Republicans have nominated candidates who deny the legitimacy of the 2020 election for governor and secretary of state positions in several critical swing states, potentially placing individuals who question the U.S. electoral system in positions to oversee future elections. Tom Tiffany, the Republican nominee for governor in Wisconsin, has actively promoted claims that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. As a member of Congress in December 2020, he joined a lawsuit seeking to overturn Joe Biden's victory and voted against certifying election results on January 6, 2021. He has also stated he would have sought to overturn Wisconsin's results.
This trend extends to other pivotal states for the 2028 presidential election, including Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada, where Republican nominees for governor or secretary of state have also expressed doubts about election integrity. The potential for these candidates to win and gain authority over election administration in these states has prompted warnings about the possibility of a compromised election in 2028.
However, election experts suggest that a stolen election in 2028 due to these candidates is highly unlikely. They point to numerous checks and balances within state election laws, the judiciary's role in addressing malfeasance, and reforms to the Electoral Count Act as safeguards against such interference. Rebecca Green, co-director of the Election Law Program at The College of William and Mary, stated that even with a single partisan in control, "numerous checks on that power" exist.
While outright election theft is considered improbable, experts like Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, caution that individuals in these positions could still damage the electoral system. The risk, while remote, could be amplified in extremely close elections. The three primary avenues for potential interference include suppressing opposition voters through tactics like purging voter rolls or limiting polling stations, interfering with vote counts by attempting to disqualify ballots, or refusing to certify election results.
Existing laws and administration processes present significant hurdles to these actions. Federal law restricts voter roll purges close to an election, and the bipartisan nature of vote counting, along with judicial oversight, makes manipulating results difficult. Furthermore, state laws empower courts to compel the certification of legitimate election results, a power that has been exercised since 2020.
"Courts have shown themselves to be pretty good against election denialism," Hasen noted, adding that this applies to judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Electoral Count Act reform in 2022 further bolsters federal protections for presidential elections.
Experts also note that a candidate's past rhetoric does not automatically guarantee future actions. "Just because you have partisan control of an election, and just because that person has cast doubt on previous elections, doesn’t mean that person is not going to be committed to running a fair election," Green said. The influence of former President Donald Trump was a significant factor in the intensity of the post-2020 election challenges, and it remains an open question whether this has permanently altered the Republican Party's approach to election results.
Despite the structural safeguards, concerns remain. Election law professor Lisa Marshall Manheim has argued that conventional legal analyses may be insufficient to address election subversion, noting that the most significant threats, like Trump's 2020 campaign, operated in an "extra-legal" manner. The fear is that officials might disregard the law in favor of raw political power, particularly if enough individuals in key positions decide to abandon a good-faith interpretation of legal duties.
Even if election deniers do not attempt to overturn results, their presence in office could further erode public confidence in elections. Such officials might claim a lack of confidence in results, even if they lack the legal authority to prevent certification. This could deepen distrust among voters, potentially making extra-legal actions seem more appealing in future contentious elections and prolonging the post-2020 crisis of electoral confidence.