppose. The effects are particularly large for voter identification laws and among Republicans and independents.”Hide quote

   Prior research demonstrates voters’ confidence in elections depends on whether their preferred candidate wins, but does agreement with the electoral rules being used also matter? Leveraging growing procedural polarization in election laws, public opinion data from 2008 to 2024, and a large-scale survey experiment conducted before the 2024 election, I show that agreement with election procedures matters for voter confidence beyond well-established effects related to partisan control and electoral outcomes. Observational and experimental analyses consistently reveal that voters are less likely to express confidence in election results conducted using procedures they oppose. The effects are particularly large for voter identification laws and among Republicans and independents.

10. Gauging the Effects of SB 202 on Voting in Georgia

    MIT Election Data and Science Lab (M.V. Hood III and Seth C. McKee), 2024-05 · complicates

    “In 2020 state-level voter confidence for Republicans craters at only 26%, but rebounds to 70% in 2022. In contrast, Democratic voters’ confidence shows relatively little movement and is extremely high (94% in 2020 and 85% in 2022) ... Among Republicans, 59.1% indicated that SB 202 had increased (greatly or somewhat) their confidence in Georgia elections, as compared to 36.6% of Independents and a much lower 29.1% of Democrats holding this view. Conversely, a 46.8% plurality of Democrats expressed a decrease (greatly or somewhat) in confidence in Georgia elections because of SB 202 ... However, we cannot make any definitive statements from a causal standpoint as we are unable to completely rule out competing explanations. For example, it is possible that Republican confidence rebounded in 2022 because of the noted winner’s effect (the fact that the Georgia GOP won all statewide offices with the exception of a U.S. Senate seat). ... Overall, only 1.1% of survey respondents reported they encountered an issue while casting their ballot.”Hide quote

    In 2020 state-level voter confidence for Republicans craters at only 26%, but rebounds to 70% in 2022. In contrast, Democratic voters’ confidence shows relatively little movement and is extremely high (94% in 2020 and 85% in 2022) ... Among Republicans, 59.1% indicated that SB 202 had increased (greatly or somewhat) their confidence in Georgia elections, as compared to 36.6% of Independents and a much lower 29.1% of Democrats holding this view. Conversely, a 46.8% plurality of Democrats expressed a decrease (greatly or somewhat) in confidence in Georgia elections because of SB 202 ... However, we cannot make any definitive statements from a causal standpoint as we are unable to completely rule out competing explanations. For example, it is possible that Republican confidence rebounded in 2022 because of the noted winner’s effect (the fact that the Georgia GOP won all statewide offices with the exception of a U.S. Senate seat). ... Overall, only 1.1% of survey respondents reported they encountered an issue while casting their ballot.

11. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), per curiam

    Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell Legal Information Institute), 2000-12-12 · supports

    “The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under §102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (“undervotes”). ... This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. ... Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work.”Hide quote

    The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under §102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (“undervotes”). ... This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. ... Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work.

12. Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session (RL32717)

    Congressional Research Service (via EveryCRSReport), 2020 · supports

    “The second instance related to reported voting irregularities in Ohio. In 2005, a Representative (Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio) and a Senator (Barbara Boxer of California) objected in writing to the Ohio electoral votes. The chambers withdrew from the joint session to consider the objection, and the House and Senate each rejected the objection. When the House and Senate resumed the joint session, the electoral votes were counted as cast.”Hide quote

    The second instance related to reported voting irregularities in Ohio. In 2005, a Representative (Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio) and a Senator (Barbara Boxer of California) objected in writing to the Ohio electoral votes. The chambers withdrew from the joint session to consider the objection, and the House and Senate each rejected the objection. When the House and Senate resumed the joint session, the electoral votes were counted as cast.

13. Abrams Ends Gov Run, Vows To Continue Voting Rights Fight

    Georgia Public Broadcasting, 2018-11-16 · supports

    “Abrams said there was “no further viable remedy” to continue the fight for a runoff with Republican Brian Kemp. A glimpse at the teleprompter on the floor showed her speech was called “I Will Not Concede,” and Abrams, who would have been the country's first black female governor, said this was not meant to be a speech of concession. ... After recounting an assortment of problems voters faced in the election, from long lines at the polls to being issued provisional paper ballots to the hundreds of thousands of Georgians that have been removed from the voting rolls in recent years, Abrams said there were two things she would do next.”Hide quote

    Abrams said there was “no further viable remedy” to continue the fight for a runoff with Republican Brian Kemp. A glimpse at the teleprompter on the floor showed her speech was called “I Will Not Concede,” and Abrams, who would have been the country's first black female governor, said this was not meant to be a speech of concession. ... After recounting an assortment of problems voters faced in the election, from long lines at the polls to being issued provisional paper ballots to the hundreds of thousands of Georgians that have been removed from the voting rolls in recent years, Abrams said there were two things she would do next.

