Politics

Don’t buy into conspiracy theories about provisional ballots

Published

2 years ago

November 11, 2024

Don’t buy into conspiracy theories about provisional ballots

This article is the fifth in a five-part series called “Protecting the Election.” As former President Donald Trump and many of his allies refuse to concede his defeat in the 2020 election, this BLN Daily series brings election law and policy experts to explore the many threats to certifying election results at both the state and national levels.

In a recent op-ed for MSNBC, I noted that in elections, “everything looks suspicious when you don’t know how anything works.” As Election Day draws near, that dictum will be true of more and more election practices.

With potentially razor-thin margins separating winners and losers, provisional ballots are fertile ground for legal wrangling and false claims.

Election administration is a complex mixture of laws, rules and technology — and ignorance of how elections are run can lead to misunderstanding or baseless conspiracy theories. Almost anything can become a target of suspicion and contention. In a scorched-earth strategy to undermine the legitimacy of the presidential election in case he loses, former President Donald Trump and his allies have already raised evidence-free doubts about “noncitizen voting,” military and overseas ballots and voter registration.

It’s likely that provisional ballots will soon be added to that list. After post-election ballot counting begins, with potentially razor-thin margins separating winners and losers, provisional ballots are fertile ground for legal wrangling and false claims. Like mail ballots, provisional ballots take time to count; it’s difficult to estimate how many there will be (though they will exceed 1 million, based on past election data); and they are likely to be counted last. For all of these reasons, provisional ballots invite rumors and potential confusion.

Provisional ballots are issued to voters whenever there is uncertainty, for whatever reason, about a voter’s eligibility to vote in person. Whether a provisional ballot will ultimately be accepted and counted (or rejected) depends on additional research about the voter’s eligibility, which election officials perform post-election.

Provisional ballots are required under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, which created this failsafe to help ensure eligible voters are not turned away from the polls if there are errors associated with their registration. Exemptions were granted to states that had enacted same-day voter registration by 1993, and currently every state except Idaho and Minnesota issues provisional ballots.

Because the 10th Amendment results in a decentralized system of election administration in the U.S., each state handles provisional ballots differently, but there are common reasons for using them.

A typical case might be when a voter goes to vote in person, provides ID credentials, and, after checking the voter rolls, the poll worker says, “There appears to be an issue with your registration.” Perhaps the voter’s name doesn’t appear in the records; or the address in the records doesn’t match the voter’s ID; but the voter insists that they’ve been voting at the polling location for years. In this case, the poll worker issues a provisional ballot.

During the post-election counting period, everyone should be patient and resist baseless ‘noise’ about provisional ballots.

Other reasons to issue a provisional ballot might include: The voter doesn’t have appropriate ID credentials; the voter applied for a mail ballot, but now they wish to vote in person (e.g., if the voter never received their mail ballot); the voter is attempting to vote at a precinct or jurisdiction different from their registration; or records indicate that the voter has already voted. Different states might have additional reasons to use provisional ballots, but these are the most common scenarios.

When a provisional ballot is issued, poll workers keep it separate from regular ballots that go into the ballot box (because research is required to determine whether the ballot can be counted or not). Typically, the voter marks a paper provisional ballot that is inserted into a secrecy envelope. Provisional ballot envelopes are typically printed with space for the voter to record their personal information, and, most importantly, an affidavit or attestation that the voter must sign indicating their eligibility to vote.

The content of a provisional ballot remains private while election officials research the voter’s eligibility. Because the resolution of provisional ballots takes time, election officials often investigate these ballots later in the counting cycle. If a voter’s eligibility is confirmed, the ballot is “unsealed” and counted; and if the ballot is rejected, it’s never opened. HAVA requires state or local election officials to give voters information about how to learn whether their provisional ballot was accepted and counted (and, if not, why not). Some states allow voters to check the status of their ballot through online portals.

During the post-election counting period, everyone should be patient and resist baseless “noise” about provisional ballots. The point to remember is that there are entirely legitimate administrative reasons that might prevent a poll worker from knowing with certainty whether someone is eligible to vote at the moment they check in at the polling place; and in those instances, instead of turning the voter away, a provisional ballot ensures a “holding zone” to prevent disenfranchisement.

