Public opinion about election integrity and election administration is frequently cited in policy debates in the United States. Due to their role in administering elections, local election officials (LEOs) provide an authoritative voice on election-related matters. Yet it remains unclear whether differences between LEO and public opinion reflect compositional differences between these groups or fundamentally distinct ways of evaluating election integrity and reform. We compare the main predictors of opinions about election administration for LEOs and the public in the United States on election integrity, voting values, and election reforms using national surveys from 2020 and 2024. We find that LEOs report higher confidence in election integrity and lower belief in fraud than the public, even after accounting for partisanship and demographics. We find similarities between public and LEO opinions on election security and reform proposals, including significant partisan differences. Partisan differences in confidence and reform preferences are larger among the public than among LEOs, indicating that professional expertise moderates, but does not eliminate, partisan polarization. In a polarized democracy, professional expertise can maintain election integrity but does not ensure public trust, highlighting the limits of technocratic authority in restoring confidence in democratic institutions when partisan narratives dominate.
Manion et al. (Wed,) studied this question.