The Justice Department is suing Georgia over new voting restrictions enacted as part of Republican efforts nationwide to limit voting access in the wake of President Donald Trump’s election defeat.

The state law imposes new voter identification requirements for absentee ballots, empowers state officials to take over local elections boards, limits the use of ballot drop boxes and makes it a crime to approach voters in line to give them food and water.

Republicans had cast the measure as necessary to boost confidence in elections after the 2020 election and Trump’s repeated and unsubstantiated claims of fraud, but Democrats in the state have called the new law voter suppression and likened it to Jim Crow-era voting laws.

Maine and Alaska each use ranked choice voting to determine the winners of their electoral votes for president, and with independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the ballot in Maine and aiming to qualify for access in Alaska, it’s more likely that this process will come into play.

Under the system, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If someone wins a majority of first-choice votes, that candidate is elected. But if not, voters’ other choices are used to determine a winner.

Bad electoral science can cause lasting harm to democracy, undermining public confidence in the voting process.

That’s the main finding from our study published in the peer-reviewed journal Public Opinion Quarterly in July 2024, looking at the impact of academic claims of electoral fraud in the 2020 South Korean general election.

The ruling Democratic Party won that vote by a larger margin than expected, leading supporters of the opposition United Future Party to allege the rigging of early voting results.

But what started as a typical post-election dispute took a turn when one U.S.-based election fraud researcher analyzed the data and concluded that close to 10% of votes for the Democratic Party were fraudulent. That finding spread quickly across South Korean media, appearing in more than 300 news stories; meanwhile, the scholar conducted prime-time TV interviews about the alleged fraud.

What wasn’t immediately clear to the public – although South Korean political scientists and statisticians later explained – was that the analysis was based on a misunderstanding of the election data and the South Korean voting system.

Although the electoral science research was flawed, the damage was done: The erroneous claims of fraud severely eroded public confidence in the electoral process in South Korea. As a direct consequence, the National Election Commission was compelled to revert to costly hand counting of votes in the subsequent general election in order to avoid any accusations of vote rigging.

And our study shows that the impact is larger than one might expect.

In an experiment, we randomly varied information given to 1,750 South Korean voting-eligible adults a few months after the 2020 election. A control group was given no information about foreign academic research into electoral fraud, while others were given academic research suggesting either a high chance or a slim chance of fraud.

Those handed research alleging a high chance of fraud were 12 percentage points more likely to believe that fraud actually occurred compared with those not exposed to such research. This equates to a jump of 52% in the likelihood that someone would believe that fraud occurred.

Respondents shown academic research alleging a high risk of fraud were also 65% more likely to click a link demanding an election fraud investigation, we found.

These effects were concentrated among supporters of the losing party in the 2020 election.

Why it matters

As political polarization deepens across advanced democracies, disputes over election fraud allegations have become commonplace.

And analysis by academic researchers and other experts into alleged fraud can have substantial influence, as the controversy surrounding American economist John Lott’s fraud claims relating to the 2020 U.S. presidential election has shown.

Our study underscores how academic research can significantly shape public perceptions of election integrity. The findings highlight how voters’ responses align with preexisting beliefs – losing party supporters found fraud claims more credible, while winning party supporters showed little change.

Crucially, our findings also reveal how publicizing flawed academic research on election fraud can exacerbate political polarization and undermine democracy itself.

Bad research can lead to widespread mistrust in electoral processes, eroding foundational belief in democratic institutions and deepening political divisions.

What still isn’t known

Our research looked only at South Korea. As one of the most stable democracies in Asia, the country shares similarities with other advanced democracies. But some of our findings may not be applicable to other countries’ elections.

Specifically, where elections have been fairly administered but polarization is high, false information alleging fraud is more likely to widen the gap in perception between supporters and opponents of the winning party. Conversely, in countries plagued by actual election fraud, such information could mobilize opposition against the offending parties, increasing election monitoring and fostering democracy.

And while media played a critical amplifying role in spreading the flawed analysis to the South Korean public, our study did not look at the extent to which traditional media versus social media contributed. We suspect flawed research can spread more easily via social media, where it faces fewer gatekeepers and can be shared by partisans indiscriminately.

