Footnotes:

(a) Delaware law states that the county superior courts constitute its board of canvassers and “shall make . . . the certificates of the results,” but it also provides the governor with a certification role worded differently for presidential, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House elections. Only for the middle office does the phrase “shall certify the election” appear. Many states’ codes are more explicit and less passive about who certifies election results, and don’t make the reader grasp for their particular states’ definition of “to certify.” In this case, as in those other states, there is a generally understood certifying authority, and we don’t deviate from listing it.

(b) Under Illinois statute, the Board of Elections has the role of “canvass[ing] the votes given for United States Senators and Representatives to Congress,” and the governor has a role of “giv[ing] a certificate of election or commission.” Still, the Board of Elections customarily announces certification.

(c) Maine statute required the secretary of state to design and conduct a pilot risk-limiting audit for the November 2024 election, specifically.

(d) A traditional tabulation audit compares paper ballots/records with “the results produced by the voting system” (National Conference of State Legislatures). In South Carolina, the audit compares those results with electronic records, not paper ones, contained on flash drives that store vote records from voting machines.

(e) Under Tennessee law, “The governor shall furnish each person elected with a certificate of election, which shall also be a commission of office, signed by the governor and the secretary of state. The certificate shall be prima facie evidence of election.”

(f) On July 17, 2026, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin announced that he had sent letters to the chief election officials of California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, listing the findings of a federal review of the states’ voter rolls for noncitizen registrants. (DHS has reviewed some other states’ information, as well, but singled out these four states seemingly on account of the amount of alleged noncitizen registrants found.) The Election Integrity Map does not list this activity as a “non-citizen voting audit” for two reasons: (1) It was not initiated by a state election entity, which is statutorily and constitutionally responsible, not the federal government, for voter list maintenance; and (2) states have generally used DHS data, particularly through its SAVE tool, as just one source for noncitizen voting investigations, given its error rate and that states have access to other data sources. There are valid, data-backed reasons to take DHS’s solo reviews of this issue with grains of salt.

(g) On July 21, 2026, New Jersey governor Mikie Sherrill disclosed that around 6,600 noncitizens had been added to the state’s voter rolls between June 2023 and June 2024, as a result of a software glitch that registered them to vote despite their accurately marking their citizenship status as “no” on drivers license and state identification card applications. (Like many states, New Jersey is a “motor voter state” which allows voter registration through applications for drivers licenses.) Fewer than 400 of the noncitizens ultimately cast a ballot.

Definitions language: 

For definitions of certain technical terms used in this map, as well as answers to possible questions about the map, click here.