Jia Lissa
A concerning trend has emerged in states across the United States, where a significant number of Republican candidates vying for the powerful office of Attorney General have either actively promoted unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election or expressed willingness to re-litigate its results. A recent review conducted by WIRED has identified a slate of GOP attorney general hopefuls in at least half a dozen states, including critical swing states, whose rhetoric and past actions suggest a potential undermining of electoral processes and the rule of law should they be elected. This phenomenon transcends the realm of social media influencers or podcast hosts, manifesting instead within a critical legal and executive office with profound implications for democratic governance.
The office of Attorney General, as the chief legal officer of a state, plays an indispensable role in upholding the rule of law, protecting civil rights, and safeguarding the integrity of elections. Their responsibilities extend to interpreting state laws, advising state agencies, prosecuting criminal cases, and representing the state in legal proceedings. Crucially, in the context of elections, an Attorney General can initiate investigations into alleged voter fraud, defend election results from legal challenges, and even influence the certification process. As Christina Beeler, senior counsel for the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, emphasized to WIRED, “Any attorney general should be dedicated to upholding the rule of law. The office of attorney general is a powerful office, and it is deeply important that anyone in that role is dedicated to upholding the rule of law and the results of elections.” The politicization of this office through adherence to disproven election narratives could have far-reaching consequences, potentially impacting the administration and defense of future elections, including the critical 2028 presidential cycle.
The Enduring Shadow of 2020: A Context for Current Campaigns
The 2020 presidential election became the epicenter of an unprecedented campaign to cast doubt on the legitimacy of American electoral outcomes. Following President Joe Biden’s victory, then-President Donald Trump and his allies launched a multi-pronged effort to overturn the results, alleging widespread voter fraud. These efforts included numerous lawsuits filed across various states, demands for recounts, and calls for audits. Despite these challenges, federal and state election officials, including those appointed by Republican governors and secretaries of state, consistently affirmed the integrity of the 2020 election. Over 60 lawsuits alleging fraud were dismissed or rejected by courts, many by judges appointed by Trump himself, due to a profound lack of credible evidence. The Department of Justice, under Attorney General William Barr, also found no evidence of widespread fraud that would have altered the election’s outcome.
Despite these conclusive findings, the narrative of a "stolen election" persisted and has since become a litmus test for many candidates within the Republican Party, particularly those seeking offices with direct influence over election administration. The current crop of Attorney General candidates demonstrates how deeply this narrative has embedded itself within the party’s platform, transforming what was once a fringe conspiracy into a mainstream campaign talking point for those seeking powerful legal positions. The implications are clear: if elected, these individuals could wield their authority to pursue politically motivated investigations, enact restrictive voting laws, or even refuse to defend legitimate election outcomes, thereby eroding public trust and undermining democratic norms.
Key States and Candidates: A Detailed Examination
WIRED’s review focused on several battleground and strategically important states where Republican Attorney General candidates have espoused baseless allegations about the 2020 election.
Arizona: Warren Petersen and the Discredited Cyber Ninjas Audit
Arizona State Senator Warren Petersen stands out as a central figure in the efforts to delegitimize the 2020 election results in Arizona. Petersen was one of the most vocal proponents of former President Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of fraud. In the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, Petersen signed a document calling on Congress to accept 11 alternate electoral votes for Trump, despite Biden’s certified victory in the state. He later signed another document demanding the US Senate reject Arizona’s duly elected slate of electors.
Perhaps most notably, Petersen was instrumental in facilitating the controversial and widely criticized "audit" of the 2020 vote in Maricopa County. This process, initiated by the Republican-controlled state Senate, was outsourced to a little-known firm called Cyber Ninjas, which had no prior experience in election auditing and was led by a CEO who had publicly promoted election fraud conspiracy theories. The audit, which commenced in April 2021 and concluded in September 2021, was plagued by allegations of a lack of transparency, questionable methodologies, and partisan bias. Maricopa County election officials, including Republicans, vehemently criticized the process, citing concerns about chain of custody and the firm’s inexperience.
Chronology of the Maricopa Audit:
- November 2020: Petersen signs documents challenging Arizona’s election results.
- December 2020: Arizona certifies its election results, showing Biden won by over 10,000 votes.
- January 2021: Arizona Senate issues subpoenas for election materials.
- April 2021: Cyber Ninjas begins its recount and audit of Maricopa County ballots.
