Introduced federal legislation aims to counter the growing threat of election disinformation as social media platforms scale back efforts to control it.

Backers of the "Freedom to Vote Act" say it would prohibit false statements about federal elections designed to prevent people from voting, including from the candidates themselves.

Emma Steiner, information accountability project manager with the non-partisan group Common Cause, said disinformation can often be hard to spot.

"A lot of times people fall for disinformation," said Steiner, "because it seems to confirm something they already believe and that's where people get tripped up."

Steiner recommended that people always refer to official sources for voting information - including Secretary of States' offices or local election boards.

She said disinformation often increases after an election... before the final votes are even tallied.

Recent employee layoffs at tech companies have drastically reduced efforts to stop the spread of election disinformation while social media platforms have stopped labeling or removing posts making false claims about the 2020 election.

Steiner said that leaves too many social media users vulnerable.

"Disinformation spreaders and disinformation campaigns tend to target marginalized populations and people who live in information voids," said Steiner, "meaning they don't have the resources or capacity to find reliable information."

Steiner said while Facebook - for example - has made some effort to fight disinformation by launching its Voting and Election Center, tech companies still have a responsibility to ensure information being shared on their platforms is accurate.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

Despite concerns about the next election, one Arizona legal expert says courts have generally sided with voters and democracy.

Victoria Lopez is the director of program and strategy with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, and said in 2022, Arizona had the most court cases on election denial and voting processes in the country.

Just last week, an Arizona grand jury returned an indictment charging two of the three Cochise County supervisors with felony offenses for their refusal to certify the 2022 general election results.

Lopez said the message is simple: elections matter. She added that a majority of the time, "when democracy was on the docket, voters won." But she said litigation is complicated and drawn-out, but can still instigate mistrust and skepticism.

"The final outcomes of some of these cases has not yet been determined," said Lopez, "but at least the majority of those cases that have been filed, the outcome has been pro-voter, pro-democracy outcomes."

Lopez said there is what she calls a "robust coalition of partners," that work alongside the ACLU of Arizona on democracy issues and cases challenging suppression of voter rights in the state.

Lopez highlighted a lawsuit filed on behalf of Mi Familia Vota and Voto Latino which challenges HB 2492, a law that enacted new proof of citizenship requirements for voters.

The case is currently in federal district court.

Lopez explained the Arizona Court of Appeals recently ruled that counties don't have the legal authority to execute hand counts of all their ballots in an election. That decision stems from a 2022 case in which Cochise County was challenged in its efforts to preform a hand count audit.

In northwestern Arizona, the Mohave County Board of Supervisors recently rejected a bid to allow a hand count in 2024.

Lopez recognized supporters of hand counts believe it'll ensure better accuracy.

"But part of the arguments that were being made there in support of the full hand count audit," said Lopez, "was that the county should move forward and litigate the question of whether a hand count audit is constitutional under Arizona law."

Lopez contended Arizona has an extensive history of what she calls attacking "basic voting measures," like drop boxes, that she argues make elections "efficient and effective."

In mid-October, a conservative legal group filed a lawsuit challenging the use of drop boxes, arguing it is an illegal voting method under Arizona law.

She encouraged Arizonans to register to vote or update their existing registration as well as get informed.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

Most Hoosiers are okay with legalizing marijuana -- 85% approve, according to a poll from Indiana Public Radio and Ball State University.

However, Indiana law does not allow citizen-led initiatives on the ballot.

Political experts don't see an appetite among Republicans - who hold a supermajority at the Indiana Statehouse and in the governor's office -- for giving citizens a direct voice.

So, Indiana State Democratic Chairman Michael Schmuhl suggested neighboring states have left Indiana behind in a cloud of smoke.

"And some of these states are not dissimiliar from our state," said Schmuhl. "Yes, we have our challenges. There are some sort of structures around that and some disadvantages, but direct voice for people to vote on things -- especially, when it comes to their own body and their own choices -- you would think that that would be a no-brainer."

Opponents of citizen-led initiatives argue voters choose politicians who can be trusted to make the best decisions on behalf of Hoosiers.

However, Schmuhl countered, that idea has been eroded by a single party controlling the levers of power. Republicans have held tightly to power since 2010, when Mitch Daniels was re-elected governor -- which Schmuhl pointed out gives the GOP total control of drawing lines for Indiana's congressional voting districts.

"What gerrymandered districts do is it speaks to the extremes of both sides," said Schmuhl. "That's who's going to get through a primary, is the loudest voices. Here in Indiana, unfortunately, that is folks that are extreme and on the right. I would argue that those elections aren't reflective of the average Hoosier's belief."

Schmuhl contended that some parts of the nation's democracy -- both federal and state -- are broken.

Indiana is also one of only six states where voters are allow to vote a straight-party ticket. Opponents argue this allows voters to support a party's slate of candidates without much thought.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

This week, a bipartisan group in Arizona officially launched its campaign to do away with the state's current system of primary elections - which are only open to people in the two major political parties.

The goal is to get a measure on the 2024 ballot to make the state's future primary elections open to all candidates and all voters, regardless of their party affiliation. But first, it needs more than 389,000 signatures by July of next year.

Chuck Coughlin - treasurer for Make Elections Fair AZ - called this week's kickoff "an emotional launching point," for what he describes as their effort to "create fair elections in Arizona."

"Our election process has been hijacked by two extreme parties," said Coughlin. "The two parties have become much more extreme over time in their views of how elections are run, because it attracts money and influence. A majority of people have chosen to disassociate themselves from those two parties."

He said Independent and unaffiliated voters now comprise the largest registered voter bloc in Arizona, at 35% of the electorate.

Coughlin said changing the system would, in his words, "reinvigorate competition, so ideas and change can fuel American democracy again."

Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson is now on the Make Elections Fair AZ executive committee.

He said the current, partisan primary system can be "easily manipulated," and lead to a disproportionate advantage for groups with extreme viewpoints.

Johnson also said he sees the current system as discriminatory toward Independent and unaffiliated candidates.

"It actually discriminates directly against voters," said Johnson. "It requires them to file a special card to be able to vote in one of the two primaries, which Democratic and Republican voters don't have to do. And then, in presidential primaries, they are outright excluded - even though their taxpayers' dollars are utilized to be able to subsidize it."

Johnson is referring to the card people can fill out stating "no party preference" that allows them to vote in an Arizona primary.

Supporters of closed primaries say they're an important part of keeping political parties healthy and relevant.