National election integrity is not enough: We need a state-by-state framework

A national election integrity framework is vital for establishing consistent principles, best practices, and minimum expectations across the country. One national standard, however, cannot fully address the differences in election laws, procedures, administrative structures, and voting systems from state to state. The United States therefore needs strong state-level election integrity administration to complement the national framework and make these standards usable for each state’s unique laws and challenges.Under the Constitution, states have significant responsibilities for administering elections, subject to federal constitutional and statutory requirements. As a result, election integrity efforts must account for both national standards and the specific legal and operational realities of each state.A state-by-state framework allows election integrity efforts to be consistent in their goals while tailored to the laws and procedures governing elections in each state. While a national program is necessary to maintain consistency and ensure blue states do not ignore needed improvements, different states have different election laws and procedures. North Carolina is very different from Nevada. The Republican National Committee election integrity division and those running external programs must take those into account.Each state has specific laws governing voter registration, absentee and mail-in voting, early voting, voter identification, ballot processing, recounts, and other election procedures. Election integrity programs must understand and operate within those requirements, rather than force 50 unique states with individual needs into a cookie-cutter mold.Who is in charge of what aspect of elections is likewise variable, dividing election responsibilities among state officials, county boards, municipalities, and local election administrators. An effective framework must reflect who makes decisions, who implements procedures, and where questions or concerns should be directed.State-specific election integrity frameworks also allow for state-specific training for the many men and women who will be on the ground facilitating the actual voting. Poll observers, poll workers, volunteers, and election integrity personnel need training that reflects the laws and procedures they will encounter. This is where the Republican National Lawyers Association comes in. National training will serve to establish foundational principles, but state-specific training helps ensure that personnel understand what they can observe, document, and report under applicable law.Just as election procedures, equipment, and administrative practices can vary greatly by jurisdiction, each state has its own operational challenges that need targeted solutions, not broad proscriptions. State-level frameworks allow election integrity professionals to identify documented concerns, evaluate local procedures, and develop responses appropriate to the circumstances rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all model.When problems do arise, a strong state-level framework with robust enforcement mechanisms will allow greater ability to address the issue head-on, rather than overload Washington with state- and county-level concerns. A state framework can establish consistent methods for documenting incidents, preserving relevant information, escalating concerns, and referring potential violations to the appropriate authorities.National coordination can use the data from each state to identify broader patterns and share the lessons of what works. Each state becomes a laboratory of democracy, whose mistakes serve as lighthouses and wins act as road maps. Florida’s disastrous recount in the 2000 presidential election led to the state reviewing everything that went wrong to ensure nothing close happened again; they’re now among the most efficient and transparent, with clear rules and processes leading to votes always counted on election night. Florida’s improvement is not a step-by-step guide for how North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, or other states should fix their unique challenges, but states could learn from the deep dive into one state’s individual challenges and targeted solutions.Having states work closely with national leaders for election integrity efforts in the RNC and the Republican National Lawyers Association allows for coordination without redundancies. These two organizations can provide shared resources, training principles, research, and reporting standards. State teams can in turn adapt those resources to local requirements, build relationships with election officials, and coordinate county-level implementation. The federal team can focus on the big picture, while states make sure it actually works on the ground.We need national standards and state-level frameworks to complement one another, rather than compete. But just as they must work in tandem rather than against each other, we cannot rely solely on either the states alone to regulate elections or hope a federal standard can solve the unique challenges of preserving election integrity in each state.‘BUT TRUMP’ DOESN’T WORK: THE MIDTERM QUESTION DEMOCRATS MUST ANSWERA national framework provides a common foundation from which each state can build their own to translate that foundation into practical, legally appropriate procedures that can be implemented at the state and local levels.The goal we must aim for is a coordinated national election integrity effort built on state-specific knowledge, consistent training principles, accurate documentation, and compliance with applicable election laws. This approach preserves the benefits of national coordination while recognizing that effective election administration requires an understanding of the laws, procedures, and individual needs of each state.David Warren is the principal of Jack Lucas Consulting. He recently served as North Carolina election integrity director for the Republican National Committee.