Some of the most damaging election misinformation is built by misrepresenting real events, statistics, images, or routine election procedures. Information may be presented selectively, stripped of context, or combined with unsupported conclusions to create a misleading impression of wrongdoing. Research from IFES has shown that these narratives can spread quickly when the public lacks clear information about how elections are administered.
This presents a particular challenge for election offices because legitimate procedures can be misunderstood or deliberately mischaracterized when presented without the necessary context. A standard process in one jurisdiction can attract widespread attention within hours if it is shared without an explanation of the applicable rules, safeguards, or circumstances. Election offices therefore need a clear operational framework for assessing claims, determining whether a response is warranted, and communicating accurate information before misleading narratives gain traction.
The Workflow Every Election Office Should Have Ready
1- Trace the claim to its original source
Begin with authoritative documentation, including the applicable law, regulation, court decision, official report, or results page. The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network also provides information on electoral legal frameworks across jurisdictions.
If a claim cannot be traced to a reliable original source, state that clearly. Any response should explain that the available information is incomplete and avoid conclusions that are not supported by verified facts.
2- Confirm the jurisdiction before responding
Election procedures vary across countries and, in decentralized systems, may also differ among states, provinces, counties, municipalities, or other local authorities.
Before issuing a statement, confirm whether the claim relates to your jurisdiction and whether the procedures being described apply in the same way. If the claim does not apply, or applies only in part, consider whether a public response is necessary. Responding to an issue from another jurisdiction may unintentionally introduce it into your own public conversation.
When a response is warranted, clearly explain the jurisdictional distinction and identify the rules or procedures that apply locally.
3- Check the date and electoral-cycle context
Misleading posts frequently reuse images, videos, statistics, or procedural documents from previous elections or unrelated events. Verify when the material was created, what election or event it relates to, and whether it accurately reflects current procedures.
Checking the date and context can quickly identify content that is outdated, unrelated, or being presented in a misleading way.
4- Monitor independent fact-checkers and reputable news organizations
Regular monitoring of independent fact-checkers and reputable news organizations can provide election offices with early warning of emerging narratives before they receive widespread attention.
Election observation reports from organizations such as OSCE/ODIHR can also help identify recurring disinformation themes and provide broader context about how similar claims have circulated during previous electoral cycles.
External reporting should support, but not replace, the election office’s own verification through official records and operational sources.
5- Establish a response protocol before it is needed
Determine in advance which types of claims require a public response, who is authorized to approve and issue that response, and which communication channels should be used.
The protocol should also address situations in which responding could amplify a claim unnecessarily. Not every inaccurate statement requires public engagement. The decision should consider the claim’s reach, potential harm, relevance to the jurisdiction, and whether accurate information is already publicly available.
Waiting until a claim has gained significant traction to establish this workflow can delay the response and increase the risk of inconsistent messaging.
Election offices that establish verification and response procedures before an election are better positioned to communicate quickly, accurately, and consistently. International IDEA’s electoral risk-management guidance also emphasizes the importance of proactive communication in supporting public confidence.
Providing accurate context early can help election authorities shape the public conversation before misleading interpretations become established.