Election Officials Are Under Siege. Here’s How We Can Support Them.

New report shows why protecting election officials can’t wait

Free and fair elections depend on experienced, impartial public servants who administer voting, secure election systems, and ensure results are accurate and trusted. That’s why high turnover rates among election officials are alarm bells that we cannot ignore, particularly as we look ahead to the 2026 midterm elections.

A new report by Issue One chronicles this concerning trend, while calling for governments at all levels to swiftly take measures to help strengthen the safety, security, and efficiency of the 2026 elections.

In the five years since the 2020 presidential election, the public servants from across the ideological spectrum who run our elections have weathered a deluge of threats, harassment, heightened stress, and increased scrutiny that does not yet show signs of abating.

Indeed, Issue One’s new analysis found that 50% of chief local election officials in the nation’s Western states have left their jobs since Election Day in November 2020, often leaving their positions partway through their terms.

That’s more than 250 individuals who have left these critical election administration roles since November 2020 — including 53 officials in the year following the 2024 presidential election.

---

---

All told, at least one chief local election official has left their job in 211 of the 414 Western counties — and at least two individuals have left the job in 32 Western counties. In one Arizona county, five different people have held the role of elections director since the 2020 presidential election.

Nearly all of this turnover — roughly 76% — is attributable to people voluntarily leaving these jobs, not the result of losing a reelection contest (just 5%) or term limits (just 13%).

While turnover among election officials has been high across the entire region, it has been especially severe in presidential battleground states, counties with close margins in the 2020 presidential election, and populous counties. This suggests that chief local election officials in states and counties with close margins have experienced higher levels of scrutiny, stress, and harassment, resulting in their departure from the field.

“Election officials now are wondering, why do I still do this if my office is going to get firebombed by a Molotov cocktail?” Republican Matt Crane, a former county clerk who now serves as the executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, told Colorado Public Radio last year after an elections office in a rural county in the state was firebombed.

A similar sentiment has been shared by Democrat George Stern, a former county clerk in Jefferson County, Colorado, near Denver: “Clerks flew beneath the radar until 2020, and then we learned pretty quickly that anytime we responded to a threat, we would get many more.”

And just last month, Karen Brinson Bell, the former executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, told Issue One as part of our “Meet the Faces of Democracy” interview series that people “have to have Teflon skin to work in this space.”

When experienced election officials leave the field, they take with them immense amounts of institutional knowledge. Jurisdictions — large and small — also face significant financial impacts when recruiting, hiring, and training new people to fill these critical positions.

Efforts to hold those who threaten election officials accountable can help deter misconduct. However, those efforts have been limited at best, and much more must be done to ratchet down the rhetoric and stop the spread of lies designed to erode public trust in the integrity of our elections.

Governments at all levels should implement policies, programs, and partnerships to protect election officials from threats and harassment — as well as increase their investments in attracting, recruiting, and retaining the next generation of election administrators.

Building and sustaining strong pipelines that attract and retain election officials is essential to fortifying our nation’s elections infrastructure. Dollars spent investing in the future of this critical profession will pay dividends for years to come by preserving institutional knowledge and strengthening capacity in local election offices.

Additionally, federal and state legislators should avoid imposing mandates that change election procedures without providing funding to carry them out. For example, proposals known as the MEGA Act, SAVE American Act, and SAVE Act would, among other things, require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship each time they register to vote, even though states already have systems in place to verify voter identity and confirm citizenship status. These bills would require significant and expensive changes at the state and local levels, with an unrealistic timeline and no additional funding.

Election officials are the backbone of our election system and the unsung heroes of our democracy. They work under intense pressure and growing personal risk to ensure every eligible vote is cast and counted accurately.

Supporting election officials is one of the most concrete and effective steps that policymakers and the public can take to safeguard election integrity. That means protecting them from threats and harassment, fully funding election administration, and investing in the next generation of election professionals. Instead of sowing confusion or distrust in our elections, political leaders in both parties should stand up for the dedicated public servants who ensure free, fair, safe, and secure elections in our country.

---