14. Texas v. Pennsylvania, No. 155, Orig. (order)

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2020-12-11 · supports

    “The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”Hide quote

    The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

15. Roll Call 10, 117th Congress, 1st Session (vote record; fields are congress, session, chamber, roll call number, question, vote type, result, date, and totals of yeas, nays, present and not voting)

    Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 2021-01-06 · supports

    “117 1st U.S. House of Representatives 10 MOTION On Agreeing to the Objection YEA-AND-NAY Failed 6-Jan-2021 ... Totals 121 303 0 7”Hide quote

    117 1st U.S. House of Representatives 10 MOTION On Agreeing to the Objection YEA-AND-NAY Failed 6-Jan-2021 ... Totals 121 303 0 7

16. Roll Call 11, 117th Congress, 1st Session (vote record, same fields)

    Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 2021-01-07 · supports

    “117 1st U.S. House of Representatives 11 MOTION On Agreeing to the Objection YEA-AND-NAY Failed 7-Jan-2021 ... Totals 138 282 0 11”Hide quote

    117 1st U.S. House of Representatives 11 MOTION On Agreeing to the Objection YEA-AND-NAY Failed 7-Jan-2021 ... Totals 138 282 0 11

17. Lake v. Hobbs, No. CV-23-0046-PR (order)

    Arizona Supreme Court (copy hosted by States United Democracy Center), 2023-03-22 · supports

    “Issue number six asks, "Did the panel err in dismissing the signature-verification claim on laches[,] mischaracterizing Lake's claim as a challenge to existing signature verification policies, when Lake in fact alleged that Maricopa failed to follow these”Hide quote

    Issue number six asks, "Did the panel err in dismissing the signature-verification claim on laches[,] mischaracterizing Lake's claim as a challenge to existing signature verification policies, when Lake in fact alleged that Maricopa failed to follow these

18. Judge dismisses Kari Lake’s final claim in election loss for Arizona governor

    Associated Press (via KSAT), 2023-05-23 · supports

    “Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Thompson said Lake failed to prove her claim that Maricopa County did not verify signatures on mail ballots as required by law. ... She filed suit after losing to Hobbs by about 17,000 votes, asking the courts to install her as governor or order a new election. ... She did not contest whether voters’ signatures on ballot envelopes matched those in their voting records.”Hide quote

    Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Thompson said Lake failed to prove her claim that Maricopa County did not verify signatures on mail ballots as required by law. ... She filed suit after losing to Hobbs by about 17,000 votes, asking the courts to install her as governor or order a new election. ... She did not contest whether voters’ signatures on ballot envelopes matched those in their voting records.

19. Judge orders new Bridgeport primary

    CT Mirror, 2023-11-01 · supports

    “"Given the volume of votes at issue, the miscounting of those statutorily invalid votes leaves this court unable to determine the result of the primary." ... Bloss based his argument that a new primary is needed on numbers — arguing that as many as 1,253 were submitted through drop boxes, while 2,100 hours of surveillance videos of the city's four drop boxes show only about 420 people placing ballots in them. ... Ganim defeated Gomes by 251 votes in the Sept. 12 Democratic primary”Hide quote

    "Given the volume of votes at issue, the miscounting of those statutorily invalid votes leaves this court unable to determine the result of the primary." ... Bloss based his argument that a new primary is needed on numbers — arguing that as many as 1,253 were submitted through drop boxes, while 2,100 hours of surveillance videos of the city's four drop boxes show only about 420 people placing ballots in them. ... Ganim defeated Gomes by 251 votes in the Sept. 12 Democratic primary

20. Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim wins do-over election, Associated Press projects

    CBS New York (Associated Press), 2024-02-27 · supports

    “Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim has won a do-over election in Connecticut's most populous city, months after a judge threw out the results of the first one because of allegations of absentee ballot box stuffing during a Democratic primary. ... A new Democratic primary was held on Jan. 23. Ganim won again, this time more comfortably”Hide quote

    Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim has won a do-over election in Connecticut's most populous city, months after a judge threw out the results of the first one because of allegations of absentee ballot box stuffing during a Democratic primary. ... A new Democratic primary was held on Jan. 23. Ganim won again, this time more comfortably

21. Confidence in Election Integrity Hides Deep Partisan Divide (chart tables, 2004–2022); Partisan Split on Election Integrity Gets Even Wider (2024)

    Gallup, 2022-11-04 · supports

    “Americans' Confidence in the Accuracy of U.S. Elections % Very/Somewhat confident Jan-04 72 Jan-06 75 Jan-08 59 Jan-16 66 Jan-18 70 Jan-20 59 Jan-22 63 ... Americans' Confidence in the Accuracy of U.S. Elections, by Party Republicans Independents Democrats Jan-04 87 69 59 Jan-06 92 70 66 Jan-08 57 63 57 Jan-16 55 59 85 Jan-18 77 64 69 Jan-20 44 57 76 Jan-22 40 67 85 ... Confidence in Accuracy of Each Presidential Election, by Party Republicans Independents Democrats 2004 87 69 59 2008 57 63 57 2016 55 59 85 2020 44 57 76 2024 28 58 84”Hide quote

    Americans' Confidence in the Accuracy of U.S. Elections % Very/Somewhat confident Jan-04 72 Jan-06 75 Jan-08 59 Jan-16 66 Jan-18 70 Jan-20 59 Jan-22 63 ... Americans' Confidence in the Accuracy of U.S. Elections, by Party Republicans Independents Democrats Jan-04 87 69 59 Jan-06 92 70 66 Jan-08 57 63 57 Jan-16 55 59 85 Jan-18 77 64 69 Jan-20 44 57 76 Jan-22 40 67 85 ... Confidence in Accuracy of Each Presidential Election, by Party Republicans Independents Democrats 2004 87 69 59 2008 57 63 57 2016 55 59 85 2020 44 57 76 2024 28 58 84

22. Broad Public Confidence in Elections in the U.S. – but Partisans Differ Over Concerns About Access, Security (chart data)

    Pew Research Center, 2026-10-20 · supports

    “Widespread confidence that in-person ballots will be counted accurately, but public confidence in count of mail ballots is lower, down among Democratic voters ... 2020-10 Oct ’20 In person 91 90 92 2022-10 Oct ’22 In person 84 95 79 2024-10 Oct ’24 In person 85 93 77 2026-10 Oct ’26 In person 79 81 84 2020-10 Oct ’20 By absentee or mail-in ballot 59 77 36 2022-10 Oct ’22 By absentee or mail-in ballot 62 88 37 2024-10 Oct ’24 By absentee or mail-in ballot 61 85 38 2026-10 Oct ’26 By absentee or mail-in ballot 53 64 42”Hide quote

    Widespread confidence that in-person ballots will be counted accurately, but public confidence in count of mail ballots is lower, down among Democratic voters ... 2020-10 Oct ’20 In person 91 90 92 2022-10 Oct ’22 In person 84 95 79 2024-10 Oct ’24 In person 85 93 77 2026-10 Oct ’26 In person 79 81 84 2020-10 Oct ’20 By absentee or mail-in ballot 59 77 36 2022-10 Oct ’22 By absentee or mail-in ballot 62 88 37 2024-10 Oct ’24 By absentee or mail-in ballot 61 85 38 2026-10 Oct ’26 By absentee or mail-in ballot 53 64 42

23. How We Voted in 2024, Figure 25: Confidence in Nationwide Vote Counting by Party, 2012–2024

    MIT Election Data and Science Lab, 2025-07 · supports

    “In 2020, confidence among Democrats rose to 93%, while the percentage of Republicans who were either very or somewhat confident fell to 22%. Democratic confidence remained essentially unchanged in 2022, whereas Republican confidence increased by twenty points. By 2024, Democrats and Republicans became more aligned in the nationwide confidence measure, with Republican confidence rising to 88% and Democratic confidence decreasing to 79%.”Hide quote

    In 2020, confidence among Democrats rose to 93%, while the percentage of Republicans who were either very or somewhat confident fell to 22%. Democratic confidence remained essentially unchanged in 2022, whereas Republican confidence increased by twenty points. By 2024, Democrats and Republicans became more aligned in the nationwide confidence measure, with Republican confidence rising to 88% and Democratic confidence decreasing to 79%.