Most importantly, provisional ballots are a critical test of the “one person, one vote” rule. Counting ballots is more than just counting; it’s an intensive, laborious, multistep process with rigorous protocols to protect the integrity of the vote. Election officials are trying to accept as many valid provisional ballots from as many eligible voters as possible (i.e., to prevent disenfranchisement), while also rejecting ballots from ineligible voters (i.e., to preserve integrity). Officials must follow state laws and policies and verify that all requirements have been met, and no election results are finalized until all provisional ballots have been resolved. Every valid ballot is counted — and invalid ballots are not.

This methodical process ensures a free and fair election that values both integrity and voter participation.

Edward Perez

Edward Perez is a board member at the OSET Institute, a nonpartisan nonprofit that seeks to enhance public confidence in the legitimacy of election outcomes in democracies around the world. He is the former director of product management for information integrity at Twitter, and a 16-year veteran of the voting technology industry in the U.S.

Politics

US to reach $41T debt ceiling as soon as late winter, forecasters predict

Published

2 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Treasury Department could prevent a U.S. debt default for several months after that…
Read More

Politics

US to reach $41T debt ceiling as soon as late winter, forecasters predict

Published

3 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Treasury Department could prevent a U.S. debt default for several months after that…
Read More

Politics

Poll: Voter cynicism remains a potent threat to incumbents across the globe

Published

3 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Voters punished ruling parties across the globe in 2024. They are doing it again now.

The same voters who rejected their rulers without mercy on both sides of the Atlantic — throwing out Britain’s Conservatives after 14 years in power and humbling Democrats in the United States — are now poised to deliver resounding defeats to the very leaders they elected two years ago.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces the prospect of being ousted later this year if a key rival in Manchester can pull off a win in a special parliamentary vote next week. President Donald Trump, while locked into power until January 2029, appears to be barreling toward lame duck status with Democrats growing increasingly bullish about their midterm prospects in November — particularly in winning back the U.S. House.

And The POLITICO Poll suggests Western voters’ desire for political bloodletting hasn’t abated.

Building on previous work by Public First, the London-based firm that conducts the survey, a new analysis of May Blue Light News Poll results show large shares of voters in both the United Kingdom and United States express deep cynicism about politics and a constant desire for radical change — suggesting the forces behind the backlash may still be potent, and that power switching hands this year may not be enough to quell them.

In America, 71 percent of adults say politicians only look out for themselves, including 79 percent of those who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 and 71 percent who voted for Trump. In the U.K., voters are similarly angry at politicians, who they blame for being unable to address a variety of issues, including cost of living and immigration. New results from The POLITICO Poll, conducted over the weekend, show a 56 percent majority of U.K. adults said the bigger problem with politics in the U.K. is the politicians who do not do the right thing, while just 15 percent blame the system itself.

That deep dissatisfaction has metastasized into a perpetual anti-incumbent frustration in recent years. In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party had its worst result in a national election in several decades, and Canada’s Justin Trudeau stepped down amid growing voter frustration. Just since February of last year, the rulers of Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic have all been ejected at key elections.

Now the U.K. is watching the vote in Makerfield next week, which may determine whether Starmer gets to keep his job amid public outrage at his handling of fallout from the Epstein scandal, and voter concerns about immigration, the economy and law enforcement. If Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, succeeds in being elected back to Parliament next week, it will almost certainly trigger a series of events that could end in the removal of the deeply unpopular Starmer as the head of the Labour Party — and prime minister.

The result could ripple across the Atlantic as Republicans face their own political headwinds ahead of the crucial November midterms in the United States.

“What we’re seeing is a cross-Atlantic disconnect between voters and electeds,” said Kevin Madden, a longtime GOP communications strategist in Washington and senior partner at Penta, a consulting firm.

“Voters in the U.S. are squarely focused on at-home domestic priorities and kitchen-table concerns like food, health care and housing costs. So when the headlines are focused on foreign conflict and disruptions to global markets, those will reinforce the disconnect.”