What’s next

Our findings reveal the danger posed when flawed research influences public opinion.

Moving forward, we aim to investigate strategies to combat the impact of such misleading findings on public opinion. Scientists have long balanced maintaining objectivity and rigor with communicating findings that can shape minds.

As polarized politics increasingly demands experts weigh in based on scientific evidence, the academic community must determine how to better inform the public while preventing flawed research from undermining trust in democratic foundations. Upholding rigorous standards while clearly communicating truth will be key.

Police officers in Texas, senior citizens at a nursing home in Pennsylvania and people who had registered to vote at a Marine base in California.

They are among the thousands of voters whose right to cast a ballot has been needlessly challenged ahead of this November’s election by activists — many of whom have been inspired by conspiracy theories — seeking to prevent voter fraud.

“My simple right as a voter is being attacked,” said Daniel Moss, a university administrator from Denton County, Texas, whose registration was challenged by one of the activists even though he has lived in the county and voted there for about two decades. “It’s kind of un-American to do that.”

Election officials across the country have been inundated with dubious complaints about inaccurate voter rolls, which have wasted government resources and sapped taxpayer money spent reviewing lists of registered voters that officials say are already carefully maintained, a CNN investigation has found.

The Justice Department is suing Georgia over new voting restrictions enacted as part of Republican efforts nationwide to limit voting access in the wake of President Donald Trump’s election defeat.

The state law imposes new voter identification requirements for absentee ballots, empowers state officials to take over local elections boards, limits the use of ballot drop boxes and makes it a crime to approach voters in line to give them food and water.

Republicans had cast the measure as necessary to boost confidence in elections after the 2020 election and Trump’s repeated and unsubstantiated claims of fraud, but Democrats in the state have called the new law voter suppression and likened it to Jim Crow-era voting laws.

Bad electoral science can cause lasting harm to democracy, undermining public confidence in the voting process.

That’s the main finding from our study published in the peer-reviewed journal Public Opinion Quarterly in July 2024, looking at the impact of academic claims of electoral fraud in the 2020 South Korean general election.

The ruling Democratic Party won that vote by a larger margin than expected, leading supporters of the opposition United Future Party to allege the rigging of early voting results.

But what started as a typical post-election dispute took a turn when one U.S.-based election fraud researcher analyzed the data and concluded that close to 10% of votes for the Democratic Party were fraudulent. That finding spread quickly across South Korean media, appearing in more than 300 news stories; meanwhile, the scholar conducted prime-time TV interviews about the alleged fraud.

What wasn’t immediately clear to the public – although South Korean political scientists and statisticians later explained – was that the analysis was based on a misunderstanding of the election data and the South Korean voting system.

Although the electoral science research was flawed, the damage was done: The erroneous claims of fraud severely eroded public confidence in the electoral process in South Korea. As a direct consequence, the National Election Commission was compelled to revert to costly hand counting of votes in the subsequent general election in order to avoid any accusations of vote rigging.

And our study shows that the impact is larger than one might expect.

In an experiment, we randomly varied information given to 1,750 South Korean voting-eligible adults a few months after the 2020 election. A control group was given no information about foreign academic research into electoral fraud, while others were given academic research suggesting either a high chance or a slim chance of fraud.

Those handed research alleging a high chance of fraud were 12 percentage points more likely to believe that fraud actually occurred compared with those not exposed to such research. This equates to a jump of 52% in the likelihood that someone would believe that fraud occurred.

Respondents shown academic research alleging a high risk of fraud were also 65% more likely to click a link demanding an election fraud investigation, we found.

These effects were concentrated among supporters of the losing party in the 2020 election.

Why it matters

As political polarization deepens across advanced democracies, disputes over election fraud allegations have become commonplace.

And analysis by academic researchers and other experts into alleged fraud can have substantial influence, as the controversy surrounding American economist John Lott’s fraud claims relating to the 2020 U.S. presidential election has shown.

Our study underscores how academic research can significantly shape public perceptions of election integrity. The findings highlight how voters’ responses align with preexisting beliefs – losing party supporters found fraud claims more credible, while winning party supporters showed little change.

Crucially, our findings also reveal how publicizing flawed academic research on election fraud can exacerbate political polarization and undermine democracy itself.

