Skip to main content

Election Denial in Maryland

  • 0 Election Deniers currently hold statewide office with election oversight power.

  • 2 Election Deniers have held, or run for, statewide office since 2020.

  • 1 Election Denier are sitting members of Congress.

The landscape in Maryland

Voters in Maryland stood up for democracy in 2022 and decisively rejected Election Deniers who sought control of the state’s election. 

In the Governor’s race, Wes Moore handily defeated Dan Cox, who called for President Trump to seize voting machines in 2020, chartered three buses to the Stop the Steal rally on Jan. 6, 2021, and called Vice President Mike Pence a traitor. Another Election Denier, Michael Peroutka, lost the race for Attorney General by 30 points. 

However, at the federal level, one Member of Congress from Maryland — Rep. Andy Harris — was among the 147 who voted to overturn 2020 election results on Jan. 6 and 7, 2021. And at the state level, one of the members of the Board of Elections resigned in early 2024 after being arrested by the FBI on charges stemming from his participation in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Maryland is part of a nationwide trend to scrutinize voter rolls, efforts that often go hand-in-hand with election conspiracies as vigilantes look for voter fraud. A nonprofit has threatened to sue the state on behalf of two Marylanders who want access to voter registration records. A state official reinforced to Fox45 News that the state follows all federal and state laws in maintaining its voter rolls.

0 Election Deniers hold statewide Office right now.

Elections are run by the states. In Maryland, the Governor, Attorney General, and administrator of elections are the state officials responsible for overseeing elections. In most states, the Secretary of State is the chief election official. Maryland is an exception: The administrator of elections is appointed by the State Board of Elections. It’s up to them to make sure the will of the people is always respected.

Read more about The Roles of Our Elected Officials in Elections

All parties
Election Deniers

No candidates match the selected filters.

1 Election Denier is sitting members of congress right now.

Election Deniers make up 10 percent of Maryland’s 10-member Congressional delegation. Members of Congress have a public platform to build up or tear down trust in our elections. And they have concrete responsibilities, too, such as determining federal funding for elections.

Read more about The Roles of Our Elected Officials in Elections

All parties
Election Deniers
Headshot of Andy Harris
R
Andy Harris

Representative of Maryland, District 1

Term started 2023

Term ends 2025

Election Denier
Election Denial Record What makes an Election Denier
  • Refused to certify, or called on or pressured election officials to refuse to certify, the 2020 presidential election results or a race in subsequent elections based on meritless claims about election fraud, voter fraud, misinformation, or lies.

  • Taken action to undermine the integrity of the 2020 presidential election or subsequent election cycles, including:

    • Filing or supporting litigation seeking to overturn the results based on conspiracies or baseless legal theories.

    • Filing or supporting litigation that was sanctioned for being malicious or without merit in the aftermath of an election.

    • Promoting or participating in a Stop the Steal–sponsored or branded event or rally during or following the 2020 election.

    • Calling for a “forensic audit” of the 2020 presidential election or a race in subsequent elections after the results were certified, were officially audited, or stood up to multiple legal challenges.

  • Falsely claimed former President Trump won the 2020 presidential election instead of the legitimate winner, President Biden.

  • Spread lies or promoted conspiracies about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election or subsequent election cycles in public, including in social media, press statements, or comments to the press.

  • Refused to concede a race, or publicly supported a candidate’s refusal to concede a race, after the results were officially audited or stood up to multiple legal challenges.

How Maryland compares

Every state runs its own elections, with its own laws and processes. Check out how Maryland compares with other states in its region when it comes to Election Deniers holding state election administration jobs.

Election Denial in Mideast States

State Commissioner of Elections

Moreinformation about Delaware

State Elections Board

Moreinformation about District of Columbia

State Elections Board

Moreinformation about Maryland
Moreinformation about New Jersey

State Elections Board

Moreinformation about New York
Moreinformation about Pennsylvania

Sitting official is an Election Denier

  1. In Delaware, the Governor appoints the State Commissioner of Elections.
  2. In Washington, D.C., the Executive Director is appointed by the District of Columbia Board of Elections.
  3. In Maryland, the Administrator of Elections is appointed by the Maryland State Board of Elections.
  4. In New Jersey, the Governor appoints the Secretary of State.
  5. In New York, the Co-Executive Directors are appointed by the New York State Board of Elections.
  6. In Pennsylvania, the Governor appoints the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

2 Election Deniers have held, or have run for, statewide Office since 2020.

Even one Election Denier with election oversight power is a threat to the will of the people. Here are the Election Deniers who have sought control over Maryland elections in recent years.

All parties
All
Headshot of Dan Cox
R
Dan Cox

Ran for Governor of Maryland in 2022

Lost General
Election Denier
Election Denial Record What makes an Election Denier
  • Spread lies or promoted conspiracies about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election or subsequent election cycles in public, including in social media, press statements, or comments to the press.

  • Taken action to undermine the integrity of the 2020 presidential election or subsequent election cycles, including:

    • Filing or supporting litigation seeking to overturn the results based on conspiracies or baseless legal theories.

