Bad-faith efforts framed as “election integrity” are being used to undermine public trust in democratic systems.
Attacks on the legitimacy of U.S. elections is steadily moving beyond political rhetoric into political tactics as some government actors are testing the boundaries of election oversight in ways that could undermine public trust.
Recently, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized roughly 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election citing fraud allegations that election officials and courts have not found credible. This case has been winding its way through California courts, with the California Supreme Court holding that Bianco’s investigation must stop while the case is being litigated.
Here’s what we know: This was a miscalculation or misrepresentation of preliminary data, not evidence that election officials have identified as voter fraud. Election officials investigated these claims and have explained that they are based on misleading interpretations of the data.
I spoke with Jill Garvey, co-director of States at the Core—a nonprofit organization focused on countering authoritarianism and defending democratic institutions at the local level—about what this means for elections, democracy and the ongoing threat of authoritarianism.
After allegations of widespread voter fraud in 2024, we heard from experts that voter fraud is not an actual issue, but more likely a political tactic, and Garvey agrees.
This is a narrative strategy to introduce the idea that something is really wrong that Americans should be concerned about.
Jill Garvey, co-director of States at the Core
Garvey finds that this misrepresentation of the data is likely intentional, explaining that a small group of people who call themselves the Riverside Election Integrity Team are behind the allegations. According to Garvey, this group is connected to larger, nationwide organizations who have become experts in elections by trying to disrupt them. While claiming they’re working towards election integrity, as their name suggests, Garvey explains that this actually a misnomer—and the pattern is intentional:
“They know that they’re misreading the data and they’re using the fact that reading the early data is a little complicated. …
“These so-called election integrity folks are experts. They have become experts, so they know better than anybody that they are purposely misreading the data. And I think one of the problems is that they’re plugged into a national network, so this sort of stuff happens in lots of other places, these challenges or these complaints and requests for investigations. …
“The response from the people running our elections is a very earnest and sincere effort to clear up any misconceptions. Even when they do, even when they sort of lay out [the facts] and are 100 percent transparent, and point out the accuracy of the data, there are still calls for investigations. So the narrative, it’s really not misinformation, it’s disinformation, because they are purposely pushing information that they know is false.”
Garvey stresses that this is a narrative that the election integrity groups across the country are trying to push to call into question the integrity of all U.S. elections and to sow distrust in the U.S. election process. These tactics are based on claims and accusations that are deeply unfounded:
“The reality is that our elections function really, really well—surprisingly, given how so many other things run by the government in the U.S. don’t run well. This is one area of our governance and our democracy that I think is actually super high functioning. But that won’t stop the sort of narrative machine from trying to convince people that this isn’t done well, that it’s not fair. In some cases, that’s going to be used to convince people not to vote at all, or there probably will be, simultaneously, rumors or disinformation generated about who can vote and how.”
Garvey situates these efforts within a broader set of concerns about Project 2025, election administration and democratic backsliding. Garvey explains:
“This is one of the first ways that authoritarian movements are throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. I don’t think the expectation was that they would win some legal victory here. I mean, the California Supreme Court has already forced him to pause his investigation. So this is not about some technical victory, because they know that there’s no real discrepancy. This is a narrative strategy to introduce the idea that something is really wrong that Americans should be concerned about. And our extreme sheriffs, our constitutional sheriffs should be the ones to step in and do something about it.”
All of this is occurring as Bianco is running for governor in the California primary on June 2, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest because the investigation involves an election system he is also campaigning within.
These efforts to challenge election systems aren’t going unchecked at the local level, however. Communities are banding together to resist these incursions, including by creating defense networks to counteract overwhelming ICE presence. Garvey notes that this community level work isn’t always understood as anti-authoritarianism, but that is what it is. Communities are mobilized and that power is important to harness:
“The people who encouraged and suggested that Sheriff Bianco go seize these ballots are a relatively small group of people, a really small group of people, compared to the 650,000 voters who had their votes seized. There is actually a lot of power in these small formations. I actually think a lot of the sort of increased engagement over the last year from people in their places, in response to Trump’s mass deportation strategy is a great place to start. Most places in the country have at least dozens, if not hundreds, of people engaged and work to counter authoritarianism now, and it’s just not what we’re calling it. And that’s okay, we don’t have to call it that. But we have all these people sort of facing the same direction and understanding what’s happening, and we can apply that new mobilization to any authoritarian threat, whether it’s to our elections or to our neighbors.”
Efforts to interfere in elections are likely going to continue, but the people have shown that civic engagement can also shape how communities respond to threats to democratic norms through raising awareness and local organization.
Garvey put it this way: “It’s going to be a hard slog, but it’s working.”
