A new Government Accountability Institute report warns of vulnerabilities involving voter eligibility, ballot handling, political financing, foreign influence and voting technology, calling for stronger safeguards as Americans prepare to vote in Tuesday’s midterm elections.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Institute has identified more than 50 potential threats to American election integrity ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections, citing concerns involving noncitizen voting, voter registration records, campaign financing, ballot security and foreign influence operations.
The institute’s biennial Top 50 Election Threats report examines vulnerabilities across five major areas of election administration and recommends legislative, regulatory and enforcement changes intended to strengthen public confidence in the electoral process.
Top_50_Election_Threats_2026.pdf by yourNEWS Media
The findings were announced Oct. 30 as election officials across the country finalized preparations for congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative elections that will determine the political balance of power in Washington and numerous state capitals.
“America’s elections face threats from every direction – foreign adversaries, political operatives, dark money, and government officials who refuse to enforce the rules,” GAI President Peter Schweizer said in a statement accompanying the report’s release. “This report exposes more than fifty documented vulnerabilities.”
The institute describes the findings as documented weaknesses that could permit improper activity, rather than proof that each identified vulnerability has been exploited to alter election results.
GAI Vice President Eric Eggers, who oversees the organization’s voter fraud investigations, said the report was intended to identify problems that election officials could address through existing laws and additional safeguards.
“None of these threats are hypothetical – each one is documented, and most can be fixed if officials are willing to enforce the laws already on the books,” Eggers said.
One of the report’s principal concerns involves the accuracy of voter registration records and the possibility that noncitizens may have been improperly registered.
GAI cited Department of Homeland Security findings that it said identified approximately 278,000 noncitizens on voter registration lists through reviews involving data from multiple states.
The organization also reported that federal officials had identified approximately 20,000 potentially ineligible registrations in California.
Those figures remain allegations requiring careful distinction between database matches, confirmed citizenship status, unlawful registration and actual illegal votes.
A voter flagged by a database search may be a naturalized citizen whose records have not been updated, and an improper registration does not establish that a ballot was cast.
Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, although certain jurisdictions allow noncitizens to participate in specified local contests.
GAI identified 22 local governments that permit some form of noncitizen voting, including Washington, D.C., where eligible noncitizen residents may vote in local elections.
The report calls for stronger constitutional language in states where existing provisions do not explicitly limit all elections to U.S. citizens.
Voters in Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota and West Virginia will decide citizenship-related constitutional amendments Tuesday.
The organization also raised concerns about the practices used to maintain registration lists.
GAI criticized states that declined federal requests to compare voter records with federal citizenship databases, arguing that those decisions could prevent election officials from identifying potentially ineligible registrations.
Some states have objected to federal data requests on privacy, security and legal grounds.
The report also discusses the Electronic Registration Information Center, a nonprofit organization that helps participating states identify voters who have moved, died or may have duplicate registrations.
GAI questions information-sharing relationships involving ERIC and the Center for Election Innovation and Research, another election-related nonprofit.
Those relationships have attracted political scrutiny, although the existence of data-sharing agreements does not independently establish improper access or misuse.
Another concern identified by the institute involves voter identification requirements.
GAI reported that 36 states have some form of voter identification requirement and 24 require photographic identification in specified circumstances.
The rules vary substantially, including provisions permitting alternative identification, signed statements or provisional ballots.
The organization also cited Wisconsin’s procedures for voters classified as indefinitely confined, a designation that allows certain individuals to obtain absentee ballots without providing the photo identification ordinarily required with an application.
GAI reported that approximately 150,000 Wisconsin voters used that classification in 2024.
The report argues that exceptions to identification requirements deserve further scrutiny to ensure that they are used appropriately.
Election administrators and disability advocates have emphasized that lawful exceptions can be important for voters who face medical or mobility barriers.
The institute separately examines assistance provided to residents of nursing homes, group homes and homeless shelters.
Its report describes Minnesota procedures allowing authorized staff at certain facilities to vouch for the residence of multiple individuals registering to vote.
GAI characterizes the practice as a potential weakness when eligibility checks depend heavily on third-party attestations.
The organization also warns about what it calls “granny farming,” a term used to describe efforts to exploit elderly or otherwise vulnerable voters through improper ballot collection, coercion or influence.