24. U.S. Trust in Elections Diverges From Global Pattern (trend table)

    Gallup, 2026-10-07 · supports

    “Americans Divided on Honesty of Elections ... Time Yes No 2026 49% 51% 2025 47% 53% 2024 51% 49% 2023 44% 55% 2022 49% 51% 2021 50% 50% 2020 45% 54% 2019 40% 59% 2018 37% 62% 2017 47% 52% 2016 30% 69% 2015 40% 59% 2014 40% 59% 2013 39% 60% 2012 42% 57% 2011 48% 49% 2010 44% 55% 2009 59% 40% 2008 47% 53% 2007 50% 49% 2006 52% 47% ”Hide quote

    Americans Divided on Honesty of Elections ... Time Yes No 2026 49% 51% 2025 47% 53% 2024 51% 49% 2023 44% 55% 2022 49% 51% 2021 50% 50% 2020 45% 54% 2019 40% 59% 2018 37% 62% 2017 47% 52% 2016 30% 69% 2015 40% 59% 2014 40% 59% 2013 39% 60% 2012 42% 57% 2011 48% 49% 2010 44% 55% 2009 59% 40% 2008 47% 53% 2007 50% 49% 2006 52% 47%

Ballot Receipt Deadlines, Late Ballots and Counting Speed

1. Table 11: Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee/Mail Ballots

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-25 · supports

   “Thirty-five states require absentee/mail ballots returned by mail to be received on or before Election Day. Fifteen states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., will accept and count a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day but postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. ... In July 2026, a district court judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction on the law requiring absentee ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. ... Under the injunction, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of an election. ... North Dakota HB 1165 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for absentee ballots to be received before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Ohio SB 293 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for most absentee ballots to the close of polls on Election Day. ... The bill maintains a carve-out for military and overseas voters’ ballots, which will still be accepted if received within the four-day post-election period. Utah HB 300 (2025) required ballots to be received by the election officer by 8 p.m. on Election Day. ... Alaska ... Must be received within 10 days if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... California ... Must be received no later than seven days after Election Day. ... District of Columbia ... Must be received within ten days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Illinois ... Must be received within 14 days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Kansas ... Must be received by the third day after an election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Maryland ... Must be received within 10 days after the election by 10 a.m. if postmarked on or before Election Day. Massachusetts ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the third day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Mississippi ... Must be received within five business days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Nevada ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the fourth day following the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... New Jersey ... Must be received within 144 hours (six days) of the close of the polls if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... New York ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Oregon ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Texas ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Virginia ... Must be received before noon on the third day after the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Washington ... Must be received no later than the day before certification, which is 21 days after a general election and 14 days after a primary if postmarked on or before Election Day. West Virginia ... Must be received before the canvass (which begins on the fifth day after the election) if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Ballot Receipt Deadlines for Military and Overseas Voters ... Twenty states require ballots from military and overseas voters to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. Thirty states and Washington, D.C. accept at least some military and overseas ballots received after Election Day.”Hide quote

   Thirty-five states require absentee/mail ballots returned by mail to be received on or before Election Day. Fifteen states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., will accept and count a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day but postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. ... In July 2026, a district court judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction on the law requiring absentee ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. ... Under the injunction, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of an election. ... North Dakota HB 1165 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for absentee ballots to be received before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Ohio SB 293 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for most absentee ballots to the close of polls on Election Day. ... The bill maintains a carve-out for military and overseas voters’ ballots, which will still be accepted if received within the four-day post-election period. Utah HB 300 (2025) required ballots to be received by the election officer by 8 p.m. on Election Day. ... Alaska ... Must be received within 10 days if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... California ... Must be received no later than seven days after Election Day. ... District of Columbia ... Must be received within ten days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Illinois ... Must be received within 14 days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Kansas ... Must be received by the third day after an election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Maryland ... Must be received within 10 days after the election by 10 a.m. if postmarked on or before Election Day. Massachusetts ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the third day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Mississippi ... Must be received within five business days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Nevada ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the fourth day following the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... New Jersey ... Must be received within 144 hours (six days) of the close of the polls if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... New York ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Oregon ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Texas ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Virginia ... Must be received before noon on the third day after the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Washington ... Must be received no later than the day before certification, which is 21 days after a general election and 14 days after a primary if postmarked on or before Election Day. West Virginia ... Must be received before the canvass (which begins on the fifth day after the election) if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Ballot Receipt Deadlines for Military and Overseas Voters ... Twenty states require ballots from military and overseas voters to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. Thirty states and Washington, D.C. accept at least some military and overseas ballots received after Election Day.

2. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), slip opinion

   Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

   “Mississippi is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. ... State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs' view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots. ... Finally, plaintiffs assert that requiring ballots to be received by election day protects election integrity and increases voter confidence in election results. ... As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts. ... The question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code.”Hide quote

   Mississippi is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. ... State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs' view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots. ... Finally, plaintiffs assert that requiring ballots to be received by election day protects election integrity and increases voter confidence in election results. ... As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts. ... The question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code.

3. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report (pp. 14–15 and Overview Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 47,629,437 were reported as being counted and 584,463 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 98.8% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.2% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election ... % Turnout by Mail ... Arizona [3] 74.7% 3,582,082 2,859,348 79.8% 2,816,885 98.5% ... Georgia [6] 5.1% 327,241 273,512 83.6% 268,751 98.3% ... Michigan 35.4% 2,213,167 2,081,265 94.0% 2,017,704 96.9% ... Nevada 44.1% 2,069,339 669,445 32.4% 656,140 98.0% ... North Carolina 5.2% 451,176 307,185 68.1% 298,269 97.1% ... Pennsylvania [20] 27.3% 2,204,273 1,952,372 88.6% 1,933,102 99.0% ... Wisconsin [24] 16.6% 614,367 575,257 93.6% 572,434 99.5% ... Returned ballot envelope did not have required postmark 0.9%”Hide quote

   Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 47,629,437 were reported as being counted and 584,463 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 98.8% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.2% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election ... % Turnout by Mail ... Arizona [3] 74.7% 3,582,082 2,859,348 79.8% 2,816,885 98.5% ... Georgia [6] 5.1% 327,241 273,512 83.6% 268,751 98.3% ... Michigan 35.4% 2,213,167 2,081,265 94.0% 2,017,704 96.9% ... Nevada 44.1% 2,069,339 669,445 32.4% 656,140 98.0% ... North Carolina 5.2% 451,176 307,185 68.1% 298,269 97.1% ... Pennsylvania [20] 27.3% 2,204,273 1,952,372 88.6% 1,933,102 99.0% ... Wisconsin [24] 16.6% 614,367 575,257 93.6% 572,434 99.5% ... Returned ballot envelope did not have required postmark 0.9%

4. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2022 Comprehensive Report (p. 13 and Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-06-29 · supports

   “Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 35,718,700 were reported as being counted and 549,824 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 97.4% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.5% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Other reason not listed 32.7% ... Ballot had a non-matching or incomplete signature 26.9% ... not received on time/missed the deadline 23.1%”Hide quote

   Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 35,718,700 were reported as being counted and 549,824 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 97.4% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.5% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Other reason not listed 32.7% ... Ballot had a non-matching or incomplete signature 26.9% ... not received on time/missed the deadline 23.1%

5. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report (Table 2)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021-08 · supports

   “Other common reasons for rejection included that the voter had already voted in person (13.5%), the ballot was received after the state’s deadline for submitting a mailed ballot (12.1%), and there was no voter signature on the mailed ballot or the mailed ballot envelope (12.1%). ... Table 2. The Most Common Reason for Rejecting Mailed Ballots Was for a Non-Matching Signature ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 12.1%”Hide quote

   Other common reasons for rejection included that the voter had already voted in person (13.5%), the ballot was received after the state’s deadline for submitting a mailed ballot (12.1%), and there was no voter signature on the mailed ballot or the mailed ballot envelope (12.1%). ... Table 2. The Most Common Reason for Rejecting Mailed Ballots Was for a Non-Matching Signature ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 12.1%

6. The Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2018 Comprehensive Report (Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2019-06 · supports

   “"Other" reason given 34.9% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 26.9% ... Non-matching signature 15.8%”Hide quote

   "Other" reason given 34.9% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 26.9% ... Non-matching signature 15.8%

7. The Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2016 Comprehensive Report (Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2017-06 · supports

   “Rejected (total) 1.0% ... Non-matching signature 27.5% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 23.1% ... No voter signature 20.0%”Hide quote

   Rejected (total) 1.0% ... Non-matching signature 27.5% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 23.1% ... No voter signature 20.0%