Bad research can lead to widespread mistrust in electoral processes, eroding foundational belief in democratic institutions and deepening political divisions.

What still isn’t known

Our research looked only at South Korea. As one of the most stable democracies in Asia, the country shares similarities with other advanced democracies. But some of our findings may not be applicable to other countries’ elections.

Specifically, where elections have been fairly administered but polarization is high, false information alleging fraud is more likely to widen the gap in perception between supporters and opponents of the winning party. Conversely, in countries plagued by actual election fraud, such information could mobilize opposition against the offending parties, increasing election monitoring and fostering democracy.

And while media played a critical amplifying role in spreading the flawed analysis to the South Korean public, our study did not look at the extent to which traditional media versus social media contributed. We suspect flawed research can spread more easily via social media, where it faces fewer gatekeepers and can be shared by partisans indiscriminately.

What’s next

Our findings reveal the danger posed when flawed research influences public opinion.

Moving forward, we aim to investigate strategies to combat the impact of such misleading findings on public opinion. Scientists have long balanced maintaining objectivity and rigor with communicating findings that can shape minds.

As polarized politics increasingly demands experts weigh in based on scientific evidence, the academic community must determine how to better inform the public while preventing flawed research from undermining trust in democratic foundations. Upholding rigorous standards while clearly communicating truth will be key.

The Justice Department is suing Georgia over new voting restrictions enacted as part of Republican efforts nationwide to limit voting access in the wake of President Donald Trump’s election defeat.

The state law imposes new voter identification requirements for absentee ballots, empowers state officials to take over local elections boards, limits the use of ballot drop boxes and makes it a crime to approach voters in line to give them food and water.

Republicans had cast the measure as necessary to boost confidence in elections after the 2020 election and Trump’s repeated and unsubstantiated claims of fraud, but Democrats in the state have called the new law voter suppression and likened it to Jim Crow-era voting laws.

Maine and Alaska each use ranked choice voting to determine the winners of their electoral votes for president, and with independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the ballot in Maine and aiming to qualify for access in Alaska, it’s more likely that this process will come into play.

Under the system, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If someone wins a majority of first-choice votes, that candidate is elected. But if not, voters’ other choices are used to determine a winner.

Bad electoral science can cause lasting harm to democracy, undermining public confidence in the voting process.

That’s the main finding from our study published in the peer-reviewed journal Public Opinion Quarterly in July 2024, looking at the impact of academic claims of electoral fraud in the 2020 South Korean general election.

The ruling Democratic Party won that vote by a larger margin than expected, leading supporters of the opposition United Future Party to allege the rigging of early voting results.

But what started as a typical post-election dispute took a turn when one U.S.-based election fraud researcher analyzed the data and concluded that close to 10% of votes for the Democratic Party were fraudulent. That finding spread quickly across South Korean media, appearing in more than 300 news stories; meanwhile, the scholar conducted prime-time TV interviews about the alleged fraud.

What wasn’t immediately clear to the public – although South Korean political scientists and statisticians later explained – was that the analysis was based on a misunderstanding of the election data and the South Korean voting system.

Although the electoral science research was flawed, the damage was done: The erroneous claims of fraud severely eroded public confidence in the electoral process in South Korea. As a direct consequence, the National Election Commission was compelled to revert to costly hand counting of votes in the subsequent general election in order to avoid any accusations of vote rigging.

And our study shows that the impact is larger than one might expect.

In an experiment, we randomly varied information given to 1,750 South Korean voting-eligible adults a few months after the 2020 election. A control group was given no information about foreign academic research into electoral fraud, while others were given academic research suggesting either a high chance or a slim chance of fraud.

Those handed research alleging a high chance of fraud were 12 percentage points more likely to believe that fraud actually occurred compared with those not exposed to such research. This equates to a jump of 52% in the likelihood that someone would believe that fraud occurred.

Respondents shown academic research alleging a high risk of fraud were also 65% more likely to click a link demanding an election fraud investigation, we found.

These effects were concentrated among supporters of the losing party in the 2020 election.

Why it matters

As political polarization deepens across advanced democracies, disputes over election fraud allegations have become commonplace.

