Five Election Integrity Models All States Should Follow

A healthy democracy depends on more than the act of voting; it depends on the public’s confidence that the system counting those votes is worthy of trust. In the United States, that confidence is built and maintained largely at the state level, where officials are responsible for designing, administering, and safeguarding the election process. Every ballot cast, every machine used, every rule governing registration or tabulation flows through state and local systems. When those systems are strong, transparent, and well‑run, people feel secure that outcomes reflect the will of the voters. When they are strained or unclear, doubts can spread quickly, even when the underlying process is sound.

States have become the quiet workhorses of American democracy, carrying the responsibility for making sure elections are run in ways that people can trust. Every rule that shapes how voters register, every safeguard that protects a ballot, and every standard that guides local officials originates at the state level. When those systems are strong and well‑designed, voters feel confident that their participation matters and that the process is fair, consistent, and worthy of their engagement. As states refine their approaches, a handful of core needs consistently rise to the top—practical, foundational elements that help elections run smoothly and earn public trust. These ALEC model policies – approved by our Process and Procedures Task Force – can help.

Valid Voter Identification Act

Voter ID is important because it gives elections a clear, consistent way to confirm that each ballot is tied to a real, eligible voter. By anchoring the voting process to a reliable form of identification, states reduce administrative errors, strengthen protections against potential fraud, and create a more uniform experience across voting methods. It also helps reassure the public that safeguards are in place and that the system is treating every voter by the same standard. In a climate where trust in institutions is fragile, a straightforward, well‑designed voter ID requirement can be one of the most visible signals that elections are run fairly and responsibly.

Prohibiting Foreign Funding of Ballot Measures Act

Foreign money influencing state and local ballot measures has become a growing concern because it exposes a gap in U.S. election law: while foreign nationals cannot fund candidates or political parties, they can still spend heavily to shape ballot initiatives that set real policy. This loophole allows overseas governments, corporations, or individuals to steer decisions on issues ranging from energy and land use to labor rules and tax policy—often through nonprofits or intermediaries that mask the true source of funding. The result is a system where voters may unknowingly be weighing campaigns bankrolled by interests that have no stake in the community and no accountability to the people affected by the outcome. This model policy closes this gap, strengthens transparency, and ensures that state and local policy debates are driven by the people who actually live under those laws, not by outside actors with their own agendas.

One Citizen, One Vote Act

Ranked‑choice voting is often presented as a modern upgrade, but in practice, it tends to make elections more confusing, less transparent, and less fair to voters. The system’s complexity leads many people to misunderstand how their rankings work, which increases errors and contributes to ballot exhaustion. Its multi‑round, software‑driven tabulation is harder for the public to follow or verify, replacing a simple “most votes wins” standard with a process that’s slower, costlier, and more difficult to audit. At a time when election systems need clarity and trust, RCV adds layers of complication that can leave voters less confident in the outcome.

The Uniform Election Dates Act

Consolidating election dates increases turnout, reduces costs, and improves security. Voter participation plummets in odd‑year elections even though those races have major local impacts, so aligning election dates helps ensure more people’s voices are represented. Running elections is expensive regardless of ballot length, making it more efficient to hold fewer combined elections rather than multiple separate ones. Consolidation also strengthens security by giving administrators more time to update voter rolls, conduct audits, refine procedures, and recruit enough poll workers to staff polling places effectively. Bringing elections onto a single, predictable schedule is one of the most effective ways to ensure a stronger, more representative, and more secure democratic process.

Interstate Voter Assistance Act

Clean and accurate voter rolls are essential for maintaining trust in elections and ensuring that every eligible voter is counted once and only once. This model offers a straightforward way to support that goal by adding an optional checkbox to the DMV’s change‑of‑residency form. When someone moves, they can simply authorize their new state to notify their former state that they no longer live there, allowing the former state to remove them from its voter rolls. By building this step into a routine process people already complete, the model provides an easy, voter‑driven method for keeping registration lists up to date without adding burdens or creating new bureaucracy.

A strong election system depends on more than well‑designed policies—it depends on states committing to the practical work that keeps those policies functioning day after day. The five ALEC model policies outlined in this post point toward a common goal: systems that are clear, consistent, and capable of earning public confidence not just in moments of calm, but when scrutiny is highest. When states invest in these fundamentals, they create election processes that are easier for voters to navigate, easier for officials to administer, and far more resilient to doubt or disruption. Taken together, these priorities form a roadmap for strengthening the democratic infrastructure that every voter relies on, ensuring elections remain trustworthy, transparent, and worthy of the public’s faith.