8. More mail ballots are arriving late this cycle, and they’re getting tossed (New York Times, reprinted)

   The Philadelphia Inquirer (Adam Sella and Nick Corasaniti, New York Times), 2026-08-31 · complicates

   “The rate at which mail votes have been rejected for arriving late has ticked up in primaries this year and general elections last year in roughly a dozen states ... In Wisconsin ... lateness accounted for about 5,000 rejected mail ballots in the spring primary this year, or 78% of all tossed ballots. During the last spring election, in 2023, the figure was roughly 2,300, or 47% of all tossed votes. ... In Michigan’s primary earlier this month, more than 10,000 mail ballots were rejected for arriving after the state’s deadline of 8 p.m. on Election Day. That is nearly double the number of ballots rejected in 2024. In Washington, the number of late-arriving mail ballots increased from about 16,000 to more than 20,000 in the same period. ... The Postal Service further slowed down mail in 2024 when it implemented a centralized system that postmarks mail when it reaches regional centers, not when it first enters the mail stream. The delay has particularly affected mail voting, especially in states that rely on postmarks to determine if a ballot is valid. ... In a statement, the Postal Service countered claims that the agency has become unreliable by noting that more than 95% of mail ballots have arrived on time in recent elections. ... In Washington’s primary earlier this year, 75% of rejected mail ballots were tossed because they arrived too late.”Hide quote

   The rate at which mail votes have been rejected for arriving late has ticked up in primaries this year and general elections last year in roughly a dozen states ... In Wisconsin ... lateness accounted for about 5,000 rejected mail ballots in the spring primary this year, or 78% of all tossed ballots. During the last spring election, in 2023, the figure was roughly 2,300, or 47% of all tossed votes. ... In Michigan’s primary earlier this month, more than 10,000 mail ballots were rejected for arriving after the state’s deadline of 8 p.m. on Election Day. That is nearly double the number of ballots rejected in 2024. In Washington, the number of late-arriving mail ballots increased from about 16,000 to more than 20,000 in the same period. ... The Postal Service further slowed down mail in 2024 when it implemented a centralized system that postmarks mail when it reaches regional centers, not when it first enters the mail stream. The delay has particularly affected mail voting, especially in states that rely on postmarks to determine if a ballot is valid. ... In a statement, the Postal Service countered claims that the agency has become unreliable by noting that more than 95% of mail ballots have arrived on time in recent elections. ... In Washington’s primary earlier this year, 75% of rejected mail ballots were tossed because they arrived too late.

9. Was a large percentage of votes received after Election Day in Nevada in 2024?

   The Nevada Independent (Eric Neugeboren), 2025-01-31 · supports

   “Less than 1 percent of the ballots cast in Nevada's two largest counties in the 2024 general election were received after Election Day. About 9,500 Clark County mail ballots and 2,400 ballots in Washoe County were received post-Election Day out of the nearly 1.3 million ballots cast in both areas. Nevada law allows any mail ballot to be received up to four days after Election Day, as long as it is postmarked by Election Day. ... Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) was losing to Republican Sam Brown on election night, but took the lead the following night once the roughly 50,000 Clark County mail ballots received on Election Day were counted. Rosen ultimately won Clark and Washoe counties by margins far exceeding the number of ballots received post-Election Day.”Hide quote

   Less than 1 percent of the ballots cast in Nevada's two largest counties in the 2024 general election were received after Election Day. About 9,500 Clark County mail ballots and 2,400 ballots in Washoe County were received post-Election Day out of the nearly 1.3 million ballots cast in both areas. Nevada law allows any mail ballot to be received up to four days after Election Day, as long as it is postmarked by Election Day. ... Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) was losing to Republican Sam Brown on election night, but took the lead the following night once the roughly 50,000 Clark County mail ballots received on Election Day were counted. Rosen ultimately won Clark and Washoe counties by margins far exceeding the number of ballots received post-Election Day.

