What Happens If Election Chiefs Don’t Trust Elections?

'Stop the Steal’ proponents are running for secretary of state positions in battleground states.

By
139
Mark Finchem, Republican nominee for Arizona secretary of state, speaks at a campaign rally. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

In ordinary times, secretary of state tends to be a low-profile role at the state level. But a bevy of candidates loud and proud in their denials of the 2020 election results are running for the position in several states next month pledging to overhaul their state’s election systems.

Though the power of the position varies by state, the secretary of state doesn’t have absolute authority over elections. “It’s not as if this is an all-powerful person with no other actors, no other restraints and obstacles,” said John Fortier, a senior fellow on election administration at American Enterprise Institute. “They’re going to take the oath of office, they’re going to have to follow the law. They’re going to have to interact with both the executive branch, legislative, and local officials.”

But that hasn’t stopped some from campaigning on wholesale changes.

Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem, the GOP nominee for secretary of state, told supporters in May that if he had been in office in 2020, “we would have won. Plain and simple.”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
139
By
Comments (139)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Dhsavidge1

    Thanks for more great reporting! I find Burge's opinion that a State Supreme Court would step in to save the day to be particularly specious. The GOP is actively seeking in the Moore case before the Supreme Court this term to denude any state court, and likely federal courts, from reviewing any election shenanigans. Additionally, in states where their supreme court justices are elected, well, enough said...

    Collapse
  2. Rcroxton

    I'm going to keep flogging this dead horse:

    Maybe instead of worrying about Russian interference or MAGA operatives, the two parties could focus on coming up with a policy stance so persuasive to normal people in the middle that Putin or Trump could manipulate a few thousand votes and it would only be shifting a few pebbles out of your landslide?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    I'm going to be asking Conservatives aka Republicans, when y'all gonna start owning the Hate machine...as in turning Nancy Pelosi into a Wanted Poster?

    How long will Republicans and Cons sit in the squalor of denials? Denials of your singular drive to make Enemies of Pelosi, Clinton, AOC, the Squad, Libs and Democrats?

    Thisnis totally on you Republicans. Own it.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ray Salemi

      Conflating Republicans and Conservatives (whatever that means now) is always going to be a losing proposition.

      The bone I pick is with conservatives who reflexively cheer for the Republican party and vote for anything with an R on it, then come here and claim that they're conservatives and not Republicans.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        Too many conservatives are in denial for their decades long efforts against liberals, that, like any system, was a driving force against equilibrium. While that's hard to maintain, it requires a modicum of allowance and civility towards the others. That's been largely demolished as we've been demonized for 35+years (Rush, Newt et al).

        Denial runs strong with conservatives, along with the naive hope that Republicans like Herschel Walker are better people that Senator Reverend Warnock. That's a pathetic position.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ray Salemi

          Yes. Even authors here at The Dispatch have not owned up to their part in creating Trump.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougAz

            They hace not. Although, David's Atlantic article did specify Newt Gingrich as culpable.

            Still, Rush is loved, Beck cheered, Ralph Reed adored, Wayne Lapierre cheered

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Dexember

      This is where we depart. Your ire against Conservatives seems to be rooted in distaste for Republican politics instead of Conservative ideology.

      Conservativism has always held several “rooms” in its house of what people wanted to conserve. But the branch’s of fiscal hawks and classical liberals are being pushed out of the Republican Party by social theocrats and grievance mongers.

      And classical liberals are always going to oppose progressives. I also have a distaste and despise Republican politics of Hate. But this is not a must of Conservative ideology. You can find the politics of hate in many socialist and progressive politics because it is not some singular child of “right wing” ideology.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        Perhaps. Perhaps the theory of classical liberalism portends fairness and equality and respect. However, Lincoln put the lie to this Classical Liberalism of the Founders didn't he? He said correctly at Gettysburg, that we were still working on the "Proposition that all Men (people) are created Equal". Which the Classic Liberalism of the Founder's Constitution clearly avoided.

        Morality and goodness, are neither Conservative values or Progressive values, or even Religious values.

        There are excellent values I and many hold like personal responsibility, Mutual respect, obeying laws that are also said to be Conservative and denied by them to Liberals. That's wrong as well.

