Center for Election Confidence (CEC) submitted testimony for the record in advance of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) February 18, 2026, hearing on Election Audit Standards. The hearing will involve “discussions with election officials and audit professionals” concerning “how election audits can be used to boost public trust in elections“. EAC is gathering information on best practices for election audit standards as part of its clearinghouse responsibilities.
CEC focuses its testimony on three key points:
- Audits are key tools when well-executed, -designed, and -matched to voters’ expectations.
- Audits can promote trust, transparency, and access.
- Poorly executed audits do more to harm voter confidence than conducting no audit at all.
When audits are well-executed, -designed, and -matched to voters’ expectations, they are key foundational elements for voters’ overall confidence in an election system and the outcomes it produces.
CEC notes that when voters request election audits, they typically have in mind a substantial review of (1) the administration of the election; (2) the training designed for election officials, pollworkers, and others (and how such training was executed); and (3) the outcome and results of the election itself.
Voters generally imagine an audit process that looks similar to “balancing a checkbook” in the sense that every penny—or every ballot—is connected back to a given transaction—or voter. This sort of audit, at the very least, would require working backwards to confirm as many steps in the link between an individual voter and their ballot as voter privacy and ballot secrecy allow and to review from start to finish not only the training designed for those working in any part of the election, but also the execution of that training design, as well as the actual application during the election.
To that end, CEC suggests 10 questions for consideration in the development of any good audit. These questions focus on the balance between transparency and voter privacy and ballot secrecy.
Finally, a well-executed audit must be complete, with results available, in time to correct the results of the current election (e.g., through a recount, recanvass, contest, etc., procedure), not just to resolve identified problems for future contests. CEC notes that, to voters, ensuring that a process for audit results is available to correct any identified issue is a non-negotiable requirement.
A good audit procedure is one that promotes trust and transparency in—and public access to all relevant information to understand—how a given process produced election results. To be successful, an audit must identify, explain, and establish or “prove” the trustworthiness of results or identify items for correction or closer inspection truthfully and transparently
A well-executed audit in all circumstances must explain specifically why direct answers to questions that may involve voter privacy or ballot secrecy are not available and cannot be determined and include suitable references to the audit’s examination of training design, execution, and application to explain why (or why not) a high degree of confidence may be applied. Simply offering that “voter privacy” or “ballot secrecy” prevent disclosure likely will not be sufficient.
CEC offers that the key to a good audit is recognizing that voters’ perception of the election itself and how a bad actor may act in bad faith frequently rises above the relative importance of the specifics of a given situation. CEC’s testimony recognizes that “voters do not require perfect in election administration”—what matters is limiting the quantity, frequency, and seriousness of mistakes; providing timely, full, and transparent explanations for any mistakes; and explaining in full and transparently what steps will be taken to resolve any such issues without disadvantaging any voter.
A weak audit, an audit that oversells its capacity for review, or an audit process without internal consistency or integrity can do more to harm voter confidence than conducting no audit at all. Such audits may provide initially a false sense of security but later reveal an objectively weak, disproven, or unfit audit process when the veil is
pierced, serving to amp up voter distrust.
After all, a voter may reason, if election officials are “lying” about something like an audit, why should I trust other election administration processes or checks and balances? Voters’ perception fuels voters’ confidence, which in turn fuels voters’ participation. And each is a fragile thing.
Well-executed, -designed, and -matched audits can build, bolster, or rebuild voters’ confidence in election administration—including foundational processes, returns, and outcomes—through a transparent check and correct process. However, completing just any audit is not enough: an audit process badly fit to voters’ needs or one that is administered poorly or inconsistently is likely to diminish such confidence in a material way. To be successful, audit plans must establish a baseline for trust, transparency, and access, with identification and explanation of mistakes or other issues, as well as full transparency with respect to timely resolutions that do not disadvantage voters.