Election Integrity Must Apply to Everyone-Especially the People We Support

I have spent most of my adult life working in government, but my interest began long before I became a full-time public employee.

As an undergraduate at the University at Albany, I spent much of my education around the New York State Legislature. I completed more than 36 credits through legislative internships and related work, including an internship for Assembly Member Deborah Glick. I also interned for former President Bill Clinton after he left the White House.

At 20, I was fascinated by politics.

At 45, after more than two decades working inside government, my attention has shifted somewhat. I'm increasingly fascinated by something less exciting but perhaps even more consequential:

...the institutions that remain after politicians leave.

Presidents leave.

Mayors leave.

Governors leave.

Commissioners leave.

Political parties move in and out of power.

The institutions remain.

And our democracy depends on those institutions being credible enough that Americans will keep respecting them even when an election produces a result they don't like.

That's why I've come to view elections as public infrastructure.

Election Integrity Is a Legitimate Government Objective

President Donald Trump has made election integrity a major focus of his second administration.

In March 2026, Trump signed an executive order directing the federal government to develop and transmit state citizenship lists using federal records, including information from the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration, and directing the Justice Department to prioritize enforcement of federal election laws. The administration says these measures are intended to prevent unlawful voting and strengthen public confidence in elections.

Trump has also pushed Congress to enact the SAVE America Act, which passed the House but has faced obstacles in the Senate. Among other provisions, the legislation would require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and photo identification for voting. Supporters describe those requirements as election-integrity safeguards; opponents argue they could create barriers for eligible citizens who lack readily available documentation.

These are legitimate subjects for public debate.

Citizenship requirements can be debated.

Voter identification can be debated.

Mail voting can be debated.

Federal and state authority over election administration can be debated.

But underneath all of those debates is a principle I think Americans should be able to apply consistently:

Election integrity cannot mean scrutinizing only the other side's conduct.

The Standard Has to Apply to Everyone

An uncomfortable history surrounds the current election-integrity debate, and accuracy matters when discussing it.

Several lawyers and political operatives associated with efforts to challenge or overturn Trump's 2020 election loss ultimately pleaded guilty to crimes arising from those efforts.

Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro pleaded guilty in Georgia to a felony conspiracy charge related to filing false documents. Former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting false statements and writings. Sidney Powell and Scott Hall also entered guilty pleas in the Georgia case.

Rudy Giuliani's history needs to be described differently.

Giuliani was not convicted of election tampering.

He faced election-related criminal charges, but one of the most consequential judgments against him came in a civil case. A federal judge found Giuliani liable for defaming Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss after he falsely accused them of ballot misconduct. A jury subsequently awarded the women $148 million in damages.

That distinction is important.

If I'm going to write about election integrity, I want the facts in my own argument to withstand scrutiny too.

But that history raises a larger question that shouldn't depend on political affiliation:

Shouldn't the same demand for integrity apply to voters, election administrators, candidates, campaigns and the people working on their behalf?

Election Integrity Includes Accepting Scrutiny

Another current development makes this discussion particularly timely.

Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, the Trump White House has barred journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House grounds and confiscated their credentials. Trump characterized the organizations as spreading “fake news.” The affected organizations have challenged the restrictions, arguing that they constitute unconstitutional retaliation for unfavorable coverage; the White House maintains that access to White House property is a privilege rather than an unlimited press right. The dispute is now in litigation.

Other major television networks subsequently withdrew from the White House press pool for an event in protest of the restrictions, demonstrating that the dispute has implications beyond the three organizations directly affected.

This issue deserves nuance too.

No news organization possesses an unlimited right to stand anywhere it wants inside the White House.

Security matters.

Space is limited.

Presidents and their staffs inevitably make access decisions.

But excluding particular news organizations because government officials object to their coverage raises a different question—one involving viewpoint discrimination and the First Amendment. The courts will ultimately determine the legal boundaries.

My concern as a career government employee is broader.

Government officials should be willing to operate in an environment where people ask questions they don't like.

Sometimes those questions will be unfair.

Sometimes journalists will make mistakes.

Sometimes coverage will lack context.