        Collapse
  4. Jim.H

    Don’t forget, we were told for years that the 2016 election was stolen by Russian interference…

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Harry Paget

      I know there was a lot of discussion at the time, but the central claims as I recall them were that Russia attempted to influence the election in Trumps favor, through social media and similar means, and that some of the electorate was indeed influenced by the campaign, and that Russia considered it a successful influence operation. Not among the central claims was the suggestion that Trump was illegitimate or that there was fraud or the election was stolen.

      Collapse
      1. Jim.H

        They didn’t too….there was that Special Counsel created on a lie the campaign colluded with Russia.

        Collapse
        1. Rcroxton

          So how do you square that "lie" with all the people that plead guilty?

          Collapse
        2. Beth_blinn

          Have you read the Senate report on Russian influence on the 2016 election? Paul Manfort was doing his best to cater to his former clients and was actively in communication with Russian operatives. I call that collusion. What they couldn't do was link it specifically to Trump.

          Collapse
          1. Jim.H

            That’s right….they couldn’t link it to Trump….but they sure as hell tried…

            Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    Mark Finchem is a member of the Oath Keepers. Finchem was on Capital grounds and an Insurrectionist.

    The admirable Liz Cheney called him..."a danger to democracy", if I recall correctly.

    This is the Republican party. Don't look askance at this as an "Arizona" thing.

    We are also part of...... your America.

    I can see the horrific chaos ahead with Lake and Finchem. Too many MAGAz

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    I can guarantee that whom ever is the Sec of State will have to abide by the law and if not will be turn in to the police, government the press. There is a reason why I know there was no fraud in 2020.

    There is no evidence, no slew of photos of people burning, or trashing thousands of ballots. Oh you had a few postal workers throw stuff away but not enough to turn the election. Legal maneuvering by a Sec of State will be challenged. Challenged by a bunch of people. Add in that once you are in charge of something people rarely really want to F it up so bad they look incompetent. Also if there are election problems it looks bad for the people in charge. Deep breath.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      Not totally accurate. Once the Supreme Court in the North Carolina case lets loose the Independent State Legislator theory... no recourse to the Courts.

      Finchem is an Oath Keeper. A January 6th Insurrectionist.

      This is the Republican American Taliban

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Earl King

        Well NC is not AZ......if someone does not hold their oath of office they’ll get tossed out....The public won’t stand for it. I have way more faith in the system.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    John A Johnson

    Finchem is a disaster who would never have been nominated without Trump's interference. Mental lightweight and moral midget

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      And this is why brainwashed MAGAz voters will elect Finchem, an Oath Keeper and 1/6 Insurrectionist.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        John A Johnson

        A terrible thought. My fellow AZ Republicans have lost their minds and their morality

        Collapse
  8. True Northerner

    I am not questioning the problem presented by someone who holds Finchem's 2020 election fraud views --- but I grew up voting in a country in which voters were enumerated in person before each national election; early voting was possible on only two days, one week before the election; absentee voting required a doctor's certificate; legal identification was required at the polls; and, ballots were counted by hand under the eyes of scrutineers from all Parties.

    So I do not find this shocking or unreasonable: "universal voter ID, required nearly all voting to happen on Election Day, and, with a few exceptions, required votes to be cast in person and counted by hand."

    On the other hand, I also did not have to vote for 200 Propositions and the town dogcatcher concurrently with my local representative and my national leader. I do see the problems that introduces.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      Absentee ballots never had any requirements. Says me voting since 1972

      Collapse
    2. Kelly Windsor

      You grew up in a country that sanctioned civil rights abuses and that allowed concerted, organized efforts to keep legal citizens from casting a vote.

      No one is making this up.

      Collapse
      1. True Northerner

        Your response confuses me. Where do you think I voted much of my life?

        Collapse
        1. Kelly Windsor

          Haha.
          You didn’t elucidate did you?
          Why not?

          Do tell… true northerner, where did you vote most of your life? And then, please, help me understand why you think PREVENTING voting is the best way to run a democracy.

          I’m truly curious.

          Collapse
          1. Bkamena

            Is this some sort of "whoosh" stance, i.e., you're being sarcastic?

            It isn't hard to figure out what country True Northerner is talking about, especially when they use terms like "enumerated" and "scrutineer." And in that country's last two elections, turnout has been around 75%, a better percentage than the US, so the idea those rules are preventing people from voting or are somehow unfair is preposterous.

            The bit about the enumerators coming to the door is out of date, though. Registration is done on-line or by mail, with an additional option to register on-site on voting day.

