INSIGHTi
Public Confidence in Elections
October 29, 2020
Since the 2016 election cycle, election officials have warned about ongoing efforts to undermine public
confidence in American political institutions. They also have consistently reassured Americans that there
is no publicly available evidence that foreign or domestic interference have changed or likely could
change official election results. This CRS Insight discusses recent policy issues and selected factors that
could affect public confidence in voting and elections.
Recent Concerns About Election Confidence
Recent congressional attention to public confidence in elections and voting has focused on two topics.
First, discussions of campaign and election security tend to emphasize the risks of foreign interference.
Second, oversight (such as in Committee on House Administration and Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration hearings) of voting changes responding to COVID-19 and related litigation, and of
support for or opposition to different voting methods, tends to emphasize domestic issues. Because these
foreign and domestic concerns are related but distinct, Congress might consider them separately or jointly
in the future.
On both topics, federal agencies have issued guidance to election administrators and voters in 2020. Some
of this information warns about deliberate attempts to undermine public confidence, while other outreach
seeks to educate the public general y about elections processes and resources. Election officials also have
cautioned that the period between preliminary election night results and certification of official results
could be accompanied by public concern about irregularities, provide opportunities for disinformation
campaigns, or both. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission provides information about state-specific
requirements and general tips for topics such as voter registration and early voting.
Recent warnings about foreign interference can be traced to the 2016 election cycle. A 2017 Intel igence
Community Assessment; the investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Muel er; and congressional
investigations (for example, the one conducted by the Senate Intel igence Committee) found that Russian
operatives, in particular, used disinformation, misinformation, or similar tactics in attempts to undermine
confidence in American campaigns and elections.
More recently, federal agencies have issued other statements advising voters to be alert to potential
disinformation or simple confusion during the 2020 general elections. For example, on October 20, Chris
Krebs, Director of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11527
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
Security Agency (CISA), reiterated overal confidence in the election system. He also cautioned that in
the final weeks of the election cycle, “various actors [could] try to introduce chaos into our elections and
make sensational claims that overstate their capabilities” to disrupt election systems. CISA also unveiled a
website designed to counter erroneous information about election vulnerabilities.
The next day, Director of National Intel igence (DNI) John Ratcliffe and Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) Director Christopher Wray held a press conference discussing law enforcement and intel igence
agency findings regarding Iranian and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2020 general elections. Wray
encouraged voters to “seek election and voting information from reliable sources—namely, your state
election officials.”
Selected Factors that Could Shape Voter Confidence
Public opinion on voting and elections has occupied decades of scholarly study, but empirical data on
effects of recent election interference are limited. Existing research also tends to focus on voter
confidence and participation general y rather than specifical y examining foreign or domestic influence
campaigns. Whether from domestic or foreign influences, at least three factors might be relevant for
understanding voter confidence in elections. Each could affect voters differently and vary by jurisdiction.
First, personal experiences shape voter attitudes. For example, scholarly research has shown that “costs”
of voting requirements vary substantial y by state or territory. Other research shows that voter
assessments of election administration can affect views on the fairness of election outcomes. These first-
hand experiences may, therefore, cause voters to feel more or less optimistic about their abilities to vote
successfully, and that their votes wil be counted accurately.
Second, in the 2020 case, at least, there is some evidence that voters anticipate difficulties casting bal ots.
Election administrators have reported increased voter concern about election integrity, sometimes based
on anecdotal reports of irregularities or from misinformation general y. Social media has fueled such
concerns wel beyond the jurisdictions involved.
Survey data show that many remained skeptical wel into the present election season. Pew Research
Center survey data collected in July and August 2020 found that 50% of registered voters expected that it
would be “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to vote in the general election, compared with 49% who
expected that doing so would be “very difficult” or “somewhat difficult.” More recent data show that 90%
of registered voters have confidence in their communities’ election administration, but deep partisan
divides remain over the reliability of voting methods and expected accuracy of election results. As with
al survey research, reported public confidence in elections varies widely with different question wording,
timing, and methodology.
Final y, even without specific concerns ahead of the 2020 elections, some voters (or potential voters who
abstain) lack confidence in American political institutions general y. Gal up polling data collected from
1993 to 2020 found public confidence in institutions to be stable, but general y low. High-confidence
levels hovered around 35% during most of the almost 30-year study period. Those who already view
traditional pil ars of society and government with suspicion could be further demoralized by statements or
experiences that discourage confidence in elections.
Other evidence points to factors that may bolster confidence in the electoral system. The same
foreign interference that concerns election administrators and Congress also has spurred
substantial governmental and nongovernmental efforts to inform voters about election processes
since 2016. Concerns about the ability to cast a bal ot successful y also might mobilize voters.
For example, scholarly data show that as of October 25, 2020, early voting nationwide was far
outpacing commensurate 2016 figures.
Congressional Research Service
3
Author Information
R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
IN11527 · VERSION 1 · NEW