Deep cynicism in the UK spells trouble for Starmer

In 2024, the rejection of incumbents came amid a growing frustration over the cost of living and broader economic anxieties. Whether that backlash was a temporary response — or reflects an engrained dissatisfaction with political institutions — is a question now confronting leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, as affordability concerns continue to spiral.

In the U.K., the analysis from Public First finds a deep sense of political disillusionment. The firm developed a series of measures to understand that feeling of “anti-politics”, and cynicism stood out: Voters who believe politicians are self-serving, that political talk rarely leads to real action and that the public has little influence over what politicians actually do.

Nearly half of British adults — 45 percent — scored high on Public First’s cynicism scale; so did 37 percent of U.S. adults.

The findings underscore the challenge facing Starmer. New results from The Blue Light News Poll conducted last weekend show nearly two-thirds of U.K. adults — 64 percent — said they don’t think Starmer will remain as prime minister until the next general election.

The center-left U.K. leader has suffered the most dramatic plunge in popularity of any prime minister in British history. Since winning a landslide victory just under two years ago, Starmer has seen his Labour Party fall to historic lows in opinion polls, while the nationalist right-wing Reform U.K. of Nigel Farage has stormed into the lead in polls and local elections, mirroring the success of insurgent populists across Europe.

Three-quarters of highly cynical voters in the U.K. hold an unfavorable view of Starmer, the Public First analysis of a May Blue Light News Poll found — far higher than the national average.

The Makerfield by-election on June 18 will determine whether Burnham, Starmer’s chief internal rival, is elected as Labour’s representative, giving him the chance to challenge Starmer for the party leadership and potentially replace him as prime minister. Burnham’s main rival in the by-election is the Reform U.K. candidate — whose victory would likely end Burnham’s leadership ambitions, plunge Labour into unprecedented turmoil and send the national government into fresh disarray.

But Makerfield looks likely to be terrible for Starmer, whoever wins. Either it will be Burnham, who will then go to London to try to oust the prime minister, or it will be Reform U.K. — fuelling claims that Starmer has toxified his own party beyond repair.

Why Trump should be watching closely

It’s a cautionary tale for Trump, the Public First research found.

As Starmer confronts dropping favorability ratings, Trump’s own numbers have also plummeted — and the segment of cynical Americans may be as dangerous for the president as their British cohort is for the prime minister.

Among this group, 57 percent hold an unfavorable view of Trump and his agenda, compared with 48 percent nationally.

That could pose a challenge for Republicans heading into the midterms. Elections in the U.S. historically punish the party in power, and many Republicans are bracing for an even more difficult than anticipated midterm landscape, fueled by the mounting economic concerns and an unpopular war in Iran.

“The biggest mood shift is taking place among voters in the big middle,” Madden said. “These are the same voters that migrated toward Trump and the GOP in 2024 because they were nostalgic for a Trump economy and they rallied around a message focused on tackling inflation.”.

Sizable shares of cynical Americans hold negative views about the economy. Among these respondents, 52 percent say their financial situation has worsened since Trump took office in 2025 and 59 percent say Trump has spent too much time focused on international affairs rather than domestic issues.

Trump, who rode to power in 2024 in large part over voter dissatisfaction to the economy during the Biden administration, is now confronting a similar challenge. Recent polling finds voters increasingly blaming Trump for their financial pressures, even as he continues to cast blame to his predecessor.

Part of the problem for incumbents is that many people blame politicians — not the broader system — for their dissatisfaction, underscoring the challenge for the leaders as voters begin to turn on them. Nearly half of British adults, 45 percent, say the country keeps changing prime ministers “because none of them are any good,” while just 26 percent blame “big problems that not even a good PM could solve.”

As soon as leaders are elected by a frustrated, dissatisfied electorate to turn things around — as both Starmer and Trump were in 2024 — the clock begins to tick.

“Elections are so often now about which candidate can channel the frustrations of a cynical electorate,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First, Blue Light News’s polling partner.

“Republicans and Democratic candidates alike should pay attention to what is happening in the U.K.,” he said. “It is far harder to win over an antipolitical voter base when you represent the ‘politics,’ and given how fast Britain is working through Prime Ministers cynical voters seem to be getting more common and less patient.”