Five years ago I wrote an open letter to my old tribe of reporters urging them to treat the legitimacy of our elections as a central democratic issue. I warned then that whether the public trusted the process and whether a losing candidate would accept defeat could determine the fate of American democracy. With the 2026 midterms approaching, that warning feels even more urgent.
The central problem is simple and dangerous: a major political leader continues to repeat a long‑discredited claim that the 2020 election was stolen. Those assertions are false. They were litigated and investigated repeatedly — more than sixty court cases and countless official reviews — and no evidence emerged that would change the outcome. A careful, conservative review published after the 2020 contest reached the same conclusion: there was no fraud on a scale sufficient to alter results in any state. Yet the false narrative persists and keeps being pushed in public statements and social feeds.
Journalists should not treat those repetitions as “old news.” They are an ongoing story because they actively erode public confidence in the institutions that underpin elections. Instead of tacking a single word like “false” onto a quotation and moving on, newsrooms should spend the necessary lines or minutes explaining why the claims do not hold up: how the courts handled the challenges, what recounts and audits found, how election officials and even former administration officials evaluated the evidence — and why independent experts reach the same conclusion.
Ask the hard questions on the record. Every reporter should put this question to every Republican candidate on their ballot: “Do you believe Donald Trump actually won in 2020 and only lost because of massive fraud?” Demand a clear yes or no, and do follow‑ups: “What evidence do you rely on? How do you reconcile that with the lack of findings from recounts and dozens of judicial rulings? Do you think judges across multiple states were complicit in a conspiracy?” If a candidate evades or waffles, press until you get specifics. Voters deserve to know whether the person asking for their support accepts the basic rules that make peaceful transfers of power possible.
But truth-telling alone is not enough. Reporters must expand the way they cover campaigns. Make election administration a regular beat. Learn and explain the nuts and bolts: how voter registration works in your state, who runs polling places, how mail‑in ballots are requested, stored, transported and counted, what security measures are in place, and when recounts or contests can be triggered. Too often coverage focuses on speeches and gaffes rather than the mechanics that determine whether votes are credibly counted.
Treat changes to voting laws and election procedures as ongoing news, not background color. Track proposed and enacted legislation that affects access and security. Monitor local and state election officials: who is being hired or fired, what training or equipment is being added or stripped away, and how budgets are being allocated. Report on practical details that interest ordinary voters: the deadlines they must meet, the appearance of ballots, where to vote in person, and what counts as valid absentee documentation. When controversies such as mail‑in voting reach the courts, explain the process, the legal standards at stake, and the practical implications for voters.
Use and promote trustworthy, specialized sources. Nonprofit organizations and local reporting initiatives that focus on election administration are invaluable. Examples include nonprofit local election reporters who specialize in the how‑it‑works stories, national groups that research election rules and threats to access, and organizations that convene election officials, cybersecurity experts and lawyers to answer reporters’ questions. Cultivate contacts among county and state election administrators and the experts who work with them. Having those relationships ahead of crises lets journalists explain what is happening rather than just describing the arguments of partisans.
A few practical steps newsrooms can adopt immediately:
– Create a standing election‑process beat at the local and state level, with reporters assigned to follow administrators and procedures year round.
– When a candidate or leader repeats a claim that has been litigated or investigated, include a concise recap of the record: court outcomes, audits, statements from officials who oversaw the process, and authoritative reports that summarize the evidence.
– Regularly publish plain‑language explainers about voting methods used in your area — in‑person, early voting, absentee and mail‑in ballots — and the safeguards in place.
– Publicly ask candidates to commit on the record to accept certified results, and report the answers prominently.
– Share and amplify high‑quality, free reporting from outlets that focus exclusively on election administration so smaller local outlets can republish or link.
Journalists alone cannot save democracy. But journalists can make an essential contribution by refusing to treat factual falsehoods as mere rhetorical flourishes and by equipping citizens with the procedural knowledge to judge claims for themselves. In the 1950s and 1960s, reporters covering the civil rights movement helped force a national confrontation with injustice by documenting how systems worked and failed. Today, documenting how elections are run — in plain, steady coverage — is the practical work needed to protect the integrity and acceptance of results.
In short: do not let these attacks on legitimacy fester unexamined. Report the record; question candidates and officeholders on the record; make election administration a sustained beat; and give voters the facts they need to decide. The stakes are high and the time to act is now.