What roles do state officials and legislatures play in administering and certifying federal elections during emergencies?
Executive summary
State officials — governors, secretaries of state, state election boards and local election administrators — are the primary actors who run and certify federal elections and they have wide, legally grounded emergency authorities to adjust procedures, but those powers vary by state and are bounded by statutes, courts, and federal deadlines . State legislatures set the legal framework for how elections may be run or altered during crises, and they can limit or delegate emergency powers, creating a tension between executive flexibility and legislative supremacy that becomes acute in emergencies .
1. State officials are the front line of election administration and emergency response
States administer federal elections: local officials conduct the canvass, prepare returns, and state-level actors aggregate and certify results; secretaries of state often supervise these processes, certify voting systems, and ensure compliance with state law while governors can declare emergencies and issue orders that affect voting operations . In practice, that means secretaries and state boards compile county-certified returns into a statewide certification by statutory deadlines and, where law assigns it, governors or other statewide officers participate in the formal paperwork for presidential electors .
2. Emergency powers give governors and executives significant but uneven authority
Most states vest the power to define and invoke an emergency in governors, who can then use statutory emergency authorities to change election procedures — for example, to expand mail voting or delay certain administrative deadlines — but the scope of such actions depends on state statutes and has been litigated when used to alter voting rules . California’s pandemic-era mail-ballot order is a canonical example of an executive using emergency authority to reshape ballot delivery, showing both the practical reach of executives and the legal controversy such steps can provoke .
3. Legislatures write the rules that bind emergency response and certification
State legislatures determine core election law: dates, who certifies, and statutory timelines for canvass and certification, and they can limit who may act in an emergency or require legislative involvement for certain changes, meaning that emergency adaptations must respect statutory bounds or face legal challenges . This legislative control is crucial because federal law fixes an Election Day and Electoral College deadlines, so state statutory regimes must operate within those federal constraints even when responding to disasters .
4. Certification is largely ministerial but courts and state officials enforce it
Certification — the formal signing off by local and then state authorities — is treated in many states as a mandatory, ministerial duty, and state officials and courts have tools such as writs of mandamus, contempt, or replacement of noncompliant officers to compel completion if actors refuse or delay certification . Since 2020, refusal or threats to refuse certification have prompted state-level enforcement actions and emergency court orders in multiple states to protect statutory deadlines and the chain of certification needed for federal electoral processes .
5. Federal actors provide resources and guardrails but not direct control
Federal agencies — from the EAC to CISA and FEMA — provide guidance, funding, voluntary system certifications, and information-sharing to help states prepare for emergencies, but they do not override state authority to run or certify elections; Congress and the EAC can set voluntary standards and distribute grants, and federal enforcement is possible when federal statutes or HAVA compliance are implicated [1]. The federal role is therefore supportive and supervisory in funding and best practices, with limited direct operational control over state emergency decisions [1].
6. Risks, competing agendas, and safeguards
The system’s decentralization yields resilience but also risk: emergency powers can be used legitimately to protect access or, alternatively, can be leveraged to influence outcomes, which has prompted watchdogs, courts, and advocacy groups to press for clearer statutory limits, stronger judicial remedies, and education of certifying officials about their ministerial duties . Where local officials obstruct certification, state authorities have successfully used court orders to compel compliance in recent years, but the persistence of election-denial narratives means legal and institutional safeguards must be actively maintained .