            Collapse
  9. Jemcmichael

    Slightly misleading to include Ohio in the list of "Trump-Aligned" SoS candidates. The link from States United shows the "Trump aligned candidate" is a third party candidate who currently has no chance of winning and as an Ohio voter, I'd never heard of before following the link. It's not referencing Frank LaRose the current SoS.

    LaRose, the GOP candidate, has given too much credence to trying to straddle the line on the election conspiracy stuff, but in the aftermath of the 2020 election he was clear on the fact that the stolen election claims went too far. I don't think he should be lumped in with the crazies.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougCLE

      It should also be noted that Ms. Maras was, in fact, booted from the GOP primary. Her CVs are interesting, though. If she wasn't such a conspiracy nut (on lots more than just election fraud, according to her campaign site) I might even be inclined to vote for her.

      Also, while LaRose insists no fraud took place under *his* enlightened watch, he has simultaneously been throwing shade at other states. Though I suppose this is what you meant by "straddling the line".

      Collapse
    2. Dan P.

      Thank you for bringing this up. I’m also an Ohio voter and was under the impression that LaRose was Trump-aligned to the extent of hopefully not running off the bulk of the base, but was by no means a stolen election nutter. It’s also important to note that the MAGA hardcores generally despise Ohio’s Republican-run executive branch, though Gov. DeWine gets most of their ire.

      I’ll also add, thank God that Ohio didn’t have a Georgia-close election in ‘20. I’m sure Trump would have leaned on DeWine & LaRose the way he did on Kemp & Raffensperger, and while I think they’d have stood firm, I sort of wonder. If T runs in ‘24, we may find out.

      Collapse
      1. Kelly Windsor

        Only Trump aligned in order not to run off the “nutty” base?

        I have wondered how this grey line was crossed. Now I… can slightly…
        Imagine it. Thank you.

        Collapse
        1. Dan P.

          I mean, there’s a fair bit of real estate between Liz Chaney and Kari Lake. I’m not sure there’s a specific point at which the line is crossed. But I’m guessing most GOP officeholders, at least at the state level, who haven’t been pulled into a Trump fight already are trying to keep their heads down, do their jobs, and get reelected if they’re running, without stirring up any Trump trouble.

          And when I say “the bulk of the (Republican) base,” I’m less focused on the hardcore MAGAs and more on the 50%+ that Nick Catoggio refers to as “inclined to vote for anything with an ‘R’ after their name.” Those voters generally still support Trump and think he was a good president, maybe wish he’d dial it down a notch on some of the foolishness, but would have no trouble voting for him again. They might take issue with a candidate who appears to pick a fight with Trump a la Liz Chaney (not “splitting the party” is often a big thing with those voters). But they
          can usually accept a Republican candidate who holds traditional conservative positions and maybe even rejects election denialism, as long as said candidate doesn’t go full-on Liz.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougAz

            The admirable Liz Cheney was courageous and called Finchem and Lake... a danger to democracy.

            My esteem for her grows

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Marion Coatsworth-Hay

    I have nothing against fairly rigorous measures to ensure election integrity. We should continue to debate at a state level the merits of mail-in voting, early voting, vote boxes, photo ID, etc., perhaps as well as chain of custody, counting requirements, reporting requirements, electronic security, poll procedures, etc.

    I wish that was what the debate was about. Alas, we now have a giant problem of lack of faith in elections because of LIES, baseless assertions, or assertions that have withered in the light of day in courts. Every time someone quotes a poll that says how many Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen, I cringe. I don't want to believe it. Every losing candidate who cried "I was robbed" has put us in this position, but no one with the power and audience and cult-leader appeal of Trump. The seal on the peaceful transfer of power is hereby broken. And that's a terrible shame.

    Here's what I predict: if state Secretaries of State, if State Legislatures, if Governors monkey around and effectively overrule the will of those who cared enough to vote, there will be rebellion. There's a difference between (a) imposing strict rules and regulations, and (b) invalidating the results of an election because one party didn't like the results and that party is currently in power. I can't imagine we'll stand for (b).

    Collapse
    1. Kelly Windsor

      If voter fraud was an ACTUAL problem it would be something everyone wanted to tackle.

      It’s not.

      Where are all the cases of actual voter fraud? What do they amount to? This is the dumbest boogeyman story ever told.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        All voter fraud is singularly Republican actors apparently.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Marion Coatsworth-Hay

        It’s mass psychosis.

        Collapse
Load More