And analysis by academic researchers and other experts into alleged fraud can have substantial influence, as the controversy surrounding American economist John Lott’s fraud claims relating to the 2020 U.S. presidential election has shown.

Our study underscores how academic research can significantly shape public perceptions of election integrity. The findings highlight how voters’ responses align with preexisting beliefs – losing party supporters found fraud claims more credible, while winning party supporters showed little change.

Crucially, our findings also reveal how publicizing flawed academic research on election fraud can exacerbate political polarization and undermine democracy itself.

Bad research can lead to widespread mistrust in electoral processes, eroding foundational belief in democratic institutions and deepening political divisions.

What still isn’t known

Our research looked only at South Korea. As one of the most stable democracies in Asia, the country shares similarities with other advanced democracies. But some of our findings may not be applicable to other countries’ elections.

Specifically, where elections have been fairly administered but polarization is high, false information alleging fraud is more likely to widen the gap in perception between supporters and opponents of the winning party. Conversely, in countries plagued by actual election fraud, such information could mobilize opposition against the offending parties, increasing election monitoring and fostering democracy.

And while media played a critical amplifying role in spreading the flawed analysis to the South Korean public, our study did not look at the extent to which traditional media versus social media contributed. We suspect flawed research can spread more easily via social media, where it faces fewer gatekeepers and can be shared by partisans indiscriminately.

What’s next

Our findings reveal the danger posed when flawed research influences public opinion.

Moving forward, we aim to investigate strategies to combat the impact of such misleading findings on public opinion. Scientists have long balanced maintaining objectivity and rigor with communicating findings that can shape minds.

As polarized politics increasingly demands experts weigh in based on scientific evidence, the academic community must determine how to better inform the public while preventing flawed research from undermining trust in democratic foundations. Upholding rigorous standards while clearly communicating truth will be key.

Police officers in Texas, senior citizens at a nursing home in Pennsylvania and people who had registered to vote at a Marine base in California.

They are among the thousands of voters whose right to cast a ballot has been needlessly challenged ahead of this November’s election by activists — many of whom have been inspired by conspiracy theories — seeking to prevent voter fraud.

“My simple right as a voter is being attacked,” said Daniel Moss, a university administrator from Denton County, Texas, whose registration was challenged by one of the activists even though he has lived in the county and voted there for about two decades. “It’s kind of un-American to do that.”

Election officials across the country have been inundated with dubious complaints about inaccurate voter rolls, which have wasted government resources and sapped taxpayer money spent reviewing lists of registered voters that officials say are already carefully maintained, a CNN investigation has found.

Her initial presidential campaign speeches offer some insights into her priorities, though she’s mainly voiced general talking points and not more nuanced plans. Like Biden, she intends to contrast her vision for America with that of former President Donald Trump.

“In this moment, I believe we face a choice between two different visions for our nation: one focused on the future, the other focused on the past,” she told members of the historically Black sorority Zeta Phi Beta at an event in Indianapolis on Wednesday. “And with your support, I am fighting for our nation’s future.”

That path forward focuses on lifting up working and middle-class Americans, enabling them to join unions, retire with dignity, live without the fear of gun violence and obtain affordable health care, she said. Harris has also touted the Biden administration’s efforts to lower drug costs, reduce child poverty, forgive student loan debt and remove medical debt from credit reports.

See CNN link for more details.

Kamala Harris has the support of enough Democratic delegates to win the party’s nomination for president, according to CNN’s delegate estimate.

While endorsements from delegates continue to come in, the vice president has now been backed by well more than the 1,976 pledged delegates she’ll need to win the nomination on the first ballot.

Harris crossed the threshold amid a wave of endorsements from state delegations Monday evening.

The stakes of this election are so high because the system itself is at stake.

I recently asked Melissa Schwartzberg, a professor of politics at NYU who specializes in democratic theory, why democracy survives in some countries and crumbles in others.

Why was I thinking about it? Oh, no reason. But her answer has been ringing in my head since. It explains much of what makes this moment in politics so distinct, so desperate.

“The really important question is when do electoral losers think that it’s in their interest to go along with their defeat, and when do they think they’re better off resisting and revolting?” Schwartzberg replied. “It has to be that they think they have some better chance of obtaining power in the long run by continuing to abide by the rules of the game.”