Public officials should challenge inaccurate reporting and demand corrections when warranted.

But scrutiny isn't an inconvenience external to democracy.

It's part of democracy.

Apply the Same Test When Your Party Controls Government

After more than two decades in public service, I've developed a simple test for governmental power:

Would I still support this authority if someone I strongly disagreed with controlled it tomorrow?

That question cuts through a remarkable amount of partisan reasoning.

Would Republicans be comfortable with a Democratic president possessing the same power?

Would Democrats be comfortable with a Republican president possessing it?

Would I support this rule if it disadvantaged the candidate I preferred?

Would I support this investigation if it targeted someone on my side?

Would I defend a journalist's access if I strongly disliked that journalist's reporting?

Those questions don't automatically tell us what the correct policy should be.

But they force us to confront whether we're applying the same institutional principles when the political circumstances change.

Government authority shouldn't become legitimate or illegitimate solely because of whose name appears on the office door.

Working in Government Changed My View of Politics

I entered New York City government in 2004.

Since then, I've worked under different mayors, commissioners, and senior leadership teams.

Administrations change.

Career civil servants remain.

That experience has made me less interested in personalities and more interested in institutional durability.

Elected officials have a legitimate democratic mandate to establish policy within the law.

Career employees shouldn't substitute our personal political preferences for election results.

But civil service also provides continuity.

We safeguard records.

We administer contracts.

We manage public money.

We maintain systems.

We provide institutional knowledge.

We explain what the law permits and what it doesn't.

And when one administration leaves and another arrives, government must keep operating.

That only works if the institution is ultimately bigger than the individual occupying its highest office.

We Should Demand Consistent Standards From Both Parties

One of the hardest habits in American politics is judging the opposing party's conduct differently from similar conduct by people we agree with.

I don't think public servants should approach government that way.

If a Republican official is accused of abusing governmental authority, examine the facts and the law.

If a Democratic official is accused of doing so, apply the same standard.

If election administrators make mistakes, investigate them.

If someone knowingly interferes with an election, prosecute provable violations under applicable law while providing the accused due process.

If a journalist publishes something demonstrably false, correct the record.

If a government official makes a false statement, journalists should challenge it.

If prosecutors exceed their authority, courts exist to review their actions.

If presidents exceed their lawful authority, the same institutional principle applies.

Standards become meaningful precisely when we're willing to apply them to people we otherwise support.

Democracy Requires People to Lose

One unavoidable mathematical fact about elections deserves more attention.

Most candidates lose.

Democracy therefore cannot depend on everyone liking the result.

It depends upon enough people trusting the process to accept an outcome they dislike and participate again next time.

That requires election systems people can understand.

It requires transparent counting.

It requires accessible voting.

It requires credible courts.

It requires professional election administrators.

It requires a press capable of scrutinizing people in power.

And it requires political leaders willing to operate within institutional constraints even when those constraints are inconvenient.

The difficult test of anyone's commitment to an institution isn't how they treat it when it produces the result they wanted.

It's how they treat it when it doesn't.

At 20, I Was Fascinated by Politicians. At 45, I'm Fascinated by Institutions.

My years in government have changed my perspective.

When I was working around the State Legislature in college, politicians naturally captured my attention.

Today I'm much more interested in the architecture surrounding them.

Election workers.

Career civil servants.

Courts.

Auditors.

Journalists.

Legislatures.

Public records.

Checks and balances.

None of those institutions is perfect.

All deserve scrutiny.

But collectively they make it possible for political power to change hands without government itself collapsing.

That's why I want consistent standards for everyone who holds public office—not one party and not one president.

Election integrity should mean what the words say.

Protect eligible citizens' ability to vote.

Prevent and prosecute genuine election crimes.

Count votes accurately.

Make the process transparent.

Demand evidence for allegations.

Give defendants due process.

Protect legitimate scrutiny by the press.

Apply the rules consistently, whether the person involved has an R, a D, or something else after their name.

Because elected officials don't own the offices they occupy.

The public temporarily entrusts those offices to them.

And the ultimate test of election integrity isn't whether the rules protect the politician we support. It's whether we're willing to apply those same rules when they don't.