A recent survey conducted by the Center for Transparent and Trusted Elections at UC San Diego found that only 60% of respondents were confident votes in the midterm elections will be counted accurately.
UCSD Professor Lauren Prather, co-director of the center, sat down with Public Matters Host and Reporter Jake Gotta to talk about the results of the survey.
The interview below has been edited for length and clarity.
Professor, tell me what this survey found specifically and then why it was so alarming.
Prof. Prather: So one of the things we were interested in testing with this survey was to examine trends in public opinion toward elections, specifically trust in elections.
Since the first year of Trump's term, we've been surveying Americans since 2022, asking them about their confidence in U.S. elections. And specifically for this survey, we wanted to understand how trust had changed since just after the 2024 presidential election. And one thing that we found was that it declined by about seventeen percentage points.
So there was fairly strong confidence after the 2024 presidential election, especially among Republicans, who saw their trust in elections climb considerably from just before the election to just after. And since then, we've seen a decline across all parties; Democrats, Republicans and independents all trust that the 2026 midterms are going to be counted accurately less than they did the 2024 election.
And how long have you or have you been tracking this or looking into trust in elections? Has this been going on for several cycles?
Prof. Prather: Yeah. So we started with our center and with the Yankelovich center at UCSD, studying trust and elections and tracking public opinion on this topic around 2022. But this is a topic that has been studied in a lot of different surveys. The American National Election Study, for example, has asked questions about trust in elections going back quite a long time. You can look at Gallup as well, has a long timeline of trust in elections.
And what we can see is a decline, especially since the 2000 elections where we had hanging chads and we had the Supreme Court step in to help decide that election. We've seen Americans trust in elections decline since then.
We do see some changes in trust, especially right around an election, depending on whether a person supported the winning candidate or losing candidate. That's a very common phenomenon where that affects people's trust in elections. But we do see an overall decline, and we were especially surprised at this jump from just after the 2024 election to just a year later, where confidence has taken a considerable dip.
What are some of the key differences between that election in 2024 and now? And why has that changed trust so much?
Prof. Prather: So we're not sure. We don't have strong predictors in our survey where we can say for certain what is causing this. But we know from political science research, for example, that there are a couple of key factors that may be causing this decline.
So one is the rhetoric that elites in society use to talk about elections. And so some of the questions that the Trump administration has continued to ask about the quality and integrity of U.S. elections is probably shaping people's trust, especially people that trust him and his administration. It's causing them to question whether American elections can be trusted.
We've also seen– one thing we can see in our survey is that Americans are pretty skeptical of gerrymandering. Both Republicans and Democrats think that this is an untrustworthy aspect of U.S. elections, and the fact that has been so salient in the last six months, I think, is also causing some concern among Americans and maybe affecting this decline in trust.
When you talk about gerrymandering, you're referring to the redistricting that's happening in multiple states around the country, right?
Prof. Prather: Yes. So we're seeing it happening in blue states. We're seeing it happen in red states. And I think this is partially why we see across the board among Republicans and Democrats, both are sort of skeptical of the so-called redistricting wars and are questioning whether that's going to affect the accuracy of elections in terms of their ability to represent the will of the people.
You mentioned that it's happening in both blue and red states, but this current round of redistricting-off, if you can call it that, all started with what happened in Texas, is that correct? And the Republicans there who chose to redraw their map?
Prof. Prather: Yeah. So it's somewhat unusual for it to happen mid-cycle. So, usually we see some redistricting, some redrawing of the lines happening around the times of the census where redistricting is happening to bring congressional districts in line with the new census and demographic trends in states. So we did see some states, particularly Texas, decide to implement redistricting mid-cycle. So in 2025, between the census cycles. And then we did see California come in and say that if Texas chooses this path, then California was going to respond by changing its district lines. So we have seen this kind of call and response happening, which is why some of the framing around this has been that this is a redistricting war.
But we still see Democrats and Republicans putting some blame on their own party, as well as putting blame on the other party. So I think we can say pretty definitively that Americans don't like redistricting. And that's a pretty bipartisan position.
California had an independent commission that would redraw our lines. Other states don't necessarily have that. Why don't other states follow suit with what California did before this whole thing kicked off?
