INTRODUCTION
Ideally, voting rules and processes in mature democracies should be stable over time
and instill high public confidence in the outcomes of elections. That is not the case in the
United States currently. The electoral features embedded in the federal Constitution have
stability, but they are under unprecedented stress in the highly polarized United States of
today. State and local rules concerning the time, place, and manner of elections are con
stantly in flux and often gamed for partisan advantage. Election controversies and rhetorical
challenges to the reliability of US elections have become more frequent, visible, and intense
in recent years.1
Since the 2000 election, proposed bills about election administration reforms have strongly
diverged along partisan lines, with Republicans prioritizing “election integrity” with additional
protections to guard against voter fraud and Democrats seeking to expand voter participation
by making it easier to vote. The core division over election reform is often now characterized
as “fraud versus suppression,” and the partisan gap on this issue is wider today than in the
past. Public faith in the accuracy of US elections is currently at an historic low, with more
than 30 percent of the population doubting the accuracy of elections. If unaddressed, this
could severely undermine the US political system and its form of government, which is rooted
in the peaceful transfer of power.2
The question we address here is whether there is some common ground across party lines
on these election administration concerns. As a first step in this inquiry, we give a brief over
view of the evolution of US election administration disputes to provide some historical per
spective. We then review common myths and misunderstandings that pervade the current
public dialogue about these matters and what they portend for restoring confidence in the
US electoral system. Lastly, we put forward four topics that have the potential for bipartisan
agreement.