Options for Local Election Official Reform

Context

Local election officials (LEOs) are the frontline administrators of American democracy. They recruit poll workers, maintain voter rolls, verify signatures, oversee ballot counting, and respond to voter questions and problems. In most cases, they carry out these responsibilities with professionalism and integrity under increasingly difficult circumstances. Yet the structure of local election administration in many states creates potential conflicts of interest that can undermine public confidence in elections.

In 25 states, local election officials are selected in partisan elections, meaning they appear on the ballot with party labels. In many jurisdictions, these officials are themselves active party members, candidates for re-election, or participants in partisan political networks while simultaneously overseeing elections that directly affect those same parties and candidates.

These arrangements can create tension between two roles: the obligation to administer elections neutrally and the political incentives associated with partisan officeholding. Even when officials act impartially, the appearance of conflict can damage trust in the process.

In practice, most local election officials administer elections fairly and professionally. Many are deeply committed to neutrality and public service. But the current environment places growing strain on that culture. Election officials increasingly face pressure from voters, activists, party leaders, and candidates regarding how elections are administered.

Recent years have also demonstrated how vulnerable election officials can become when partisan expectations collide with professional obligations. At the same time, many local election officials themselves have expressed support for stronger ethics guidance and clearer professional standards. Interviews among dozens of local election officials conducted by Election Reformers Network found widespread interest in more robust ethics training, clearer conflict-of-interest guidance, and stronger professional norms designed specifically for election administration.

Importantly, these concerns are not primarily about widespread misconduct. Rather, they reflect a broader challenge facing American democracy: election systems increasingly require visible neutrality and institutional resilience in order to maintain public confidence.

Many states already structure local election administration differently. Thirteen states primarily rely on appointed local election officials, while six states primarily use nonpartisan elections. These alternative models demonstrate that partisan election of local election officials is not the only way to organize election administration.

The discussion below outlines several reform approaches states and localities may wish to consider.

Discussing the Options

OPTION 1: ETHICS SUPPORT AND PROFESSIONALIZATION

Many reforms can begin without changing how local election officials are selected.

One important step is strengthening ethics guidance and professional support for election administrators. Across states, local election officials consistently report that existing ethics training is often generic and compliance-oriented rather than focused on the unique dilemmas of election administration. Training frequently emphasizes issues like gift rules or procurement law while devoting less attention to practical election-related challenges, such as:

• responding to pressure from party leaders;
• handling misinformation about election procedures;
• administering elections while appearing on the ballot;
• managing conflicts involving candidates or ballot measures.

States, professional associations, and nonprofit organizations can help address these gaps through specialized election ethics training and clearer professional standards. These efforts could include:

• integrating ethics and conflict-of-interest guidance into regular LEO training;
• adopting voluntary or mandatory codes of professional conduct;
• encouraging conflict-of-interest avoidance plans when officials administer elections in which they are candidates;
• expanding scenario-based ethics training focused on real-world election pressures.

In January 2026, Election Reformers Network partnered with The Elections Group to pilot a scenario-based ethics training for more than 100 local election officials in Colorado. The training focused specifically on navigating partisan pressure, public scrutiny, and conflicts arising during election administration.

Professional associations can also play an important norm-setting role. Many local election officials describe state associations as one of the strongest sources of professional culture, peer accountability, and cross-partisan cooperation in election administration. Strengthening these organizations may help reinforce expectations of neutrality and professionalism across the field.

These reforms would not eliminate all conflicts of interest, but they could strengthen the culture of professional neutrality that already exists among many election officials.

OPTION 2: INCREMENTAL LEGAL REFORMS

States can also adopt narrower legal reforms designed to reduce conflicts of interest while preserving existing systems of local election administration.

One area for reform involves laws that formally tie election officials to party structures. For example, some states require local election officials to hold positions within political party organizations or otherwise maintain formal partisan affiliations connected to their office. In Michigan, county clerks serve on party executive committees by law. Reformers have proposed repealing such requirements in order to create greater separation between election administration and party activity.

States could also establish clearer legal standards governing partisan conduct by local election officials. Possible reforms include prohibiting:

• public endorsement of candidates or ballot measures in elections they oversee;
• partisan fundraising by election officials;
• use of official authority to favor or disadvantage candidates or political causes.

Utah recently adopted elements of this approach through Senate Bill 194, which strengthened neutrality requirements for county clerks and established procedures to address conflicts of interest in election administration. Among other provisions, the law requires an incumbent clerk to transfer candidate signature verification responsibilities when reviewing signatures submitted by a potential opponent.

States could also require formal recusal or conflict-management procedures in situations where election officials oversee races involving themselves, close family members, or other direct political interests. The aforementioned Utah law requires the Lieutenant Governor, who serves as chief election officer, to publish a conflict-of-interest avoidance plan addressing such issues. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson voluntarily published a similar plan during her 2026 gubernatorial campaign.

These kinds of reforms do not require replacing existing election systems. Instead, they seek to reduce the most visible and problematic conflicts while preserving local flexibility.

OPTION 3: DEEPER STRUCTURAL CHANGE

Some states and localities may wish to consider more fundamental reforms to how local election officials are selected. One option is moving from partisan elections to nonpartisan elections for local election officials.

Several states already elect local election officials on a nonpartisan basis. Supporters argue that removing party labels better reflects the fundamentally neutral role election administrators are expected to play and reduces public perception that officials represent one side in the political process. States could pursue this reform statewide or allow counties to opt into nonpartisan systems locally. For example, several counties in Washington state used their home rule powers to establish nonpartisan elections for the county auditor (the LEO).

Another option is appointment rather than election. Research on local election administration has found that appointed election officials often outperform elected officials. Appointment models may also reduce incentives for partisan behavior associated with campaigning, fundraising, and future political ambitions.

Some states already use hybrid approaches. In Montana, counties may choose to appoint an election administrator to manage elections rather than assigning election responsibilities to a partisan-elected county clerk. Other states rely primarily on appointed local election officials selected by county commissions or bipartisan election boards.

States considering appointment systems should pay close attention to how appointments are structured. Appointment alone does not guarantee neutrality. The strongest systems are likely to include:

• balanced or multi-stakeholder appointment processes;
• fixed terms and professional qualifications;
• protections against arbitrary political removal;
• clear ethics and neutrality standards.

Some states may also wish to separate election administration from other county responsibilities altogether by creating professional election administrator positions whose sole focus is elections.

As election administration grows more technically complex and politically sensitive, there is a growing argument that local election management should increasingly function as a professional public administration role rather than a traditional partisan political office.

Conclusion

The goal of local election official reform is not to imply that election administrators are broadly acting in bad faith. In fact, the overwhelming majority of local election officials continue to administer elections professionally under intense public scrutiny and pressure.

Instead, the challenge is structural. American election systems increasingly rely on public confidence in visible neutrality. Even the appearance of conflict of interest can damage trust in election outcomes and place unfair burdens on election officials themselves.

Fortunately, states have many options available. Some reforms are incremental, such as stronger ethics training, conflict-of-interest procedures, and clearer professional standards. Others involve deeper structural changes, including nonpartisan elections or appointment systems designed to insulate election administration from partisan pressures.

Perfect neutrality is impossible in any human institution. But states can build systems that make election administration more visibly impartial, more professionally grounded, and more resilient in periods of political conflict. At a time when public trust in elections is increasingly fragile, those reforms are becoming more important, not less.