Prof. Prather: That's a good question. And one that actually I don't have a lot of background in. So I would hesitate to guess. But I think in terms of what would give voters the most confidence, I think an independent commission, anything that's nonpartisan or bipartisan efforts to manage elections are trust enhancing aspects of elections. Definitely.
Note: In recent years, Democratic Senators have pushed legislation that would require states adopt an independent commission for congressional redistricting.
In at least four states, Republican lawmakers have supported independent redistricting commissions. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) also introduced a bill in 2025 to prohibit mid-decade redistricting but the bill would not require independent commissions.
One of the other things that the paper about your survey spoke on was the expectation of ICE or federal agents at the polls. Can you tell us what survey respondents told the center about that?
Prof. Prather: Sure. There are actually three key findings that we think are especially interesting related to ICE or other federal agents, expectations about ICE or other federal agents at the election. So, one is that a fair number of people, I think more than 30% across Democrats, Republicans and independents expect, or think it's likely that ICE could be at the polls around the midterms.
And I want to note that our survey took place before we saw the significant immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota. So what we're reporting with this survey might actually change, or these expectations might actually have increased since the salience of these immigration enforcement efforts in mid January.
So the first interesting finding was that people expect or think it's likely that ICE is going to be at the polls. The second thing is how this affects their trust. And so while we see that Democrats, Republicans and independents, 30% or more think it's likely that ICE is going to be at the polls, where they diverge is whether this will increase or decrease their trust.
What we actually see is that Democrats believe that ICE at the polls should be a cause of concern, and would lead them to have less trust. We see that for Republicans, they actually think that this would give them more confidence in elections. And so we do see some partisan differences there in the way that expectation maps on to trust.
And then the third thing I want to say is we do see that although the expectations about ICE at the polls is relatively steady across communities of color in our survey, where they diverge is in whether that's a cause of concern for them. So we also asked people whether they– if ICE were at the polls, whether they expected themselves or their family to be interrogated and whether they expected to face intimidation. And there we see communities of color much more concerned about the presence of ICE than white respondents in our survey.
And so do you think that concern reflects people who feel targeted by the Trump administration's immigration enforcement?
Prof. Prather: Sure. I think the fact that the Trump administration has used other points of contact with the government to enforce their immigration policies makes sense and and perfectly shapes the expectations of those communities of color who have been targeted by these enforcement actions to think, well, voting, going to the polls is another point of contact with the government, and they might use this to then interrogate me or my family, or seek to enforce my immigration status in some way.
Here in California, everybody gets mailed a ballot. You can still go to the polls, obviously, but that mail-in ballot process, does your survey or your research study how that impacts trust in our elections? And could that be different for different partisan groups as well?
Prof. Prather: It is. So we do see that Democrats and Republicans trust and distrust different aspects of elections. And we do see distrust in vote by mail concentrated among Republican respondents. We see Democrats more concerned that eligible voters might be intimidated or otherwise prevented from voting. So we do see divergence in what different aspects legally or illegally shape people's perceptions of trust.
One thing that we thought would be interesting in our study, but we don't have much evidence of yet, was whether or not people's expectations about ICE would shape whether they intended to vote by mail or vote in person. We see some small movements into the vote by mail category, but nothing that is statistically significant. But it's something we're watching.
Got it. So do you think that the politicians who are driving these changes, the things that are impacting trust in our elections, do you think that there's a potential that they're hoping for less trust in our elections, and how that might deter some voters from showing up?
Prof. Prather: I think it's possible. I can't project myself into the minds of politicians. But I think it's a double-edged sword because on the one hand, you might deter some voters, which might boost your numbers in the poll. On the other hand, it undermines your legitimacy.
We know that trustworthy elections make governments and leaders viewed as more legitimate. Their policy desires then become easier to enact if everyone thinks they're legitimate, citizens are more likely to follow those rules than if they believe the government is a legitimate authority. And so you're sort of shooting yourself in the foot if you undermine elections and undermine their credibility because it ultimately undermines your own, and your own administration's credibility.
We've seen this all over the world. And honestly, it is quite costly for governments to take these steps because then they have to do more to coerce their citizens into following the rules, as opposed to them willingly following because they view a legitimate authority as having made them.
