Counties of Concern: Election 2024
It’s no secret that anti-democracy extremists are working to undermine not just confidence in our elections, but elections themselves. Part of ensuring those efforts fail is knowing where they might take shape.
The good news to report is that we found the vast majority of election officials to be dedicated, law-abiding public servants. What we found most concerning, however, wasn’t the breadth of the election denial movement across the country — with 300+ officials with notable anti-democracy findings — but the concentration of officials in key counties who’ve embraced election denialism or otherwise acted against free and fair elections.
While any one election official can attempt to adversely affect proper election administration, the most susceptible localities for delay or disruption are those where these officials have the voting numbers on their local election body to force (or prevent) official action.
It’s important to note that the concerns raised in research findings do not indicate that an official will interfere in the 2024 election. These concerns are intended to help focus monitoring efforts where the research shows the potential for interference is greatest.
Of the 572 counties we researched, we found 16 counties of high concern, where election deniers and election subverters have the votes to force action (or inaction), which should be closely watched this election:
Michigan: 5 counties with high-level concern. Overall, Michigan had the highest findings of outright election denial of any state we researched.
Pennsylvania: 6 counties with high-level concern.
Arizona: 2 counties with high-level concern.
Ohio: 2 counties with high-level concern.
Nevada: 1 county with high-level findings.
Along with the high-threat counties, our research also identified 110 counties where at least one official embraced election denialism or previously attempted to interfere with an election, or there are multiple officials with concerning findings that fall short of outright election denial. There are 20 counties noted where officials who previously delayed or refused certification remain in their positions.
See a national overview of these counties here, or check out a breakdown of Counties of Concern in key states:
You can also view our complete Election Official Research Database, which has findings on 2,600+ election officials across nine states.
While our election system is up against determined efforts to undermine democracy, these efforts will fail. Built into our election laws are deterrence, accountability, backstops, injunctive relief, and ultimately criminal penalties. All of the states we researched have some kind of injunctive relief available where a state official refuses to complete a mandatory duty at law. You can read about each state's legal protections in our state reports:
North Carolina: Legal Protections for Canvass + Certification
Pennsylvania: Legal Protections for Canvass + Certification
Wisconsin: Legal Protection for Canvass + Certification
With so much focus on the actions of election officials, it’s easy to forget that elections are decided by the voters. That will be the case in this election too. We offer this research as a means for ensuring that outcome. Our hope in sharing these findings and underlying research is to support corrective action where it is needed most to maximize the resources of our pro-democracy partners.
