As voting season approaches, Derek Bowens, the lead election official in Durham County, North Carolina, is focused on ensuring the security and transparency of the electoral process. His county has upgraded its elections department to a more secure facility and launched a mobile app designed to provide voters with reliable information.
Despite the challenges, Bowens remains confident about the election certification process. “I have not thought at all about it. I don’t have any concerns. The law is clear,” he stated.
This presidential election marks the first since previous attempts to undermine 2020 results, raising concerns among watchdog groups regarding potential disruptions to certification. The typical routine of finalizing vote tallies has come under scrutiny, particularly following a recent decision by Georgia’s state election board to grant local boards broader investigation powers, which some argue may violate state law.
Nationwide, numerous local officials, influenced by unfounded conspiracy theories, show a willingness to resist fulfilling their certification duties. However, experts in election management emphasize their confidence in the system due to reforms implemented since 2020 and the courts’ role in upholding election integrity.
“I’m feeling better than most people, but maybe that’s because I don’t freak out about things,” said elections expert Charles Stewart from MIT. He noted that courts have been effective in preventing election officials from overstepping their authority and acting without evidence.
Court Mandates for Certification Post-2020
Certification is the final administrative step in the electoral process, where local political bodies finalize the work of election officials. Trump’s efforts to cast doubt on the voting process have spurred a trend where some officials refuse to certify elections even in the absence of substantive issues.
In instances where local bodies have declined to certify, courts have intervened to enforce certification. This is largely due to state laws that generally minimize discretion in such situations once elections are conducted, challenges to voting rules are resolved through the courts, and local election administrators have counted the votes.
In Pennsylvania, a critical state for the presidential race, Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt expressed his office’s readiness for local boards potentially refusing to certify. “We’re not worried but we will be prepared,” he assured, referencing his experience as a local election commissioner during the tumultuous 2020 election.
Last year’s midterms saw several counties in Pennsylvania refuse to certify local elections, despite no evidence of fraud or irregularities.
Schmidt noted the importance of collaboration with courts to handle any election administration disruptions swiftly. Furthermore, since 2020, legislation at both the state and federal levels has clarified the certification process, as highlighted by recent reports.
In North Carolina, state law mandates that county certification officials ensure eligible ballots are counted and mandatory recounts completed. However, after the 2022 election, two members of a board in Surry County declined certification due to disagreements over election rules set by the courts, leading to their removal from office by the state board.
“Those who administer elections must follow the law as it is written,” stated Damon Circosta, former chair of the state election board. Bowens emphasized that North Carolina law mandates certification without ambiguity: “It says ‘shall.’ Our statutes are very clear on how the process works.”
Myths and Misunderstandings Around Certification
Even if certain attempts to disrupt the electoral process fail, experts argue these efforts can contribute to harmful narratives about election integrity. Rick Hasen, a UCLA election law professor, warns that statements from officials questioning vote accuracy can ignite conspiracy theories that may lead to unlawful actions aimed at overturning election results.
The saga began in 2020 when Trump sought to pressure Michigan officials into refusing certification, despite clear election outcomes. This incident fueled false narratives about electoral integrity in the state.