You know, I have to say, doesn't it seem just a little crazy to be having conversations about legitimate elections here in America? Is that something that we're used to, or is that something that's new for people who are born in a country that sort of prides itself on democracy and elections?
Prof. Prather: Yes and no. Because historically we have disenfranchised groups of people. We have made it more difficult for certain groups of people to vote. So there are people who have said, you know what? American elections have constantly been evolving.
There are reasons that historically, our elections didn't accurately reflect the will of the people in the United States, because certain people weren't able to vote or were prevented from voting by numerous means. And that was relatively recent history, right? We have the Jim Crow laws in the South, for example. Right.
Prof. Prather: So this is something that even in recent memory, American elections have had to deal with. So I actually, I don't think it's crazy that we're having these conversations now. But I think it's why democracy is a constantly evolving institution and one that citizens have to constantly be vigilant about and invest in.
You know, work at elections, be a poll worker, be an observer, be invested in your democracy because it's not– it's not a given. And there are lots of countries around the world that would tell you it's not a given.
And we can, I guess, slide backward on that scale of democracy, right? It's not like once we get to a point where it's set there.
Prof. Prather: Correct.
So how can this trust be rebuilt in the future, if we're an evolving and growing democracy? How do we rebuild that trust among our people in our elections, or is it something that, once it happens, there's nothing you can do?
Prof. Prather: Well, this is something that our center at UC San Diego is trying to address. So one of the things that we are trying to address with the research that we do is to assist election officials and election administrators who, by and large, are administrating elections locally at the county level, at the city level, extremely competently and with high levels of integrity.
So we're trying to help them figure out how to communicate these security protections, be more transparent about how elections work, in the hopes that this will build more confidence in American voters.
One of the things that we've seen across the board in our research is more communication, more information, more transparency has led to measurable increases in trust in elections among citizens.
One of the difficulties, though, for election administrators is since the 2020 election, they've really taken on this dual purpose. Their job has expanded. They are now both required to do a lot of media and outreach, not just about how and when to vote, but about all of these other security protections and about how elections work, which is something they may not necessarily, you know, have a degree in communications for.
Right.
Prof. Prather: So they might run perfectly competent elections, but don't have the know-how or the resources to be able to effectively communicate this to citizens. And so that's really where our center is trying to support them, partner with them, offer them assistance, trying to test what works, what doesn't. What works best for them so they know where to put those resources most effectively.
Is that something that people on the ground in their own cities and in states can address and try and support without needing help from the federal government?
Prof. Prather: Yeah. So, states determine the time, place and manner of elections. They put a lot of resources into elections. So states have a lot of control about election laws, about how elections are run. And we want to support states and counties in these efforts.
But you're right to point out, to sort of use the universal we there, you know, how can we get involved. And definitely I think there's a lot of room for the average citizen to get involved to vote, whether by mail or in person; to work elections, to be poll workers; to volunteer for campaigns. If that's something that you're interested in or feel strongly about.
All of this engagement is what makes our democracy work and work better. And one of the things we're trying to study also is does participating in those kinds of activities increase your confidence in elections? Because if you can see behind the scenes, if you sign up to be a poll worker because you're initially skeptical about how elections are run, my guess is that most places you would see, yeah, they're run pretty well, right? And so if I'm going to work the polls and be trained, and now I'm invested in the process, that's going to hopefully lead to more confidence in elections.
And it seems like pretty thankless work for the people who do show up every year and do this election work as well, right? And those people are in need of support?
Prof. Prather: I would say they are. I mean, one thing that we've also been doing with our work at the center is to just try to listen to election officials about what their concerns are. And unfortunately, one concern that we've seen across the country is election officials being targeted by threats of violence or just other types of harassment. And this is extremely unfortunate because, again, by and large, the vast majority of these individuals are–should be respected public servants who are taking on sometimes a thankless task.
So, again, this is one of the implications of declining trust in elections is you get more people that are potentially willing to harass or otherwise intimidate election officials if they think bad things are going on in the election world.
It makes our work feel even more important to hear that election officials are concerned about this and that we can potentially help them by, you know, being more transparent about elections and increasing confidence.
Absolutely. Thank you so much for talking to me today. I really appreciate it.
Prof. Prather: Yeah, thank you.
