Election Denial in North Dakota
0 Election Deniers currently hold statewide office with election oversight power.
0 Election Deniers are on the ballot for statewide office.
1 Election Denier has held, or run for, statewide office since 2020.
The landscape in North Dakota
It’s hard enough for state and local election officials to do their jobs. Their offices are often understaffed and underfunded, not to mention the hazards that come with the work.
North Dakota is among the states that have made conditions even tougher by banning donations to support election funding. Many of these state bans trace their origins to an election conspiracy theory about Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
A North Dakota woman who was in Washington for the Jan. 6 protests was later elected to the state legislature.
0 Election Deniers hold statewide Office right now.
Elections are run by the states. In North Dakota, the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State are the state officials responsible for overseeing 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
No candidates match the selected filters.
0 Election Deniers are on statewide Ballots in races we're tracking.
North Dakota has a race in 2024 for at least one of the statewide offices that oversee elections. Here are the candidates.
Read more about The Roles of Our Elected Officials in Elections
No candidates match the selected filters.
How North Dakota compares
Every state runs its own elections, with its own laws and processes. Check out how North Dakota compares with other states in its region when it comes to Election Deniers holding state election administration jobs.
Election Denial in Plains States
Sitting official is an Election Denier
Election Denial in Ongoing Races
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 State Commissioner of Elections | Moreinformation about Delaware | |
3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Moreinformation about Indiana | |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moreinformation about Missouri | |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moreinformation about Montana | |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moreinformation about New Hampshire | |
1 | 1 | 0 | 0 State Elections Board | Moreinformation about North Carolina | |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moreinformation about North Dakota | |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moreinformation about Oregon | |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moreinformation about Pennsylvania | |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 Lieutenant Governor | Moreinformation about Utah | |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moreinformation about Vermont | |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moreinformation about Washington | |
3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moreinformation about West Virginia |
States are colored by the number of Election Deniers running for office:
0
1
2
3+
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 North Dakota 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 North Dakota Since 2016
- #071B40
- President
- #2455A0
- Senator
- #4387F1
- Governor
- #A7C5F3
- Attorney General
- #EDF3FD
- Secretary of State
2016 Presidential
-
President had a 62% voter turnout rate
-
Senator had a 62% voter turnout rate
-
Governor had a 61% voter turnout rate
-
2018 Midterm
-
Senator had a 58% voter turnout rate
-
Attorney General had a 57% voter turnout rate
-
Secretary of State had a 55% voter turnout rate
-
2020 Presidential
-
President had a 64% voter turnout rate
-
Governor had a 63% 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. Rates will be updated when the Census releases new CVAP data for 2022.
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.” In 2023 alone, through early May, we tracked 185 bills introduced in 38 state legislatures that would politicize, criminalize, or interfere with elections.
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.
Legislative Interference in North Dakota by Category
As of May 3, 2023, 2 bills had been introduced or were under consideration in North Dakota. 1 has been enacted or adopted and none have been vetoed after passing.
These bills show that the threat to elections in North Dakota, and all across the country, goes well beyond the ballot box.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
One of these bills was enacted. It fell into the category of creating unworkable burdens in election administration.