Trusting in Elections from Grover Cleveland to Today

On Dec. 12, 1889, former President Grover Cleveland addressed the Boston Merchants’ Association. Despite winning the popular vote, Cleveland had lost reelection a year earlier and he believed, at least in part, that voter fraud and political manipulation contributed to his defeat. It wasn’t that the election itself was “fixed,” but rather that political machines, vote buying, and voter intimidation had influenced the outcome.

In his speech, Cleveland pushed for voter reform and support for the secret ballot, also known as the Australian system. Before this reform, political parties often printed and distributed their own ballots. Because voting was done publicly, voters could be pressured, bribed, or intimidated into supporting a particular candidate.

Cleveland believed elections should be fair and free from corruption. He praised the Australian system because it required the government to print official ballots and allowed citizens to vote privately. It also required voters to register beforehand and standardized Election Day, held on the first Tuesday in November. These reforms helped protect voters from outside influence and allowed them to vote according to their own beliefs rather than the demands of political parties, employers, or other powerful groups.

Today, concerns about voter fraud still persist in public debate. The Trump administration and others have continued to raise claims of voter fraud in the 2024 election, and similar concerns are being voiced regarding California. I am not claiming that fraud has occurred in California, as I am not in a position to make that determination. But at the very least, there appears to be ongoing public concern about the integrity of the system.

In this year’s mayoral election in Los Angeles on June 2, it initially appeared that political outsider Spencer Pratt might advance to a runoff against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. However, in the days that followed, as thousands of mail-in ballots were counted, Pratt’s position declined, and he ultimately fell behind progressive candidate Nithya Raman, taking him out of the running. In what has become a broader trend in California elections, mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day have often shifted results, prompting claims of fraud from some Republicans. Critics point to California’s practice of mailing ballots to all voters and not requiring voter IDs.

Supporters of the current system argue that there is no evidence of widespread fraud and that it is normal for mail-in ballots to favor Democratic candidates since Democrats are more likely to vote by mail.

Again, I am not alleging that fraud occurred; however, I do believe it is important to address the perception of fraud in elections. When a significant portion of the country, rightly or wrongly, loses confidence in the electoral process, democratic stability is weakened.

This concern is reflected in the Supreme Court case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008). In 2005, Indiana passed a law requiring all voters to present a photo ID in order to vote. The Democratic Party challenged the law, arguing that it disproportionately harmed minorities and elderly citizens and was therefore unconstitutional. When the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that eligible voters were being prevented from voting, they lost at trial. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 that the law did not violate the Constitution.

A key argument came from Justice John Paul Stevens, who acknowledged that Indiana had not shown widespread voter fraud. However, and I think this is important, he argued that the state still had legitimate interests in preventing voter fraud because preserving public confidence in election integrity is just as important.

Stevens wrote: “While that interest is closely related to the State’s interest in preventing voter fraud, public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance, because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process. As the Carter-Baker Report observed, the ‘electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.’”

His point was that democracy depends not only on elections being fair, but also on citizens believing they are fair. If people suspect fraud, even when little or none exists, they may lose trust in election outcomes and in government itself.

Even if there is no fraud in California, the current system leaves room for suspicion among some voters. Cleveland advocated for the Australian system, including single-day voting, not only because it reduced actual fraud, but because it reduced the appearance of fraud as well. Supporters of voter ID laws argue similarly that requiring identification does not prevent eligible citizens from voting since showing a valid ID is already required in almost every aspect of daily life. If such measures strengthen confidence in the electoral process, they may be worth considering in order to protect trust in our democracy.

James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at james.finck@swoknews.com. Thanks to the Southwest Ledger and the Lawton Constitution for sharing his column.