10. How long did it take to count the vote in 2024?

    MIT Election Data + Science Lab (Samuel Baltz), 2024-12-06 · supports

    “A MEDSL report found that “states were slower to report overall vote counts if they had large volumes of mail ballots, prohibited preprocessing mail ballots, and allowed mail ballots to arrive after Election Day.” ... States in the west and southwest — especially Washington, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and Alaska (not visualized) — stand out as having a larger proportion of votes left to count by the end of 24 hours. Mississippi, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Michigan were also slower to report ... most large jumps due to California incrementally reporting about a third of its votes over the course of the month after Election Day. ... Texas and Florida stand out as states that successfully counted an enormous number of votes (both well over ten million) within about a day ... every state had counted and reported more than 75% of votes cast for either presidential candidate within about 5 days. ... Nationally, it took only about 2 hours to count a majority of the vote, and only about 3 hours to count 75% of it. ... State Hours in 2020 Hours in 2024 Factor increase 2024/2020 Arizona 73 147 2.01 Georgia 18 5 0.28 Michigan 17 9 0.53 Nevada 159 51 0.32 North Carolina 3 6 2.00 Pennsylvania 49 8 0.16 Wisconsin 8 9 1.13 Table 1: The number of hours to count 95% of the two-party presidential vote in seven battleground states from 2020 and 2024. The numbers may be overstated by the duration of the media reporting process, plus up to half an hour”Hide quote

    A MEDSL report found that “states were slower to report overall vote counts if they had large volumes of mail ballots, prohibited preprocessing mail ballots, and allowed mail ballots to arrive after Election Day.” ... States in the west and southwest — especially Washington, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and Alaska (not visualized) — stand out as having a larger proportion of votes left to count by the end of 24 hours. Mississippi, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Michigan were also slower to report ... most large jumps due to California incrementally reporting about a third of its votes over the course of the month after Election Day. ... Texas and Florida stand out as states that successfully counted an enormous number of votes (both well over ten million) within about a day ... every state had counted and reported more than 75% of votes cast for either presidential candidate within about 5 days. ... Nationally, it took only about 2 hours to count a majority of the vote, and only about 3 hours to count 75% of it. ... State Hours in 2020 Hours in 2024 Factor increase 2024/2020 Arizona 73 147 2.01 Georgia 18 5 0.28 Michigan 17 9 0.53 Nevada 159 51 0.32 North Carolina 3 6 2.00 Pennsylvania 49 8 0.16 Wisconsin 8 9 1.13 Table 1: The number of hours to count 95% of the two-party presidential vote in seven battleground states from 2020 and 2024. The numbers may be overstated by the duration of the media reporting process, plus up to half an hour

11. Table 16: When Absentee/Mail Ballot Processing and Counting Can Begin

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-15 · supports

    “Forty-four states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots prior to the election ... Six states permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots on Election Day, but prior to the closing of the polls: Alabama, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin. ... None of these states allow the results of scanned ballots to be viewed or released before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Arizona ... Upon receipt. ... Georgia ... Verification of driver's license or state identification number conducted upon receipt, and further processing can begin at 8 a.m. on the third Monday before Election Day. ... Michigan ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. Jurisdictions with at least 5,000 people may begin further processing eight days before Election Day ... Nevada ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. ... North Carolina ... At county board of elections meetings, beginning the fifth Tuesday before Election Day. ... Pennsylvania ... 7 a.m. on Election Day. ... Wisconsin ... After the polls open on Election Day.”Hide quote

    Forty-four states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots prior to the election ... Six states permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots on Election Day, but prior to the closing of the polls: Alabama, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin. ... None of these states allow the results of scanned ballots to be viewed or released before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Arizona ... Upon receipt. ... Georgia ... Verification of driver's license or state identification number conducted upon receipt, and further processing can begin at 8 a.m. on the third Monday before Election Day. ... Michigan ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. Jurisdictions with at least 5,000 people may begin further processing eight days before Election Day ... Nevada ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. ... North Carolina ... At county board of elections meetings, beginning the fifth Tuesday before Election Day. ... Pennsylvania ... 7 a.m. on Election Day. ... Wisconsin ... After the polls open on Election Day.

12. Looking back to 2020 for a Guide to How Fast the Votes Will Be Reported in 2024

    Election Updates (Charles Stewart III, MIT), 2024-10-30 · complicates

    “In the statistical analysis performed in the MEDSL report, the failure to pre-process did slow down the count, on average, but by a small amount. Within four hours of the polls closing, the average state with no pre-processing had reported 63% of its votes, compared to 78% that didn’t restrict pre-processing. At the twenty-four-hour point, the gap between states had essentially disappeared. In a later academic paper written by me and two MEDSL colleagues, we also found that states with more mail ballots reported at a slower pace. However, the effect of mail-ballot load also declined over time. ... In 2020, seventeen states prohibited processing of mail ballots before Election Day. In 2024, that number declined to seven.”Hide quote

    In the statistical analysis performed in the MEDSL report, the failure to pre-process did slow down the count, on average, but by a small amount. Within four hours of the polls closing, the average state with no pre-processing had reported 63% of its votes, compared to 78% that didn’t restrict pre-processing. At the twenty-four-hour point, the gap between states had essentially disappeared. In a later academic paper written by me and two MEDSL colleagues, we also found that states with more mail ballots reported at a slower pace. However, the effect of mail-ballot load also declined over time. ... In 2020, seventeen states prohibited processing of mail ballots before Election Day. In 2024, that number declined to seven.

