Joseph Cerrone, Ph.D
America’s secretaries of state are under extraordinary pressure ahead of this year’s elections.
On top of the already demanding task of administering elections for millions of voters, they face persistent conspiracy theories about elections and unprecedented legal pressure from the Department of Justice.
Amid these challenges, election officials from both parties have demonstrated the integrity and independence the job demands, rebutting false claims of fraud and resisting federal demands that exceed the law.
This response is encouraging, but it also illustrates a contradiction at the heart of how we run elections. We expect our election officials to behave impartially, even when political pressure is greatest. Yet in 33 states, the chief election official (usually the secretary of state) is chosen through partisan elections.
Twenty-four of those offices are on the ballot this year.
Even officials with high standards of integrity and impartiality still must wear the uniform of one team to win and keep office. They must run under a party banner, rely on political networks and donors, and appeal to primary voters.
Those conditions create structural pressures that can follow officials throughout their time in office.
Research from Election Reformers Network finds that from 2000 to 2020, secretaries of state elected in partisan races were three times as likely as appointed secretaries to endorse candidates in the elections they oversaw. They were also more than twice as likely to use their position as a steppingstone to run for higher office.
And the concern extends beyond endorsements and political ambitions. Secretaries of state make consequential decisions that affect how elections are run and whether voters trust the results. In recent years, some secretaries have used their power to manipulate citizen initiatives and made policy decisions with political motivations.
At a time when confidence in elections is already fragile, real or perceived partisanship on the part of election officials can do significant damage. No other democracy in the world selects their election officials in partisan elections—and fortunately, there are several good alternatives to consider.
California lawmakers recently proposed one solution, making the secretary of state a nonpartisan office. While still being elected, candidates would no longer have party designations on the ballot and could not be nominated by political parties.
That approach appears to fit what voters want. More than a decade of polling from the MIT Election Data & Science Lab finds that large bipartisan majorities believe election officials should be selected on a nonpartisan basis.
In 2024, this policy was supported by 76% of survey respondents, including 79% of Democrats and independents, along with 70% of Republicans.
Furthermore, research from the University of Chicago suggests that nonpartisan selection of election officials may increase voter trust, even if partisan officials rarely use their authority to actually tip the scales.
California's proposal is a promising step forward, but taking party labels off the ballot should be the beginning of the conversation, not the end.
A nonpartisan election can still produce a highly partisan election official. Political parties can indicate their support for candidates, partisan donors can finance campaigns, and ambitious politicians can view the office as a first step to a career in politics.
States should therefore think more creatively about what qualifications and guardrails this office requires.
For example, individuals could be required to have relevant election administration experience or training to qualify for office, much as most states require attorneys general and judges to have legal qualifications.
Once in office, secretaries could be prohibited from endorsing or campaigning for candidates in elections they oversee. States could even restrict chief election officials from running for higher office during and shortly after their tenure, reducing their incentive to make decisions with the next campaign in mind.
There is also reason to reconsider whether election is the best selection method at all. Appointment can insulate chief election officials from campaigning and eliminate the inherent conflict involved in overseeing one's own re-election. In fact, research on local election administration finds that appointed officials significantly outperform elected ones.
Building on the example of judicial nominating commissions, states could establish boards of elections experts to vet and nominate a shortlist of qualified candidates for appointment by the governor or state legislature.
Or even better, states could separate election administration from the secretary of state's other responsibilities altogether, as ten states already do. Instead, a state election board could select the chief election officer and work collaboratively to ensure impartial election administration.
None of these approaches guarantees perfect neutrality—no institutional design can. The goal isn’t perfection; it’s meaningful change that makes impartial conduct more likely and partisan pressure less consequential.
Twenty-four chief election officer races this year provide a good occasion to start asking that question. The people entrusted with overseeing elections occupy a fundamentally different role from the politicians competing in them. Our rules for choosing them should reflect that distinction.
Joseph Cerrone is a Senior Research Fellow at Election Reformers Network. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from George Washington University.