    • Filing or supporting litigation that was sanctioned for being malicious or without merit in the aftermath of an election.

    • Promoting or participating in a Stop the Steal–sponsored or branded event or rally during or following the 2020 election.

    • Calling for a “forensic audit” of the 2020 presidential election or a race in subsequent elections after the results were certified, were officially audited, or stood up to multiple legal challenges.

  • Falsely claimed former President Trump won the 2020 presidential election instead of the legitimate winner, President Biden.

  • Refused to certify, or called on or pressured election officials to refuse to certify, the 2020 presidential election results or a race in subsequent elections based on meritless claims about election fraud, voter fraud, misinformation, or lies.

  • Refused to concede a race, or publicly supported a candidate’s refusal to concede a race, after the results were officially audited or stood up to multiple legal challenges.

Headshot of Michael Peroutka
R
Michael Peroutka

Ran for Attorney General of Maryland in 2022

Lost General
Election Denier
Election Denial Record What makes an Election Denier
  • Spread lies or promoted conspiracies about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election or subsequent election cycles in public, including in social media, press statements, or comments to the press.

  • Falsely claimed former President Trump won the 2020 presidential election instead of the legitimate winner, President Biden.

  • Refused to certify, or called on or pressured election officials to refuse to certify, the 2020 presidential election results or a race in subsequent elections based on meritless claims about election fraud, voter fraud, misinformation, or lies.

  • Taken action to undermine the integrity of the 2020 presidential election or subsequent election cycles, including:

    • Filing or supporting litigation seeking to overturn the results based on conspiracies or baseless legal theories.

    • Filing or supporting litigation that was sanctioned for being malicious or without merit in the aftermath of an election.

    • Promoting or participating in a Stop the Steal–sponsored or branded event or rally during or following the 2020 election.

    • Calling for a “forensic audit” of the 2020 presidential election or a race in subsequent elections after the results were certified, were officially audited, or stood up to multiple legal challenges.

  • Refused to concede a race, or publicly supported a candidate’s refusal to concede a race, after the results were officially audited or stood up to multiple legal challenges.

Voter turnout over time

Voters are always the backstop against election denial, whether Election Deniers are already in office or vying for power. It’s important to turn out for every election in your state—and to vote in every race on your ballot. Downballot races, like contests for Attorney General and Secretary of State, have historically drawn fewer voters, even though the positions are critical to keeping elections free, fair, and secure. Here’s a look at voter participation in Maryland elections over time. Notice that in years with several important positions up for election, some voters choose not to vote in every race.

Voter Participation in Maryland Since 2016

#071B40
President
#2455A0
Senator
#4387F1
Governor
#A7C5F3
Attorney General
#EDF3FD
Secretary of State
  1. 2016 Presidential

    • President had a 66% voter turnout rate

    • Senator had a 65% voter turnout rate

  2. 2018 Midterm

    • Senator had a 54% voter turnout rate

    • Governor had a 54% voter turnout rate

    • Attorney General had a 53% voter turnout rate

  3. 2020 Presidential

    • President had a 70% voter turnout rate

  4. 2022 Midterm

    • Senator had a 45% voter turnout rate

    • Governor had a 46% voter turnout rate

    • Attorney General had a 45% voter turnout rate

Voter turnout

Data on the number of votes cast in each race are from state elections depositories, supplemented with data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), House Election Statistics, and The Book of States. Rates are calculated using the Census’s Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) estimates.

Beyond the ballot box

Each year, state legislators introduce thousands of bills related to elections. And in the past few years, we’ve identified a concerning trend. Across the country, state legislatures are considering bills that would make it easier for partisan actors to manipulate an election, and maybe even overturn the will of the people. We’re tracking these bills along with our partners in an ongoing series of reports called “A Democracy Crisis in the Making.” All told, in the 2023 legislative cycle, we identified 196 bills that were introduced in 39 states that would interfere with election administration. Ultimately, 21 of those bills became law across 15 states, while 7 bills were vetoed across 2 states.

The anti-democracy playbook is simple: change the rules and change the referees, in order to change the results. These bills go hand-in-hand with the Election Denier movement: They’re about taking power away from voters and making it harder for trusted election officials to do their jobs.

Read the full report

Legislative Interference in Maryland by Category

As of November 15, 2023, no bills had been introduced or were under consideration in Maryland. None have been enacted or adopted and none have been vetoed after passing.

  • Usurping control over election results.
    These bills would give legislators or other state officials direct control over election outcomes.
  • Requiring partisan or unprofessional election “audits” or reviews.
    These bills would establish vague post-election review schemes without the professional standards of traditional audits.
  • Seizing power over election responsibilities.
    These bills would shift election administration responsibilities away from professional, nonpartisan officials and toward partisan actors in the legislature.
  • Creating unworkable burdens in election administration.
    These bills would interfere with the basic procedures of election administration, increasing the risk of chaos and delay and enabling misleading claims of irregularity.
  • Imposing disproportionate criminal or other penalties.
    These bills would create or expand penalties for election officials in the ordinary execution of their jobs, including criminalizing inadvertent mistakes.