International observers turned away at will
Independent international observers are one of the world's main checks that an election was run fairly. When officials can bar them — or even threaten them — at will, that outside check simply disappears.
Explainer video coming soon
A 60-second, plain-language walkthrough of this gap.
What actually happened
In 2012, the Texas Attorney General threatened OSCE/ODIHR international election observers with criminal prosecution, and Texas, Ohio, and Iowa moved to keep them away from polling places. The OSCE's ODIHR director responded that 'the United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections' — a reminder that observer access shouldn't be optional or discretionary.
Where it stands today
This is current: most jurisdictions don't guarantee international observer access in law, so it remains discretionary — which is why the figure above is high. It reflects today's statutes.
The watchers, and what happens when they're sent home
Independent international observers are one of the world's main checks that an election was run fairly. The check only works if they can actually be there. When officials can bar or intimidate them at will, the outside scrutiny vanishes — and the only people verifying the election are the ones running it.
What it looks like when it breaks
In 2012, the Texas Attorney General threatened OSCE/ODIHR observers with criminal prosecution, and Texas, Ohio, and Iowa moved to keep them from polling places. The OSCE's ODIHR director responded that "the United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections." Access shouldn't be discretionary.
How TrustVoting closes it
Observer access is ultimately a matter of law. But TrustVoting lowers the stakes: because the full result is cryptographically verifiable by anyone, anywhere, meaningful scrutiny no longer depends on who is physically allowed into the room.
How TrustVoting closes it
Observer access is ultimately a matter of law. But TrustVoting lowers the stakes: because the full result is cryptographically verifiable by anyone, anywhere, meaningful scrutiny no longer depends on who is physically allowed into the room.