In American politics in 2020, both sides doubt that abiding by loss is the surest path back to power. This is an election — and more than an election, it is a politics — increasingly defined by a fight over what the rules of the game should be.

Voters are casting ballots early in record numbers this year amid the pandemic — and that’s prompting concerns that it might wind up taking longer than expected to get election results, as officials process millions more mail-in ballots than usual.

The reality is that most states can begin processing absentee ballots in some form before Election Day, which could help avoid delays in reporting results.

But in three critical battleground states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — officials aren’t allowed to start processing early ballots until on or just before Election Day itself, which could delay not just their state results but also, if the Electoral College count is close, potentially leave the whole presidential race up in the air.

This is the first in a series of stories looking at voters’ concerns and voting issues in the 2020 election.

Other articles in this series include:

The myth of widespread voter fraud persists, despite a constant failure to prove claims

Supreme Court ruling on Voting Rights Act opened floodgates for new restrictions

List maintenance or voter purges? How the practice of maintaining voter lists became so polarized.

Registering to vote is part of America’s two-step voting process. Does it have to be this way?

Registration efforts like these are the first part of the United States’ two-step voting process. Almost all Americans must register to vote before they can cast a ballot in any election. Some states have registration deadlines as early as about 30 days out from Election Day, a cutoff that has already begun. Besides Arizona, registration in battlegrounds such as Ohio and Florida ended Monday. (Florida extended their deadline one day because of “unprecedented volume and traffic” to the registration website.)

About 20 states, plus Washington, DC, have same-day voter registration, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This allows voters to register during the early voting period or on Election Day, then cast a ballot. (North Carolina is an exception, only allowing same-day registration during early voting.) But otherwise, if unregistered voters miss these registration deadlines, they effectively relinquish their ability to participate in the 2020 election, weeks before November 3.

But why does America even have a voter registration? The history is complicated. As Enrijeta Shino, an elections expert at the University of North Florida, put it to me, there are “two sides of the coin.”

The best thing that you, the voter, can do now is make a plan for how you’re going to vote and be as prepared as possible to do it. Do this as early as you can, and take all of your options into account before deciding which is best for you. To help you know what those options are, we’re answering some frequently asked questions about registering to vote, mail-in voting, and voting in person.

One thing to note: Voting rules differ state by state, and there can even be variances within individual states. So make sure you know what’s allowed and available where you live. Your options for voting may be different this year, and they may even change between now and Election Day, so look for the most up-to-date and reliable resources. We’ve provided links to some of those here:

Click on your state in the map to see a lot of the information you need in order to cast a ballot this fall — by whatever method you choose. This page will be updated on a regular basis with the latest developments. While we’ve made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this information, always double-check with your local election official before acting upon it. Thanks to the pandemic, election laws are constantly changing, and certain voters — like first-time voters or those living overseas — may be subject to special rules. If you think something is wrong or needs to be updated, please shoot us an email.

CNN’s Election 101 hub is a one-stop shop for figuring out US democracy, including how and when to vote in your state.

The US system of government is complicated. We’ve got the answers to your questions about how the most powerful country on Earth picks its president — and how the pandemic is reshaping the process.

With the U.S. presidential election rapidly approaching at a time of extraordinary political and social disruption, the possibility of an unclear or contested result is coming under scrutiny.

Unlike many other countries, where the president or prime minister is chosen by direct popular vote, in the U.S., a candidate may win the popular vote and still not be elected to the nation’s highest office. The U.S. also differs from most other democracies in that it has no independent electoral commission to certify the final vote count.

So who actually confirms the winner?

Step #1: Before Election Day
American democracy has many elected officials – state, local and national – and many processes for getting into office.

I have been working on election campaigns since I was eight years old, when my dad ran for school board and I went door to door asking people to vote for him. I’ve also worked on local, congressional, senate and presidential races and now direct an academic research center on politics.

What’s striking is that every race is different, from deadlines and filing process to certification. Here, I’ll focus here on the presidential race.

The unusual and complicated presidential election certification process in the U.S. entwines all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the Senate, House of Representatives, the National Archives and the Office of the Federal Register. It also involves the Electoral College – a uniquely American institution that convenes in 51 separate locations once every four years to pick the president.