13. Electoral Integrity Global Report 2025 (PEI 11.0)

    Electoral Integrity Project, 2025-07 · supports

    “There were noticeable declines in electoral integrity scores in the United States during the 2024 Presidential election, after some improvements in the 2022 midterms. ... The Perceptions of Electoral Integrity dataset suggests that the counting, results and procedural aspects of the election were strong (see Figure 19), a notable rebound in light of the challenges that occurred surrounding Trump’s failure to accept the results of the 2020 election. The main areas of weakness were electoral boundaries, media and finance.”Hide quote

    There were noticeable declines in electoral integrity scores in the United States during the 2024 Presidential election, after some improvements in the 2022 midterms. ... The Perceptions of Electoral Integrity dataset suggests that the counting, results and procedural aspects of the election were strong (see Figure 19), a notable rebound in light of the challenges that occurred surrounding Trump’s failure to accept the results of the 2020 election. The main areas of weakness were electoral boundaries, media and finance.

14. Nevada prepares for Supreme Court ruling on mail ballots

    Pahrump Valley Times, 2026-04-22 · supports

    “Ballots received by Clark and Washoe counties after that day represented about 2 percent of the overall mail ballots processed.”Hide quote

    Ballots received by Clark and Washoe counties after that day represented about 2 percent of the overall mail ballots processed.

15. Evolution of Absentee/Mail Voting Laws, 2016–2026 (Table 5)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-26 · supports

    “Many states enacted policies allowing ballots to be received after Election Day during the pandemic, but since then, states have slowly moved in the opposite direction of requiring Election Day receipt for most absentee/mail ballots. As a result, the count of states requiring Election Day receipt for the November 2026 election is expected to be roughly the same as it was in November 2016, despite a dip in that count around the peak of the pandemic. ... Date/Election Election Day receipt Post-Election Day receipt November 2016 37 states and D.C. 13 states January 2020 35 states 15 states and D.C. November 2020 29 states 21 states and D.C. November 2022 31 states 19 states and D.C. November 2024 32 states 18 states and D.C. November 2026 (expected) 35 states 15 states and D.C.”Hide quote

    Many states enacted policies allowing ballots to be received after Election Day during the pandemic, but since then, states have slowly moved in the opposite direction of requiring Election Day receipt for most absentee/mail ballots. As a result, the count of states requiring Election Day receipt for the November 2026 election is expected to be roughly the same as it was in November 2016, despite a dip in that count around the peak of the pandemic. ... Date/Election Election Day receipt Post-Election Day receipt November 2016 37 states and D.C. 13 states January 2020 35 states 15 states and D.C. November 2020 29 states 21 states and D.C. November 2022 31 states 19 states and D.C. November 2024 32 states 18 states and D.C. November 2026 (expected) 35 states 15 states and D.C.

16. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report (Table 1)

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

    “Table 1. Most Common Reason For Mail Ballot Rejection Was a Non-Matching Or Incomplete Signature ... Ballot envelope had a non-matching or incomplete signature 40.7% ... Other reason not listed 18.1% ... Ballot was not received on time/missed the deadline 17.8% ... Voter already cast another ballot that was accepted 11.1% ... Ballot envelope did not have a voter signature 10% ... Casewise deletion was used at the state level in calculating national percentages, and because of this, percentages do not total 100%.”Hide quote

    Table 1. Most Common Reason For Mail Ballot Rejection Was a Non-Matching Or Incomplete Signature ... Ballot envelope had a non-matching or incomplete signature 40.7% ... Other reason not listed 18.1% ... Ballot was not received on time/missed the deadline 17.8% ... Voter already cast another ballot that was accepted 11.1% ... Ballot envelope did not have a voter signature 10% ... Casewise deletion was used at the state level in calculating national percentages, and because of this, percentages do not total 100%.