Election laws generally provide safeguards against voter intimidation and fraudulent ballot handling while permitting lawful assistance for voters who need help.
Another major area of concern involves political fundraising.
GAI discusses allegations of “smurfing,” a term used for schemes in which numerous small contributions are made or recorded under other individuals’ names to conceal the true source of political funding.
The institute cites congressional investigations involving ActBlue, the Democratic fundraising platform, and questions about unusually large numbers of donations attributed to certain contributors.
According to GAI, Federal Election Commission records showed tens of thousands of donations associated with some individuals, including one Colorado woman whose name appeared in more than 57,000 contribution records across variations of her name.
An unusually large number of recorded transactions may warrant examination, but does not alone establish that contributions were unauthorized or illegally financed.
The report also examines political spending involving nonprofit organizations and wealthy donors, including funding networks associated with George Soros and organizations that received support from Mark Zuckerberg.
GAI reported that more than $300 million from networks it identified as associated with those donors flowed to America Votes, a voter mobilization organization, through 2024.
The organization also discussed mailers sent to Nevada voters that referenced their participation in previous elections.
Voter participation histories, unlike individual ballot choices, are available through public election records in many states.
Such information is sometimes used in political outreach, although critics argue that mailers highlighting voting histories can create inappropriate social pressure.
The report raises separate questions about foreign influence.
GAI alleges that organizations with connections to Chinese and Mexican government representatives have maintained relationships with U.S.-based groups engaged in voter registration and turnout activities.
Federal campaign finance law prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures in connection with U.S. elections, subject to applicable legal definitions and exceptions.
However, contacts between foreign officials and domestic organizations do not, by themselves, establish unlawful election interference.
The institute calls for greater scrutiny of foreign relationships and political funding arrangements to ensure that prohibited foreign money does not influence American elections.
Emerging technologies constitute another category of concern.
GAI cites research examining political tendencies in artificial intelligence chatbots and questions whether AI-generated answers could influence voters seeking election information.
The report also discusses internet-based voting, including a system that permits certain Anchorage, Alaska, voters to return ballots electronically.
The organization cites computer scientists who have questioned the security of mobile voting technology, particularly the difficulty of independently verifying ballots submitted through internet-connected devices.
Election security researchers have long warned that online ballot transmission can introduce risks involving malware, unauthorized access and verification.
GAI also examines financing associated with data center development and surveillance-related technology companies, arguing that the growing industry’s political expenditures warrant additional transparency.
In its recommendations, the institute calls for congressional consideration of the SAVE America Act, legislation intended to strengthen documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration and establish additional identification requirements.
The organization also advocates more comprehensive voter registration audits, tighter rules governing outside political financing and improvements in election technology safeguards.
“The problem isn’t one bad actor or one broken election law,” GAI Executive Director of Research Seamus Bruner said. “It’s a system riddled with vulnerabilities that powerful interests can exploit. Our investigation identifies more than fifty threats – and shows exactly where the safeguards are failing.”
The report arrives amid broader national concern about election administration.
A July Gallup survey found that 67% of Americans were concerned about political leaders pressuring election officials to change results, while 57% expressed concern about ballots being improperly handled, counted or secured.
The FBI’s October election crime advisory identified voter fraud, campaign finance violations, threats against election workers and civil rights violations as categories of potential federal election crimes.
Federal authorities encouraged citizens to report suspected offenses while emphasizing the importance of protecting lawful participation.
The competing concerns reflect two central responsibilities of election administration: preventing unlawful interference and ensuring that eligible voters can cast ballots without improper obstacles.
Election security officials also distinguish between identifying a possible vulnerability and documenting an actual violation. A weakness in a registration system, voting procedure or campaign finance platform does not establish that a particular election has been compromised.
GAI’s findings represent the organization’s assessment of the risks facing American elections, and several of its allegations remain contested or require additional independent verification.
As voters prepare to elect members of Congress, governors and thousands of state officials Tuesday, the report places renewed attention on voter eligibility, the security of voting systems, campaign finance transparency and the enforcement of existing election laws.
The institute maintains that many of the vulnerabilities it identified can be addressed through stronger oversight and consistent enforcement, while election officials must also ensure that security measures comply with federal and state voting protections.
Original article
Comments