This four-month process was custom designed as a compromise by the Founding Fathers, who did not believe the American people should directly choose the president and vice president but did not want to give Congress the power of selection, either.

The Constitution declares that American presidential elections occur on the first Tuesday in November, every four years. But the federal election process actually begins in October, when the Archivist of the United States – a presidential appointee responsible for maintaining the government’s most important official documents – sends a letter to the governor of each state.

The document outlines their responsibilities regarding the Electoral College, which is not a place but a process by which electors – people who are chosen by their party – vote for their party’s presidential candidate.

The machinery of the Electoral College is complicated, but in short Americans vote for electors and the electors vote for the president. Then, the winner is declared – right?

Step #2: After Election Day
Not quite.

Once a final tally of voters’ in-person, mail-in and provisional ballots has been concluded, all 50 governors prepare their state’s Certificate of Ascertainment, a document listing their electors for the competing candidates.

Step #3: Congress meets
On Jan. 6, Congress convenes to count the electoral votes and certify the winner of the election.

Because the sitting vice president also serves as president of the Senate, Mike Pence will preside over this count in 2021, just as Vice President Joe Biden did in January 2017 when Donald Trump officially became president-elect. Each state, called upon in alphabetical order, files its votes.

This process is in some respects ceremonial, because by January the media has declared a winner and usually a concession speech has been given. But, officially, it is the moment of truth.

At the end of the Senate’s electoral vote count, the vice president announces the results and asks if there are any objections. In 2001 Democratic House representatives tried for 20 minutes to block Florida’s highly contested electoral votes for George W. Bush.

Each state completes that process at its own rate. This year, because of the pandemic, finalizing the electoral vote count will likely take a lot longer. Once completed, copies of the Certificate of Ascertainment are then submitted to the U.S. Archivist.

After the governor submits names to the Archivist, each state’s Electoral College electors meet in the state capital – D.C.‘s meet in D.C. – to formally cast their votes for president and vice president on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year, that’s Dec. 14, 2020.

In ways that vary state by state, each state’s electors then prepares six Certificates of Vote, which are sent by registered mail to the President of the U.S. Senate and the Archivist of the United States. The remaining four certificates are sent to state officials.

That fulfills the Electoral College’s duties until the next presidential election.

That effort failed, because objections must be signed by both a member of the House and the Senate before being voted on by both chambers of Congress. It fell to Vice President Al Gore, as president of the Senate, to declare Bush – his Republican opponent – the winner of the 2000 election.

After the Senate certifies the election results, all the Certificates of Ascertainment and Certificates of Vote then become available for public review at the Office of the Federal Registrar for one year, then transferred to the National Archives for the permanent record. Those who question the outcome of a U.S. election, in other words, can actually double-check the tabulations themselves.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

In the extraordinary event that no candidate wins in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives meets to elect the next president. This is how John Quincy Adams became president in 1824.

Established almost 250 years ago, this complex process is a foundation of American democracy. Many have questioned whether this antiquated system truly represents the will of the people in modern America.

But for 2020, it remains the process that will decide the presidential race.

Includes video “Election officials brace for the surge in mail-in voting” [07:54]

President Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to draw a distinction between “mail-in voting” (which he thinks is bad and open to fraud) and “absentee voting” (which he says is good and might help him get reelected).

A whole lot of absentee voting (most of it!) is done by mail. An absentee vote is a vote cast outside of the voting booth, traditionally for very specific and limited reasons. There’s been some version of absentee voting by mail since the Civil War, when troops voting from the battlefield helped Abraham Lincoln win reelection.

The Supreme Court handed down two brief, unsigned orders on Friday concerning what restrictions states may place on absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic. Though neither order is a final judgment — one grants a temporary stay of a lower court decision, the other denies expedited review of an important voting rights case — the practical impact of both orders is that voters in Alabama and Texas will find it harder to cast a ballot during the pandemic.

The Texas order is particularly ominous because it suggests that Texas will be able to apply election rules that ensure older, Republican-leaning voters have an easy time casting a ballot — while younger voters could be forced to risk infection in order to vote.