- September 2021: Cyber Ninjas releases its final report, which, despite its highly politicized framing, ultimately confirmed that Joe Biden won Maricopa County by even more votes than originally reported (an additional 261 votes for Biden and 99 fewer for Trump).
- February 2022: The full cost to Arizona taxpayers for the Cyber Ninjas audit was confirmed to exceed $4 million, with no evidence of widespread fraud found.
Earlier this year, Petersen reportedly complied with a grand jury subpoena, providing the FBI with files related to the Cyber Ninjas audit as part of a federal investigation into the 2020 election in Maricopa County. This ongoing federal scrutiny underscores the seriousness with which authorities are examining attempts to interfere with or undermine election processes.
As a candidate for Attorney General, Petersen has signaled a clear intent to potentially re-litigate the 2020 election if elected. He has called for a significant expansion of the Attorney General’s Election Integrity Unit, stating during his primary campaign in July, "People will know we’re serious about it. Just like they know the Trump DOJ is serious about it right now." This statement suggests a potential weaponization of the AG’s office to pursue politically motivated investigations into past elections, even in the absence of new, credible evidence. Current polls indicate Petersen is in a tight race with his Democratic opponent, Kris Mayes, highlighting the high stakes in Arizona.
Georgia: Brian Strickland and Calls for "Transparency" Amidst Federal Scrutiny
Georgia, a state that became a focal point for Trumpworld’s conspiracy theories after the 2020 election, also features an Attorney General candidate who has embraced these narratives. Brian Strickland, the GOP nominee, served as a state senator in 2020. During that period, he shared a press release that called for officials to launch an investigation into "fraudulent activities" in the 2020 election, demanded a forensic audit of the election results in Georgia, and advocated for new, more restrictive voting laws. These actions aligned with the broader pressure campaign mounted by allies of the former president to overturn the state’s results.
Strickland has continued to signal his willingness to align with efforts to investigate the 2020 election. When FBI officials raided Fulton County’s election offices earlier this year and seized ballots from the 2020 election, Strickland characterized the action as a "transparency" measure. In February, he took to X (formerly Twitter) to assert, "Fulton County can’t run elections. That’s the simple truth. Every Georgian, regardless of party, should have faith in our election process." While expressing a desire for public faith in elections, his rhetoric often echoes the criticisms leveled against election administrators by those who dispute the 2020 outcome. The FBI’s involvement in Fulton County, while potentially part of a legitimate investigation, raises questions about the appropriate role of federal agencies in state election matters and how such actions might be leveraged or interpreted by a politically aligned Attorney General. An Atlanta Journal Constitution poll published recently shows Strickland in a statistical tie with his Democratic opponent, Tanya Miller.
Kansas: Kris Kobach, A Long-Standing Proponent of Voter Fraud Claims
Unlike other candidates on this list, Kris Kobach is already serving as Kansas’s Attorney General, having won the office in 2022. Kobach has a long and well-documented history as a national figure in the movement to promote baseless conspiracy theories about fraudulent elections and advocate for restrictive voting measures. Prior to his current role, Kobach served as Kansas’s Secretary of State from 2011 to 2019. During his tenure, he famously claimed that an estimated 18,000 noncitizens were on the state’s voter rolls, a figure that was widely debunked by non-peer-reviewed research which initially identified only six individuals who may have attempted to register or registered to vote.
In 2017, then-President Trump appointed Kobach to co-chair the short-lived "Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity." This commission, established with the stated goal of investigating voter fraud, ultimately dissolved in 2018 without finding any evidence of widespread voter fraud that would have affected the outcome of any election. Its work was heavily criticized for partisan bias and attempts to obtain sensitive voter data across the country.
Kobach’s Role in the 2020 Aftermath:
- Advisory Role: In the wake of the 2020 election, Kobach served as an adviser to Texas’s controversial and ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to overturn the election results in four swing states.
- Michigan Canvasser: He also assisted a member of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers who attempted to rescind her vote to certify Michigan’s 2020 presidential election results, an effort that proved futile.
- Public Appearances: In 2022, Kobach was announced as a headliner at a Kansas rally alongside Mike Lindell, the MyPillow founder and prominent financier of election denial efforts, further cementing his association with the movement.
As an incumbent Attorney General, Kobach possesses direct authority to pursue election-related investigations and legal challenges within Kansas. His consistent track record of promoting unsubstantiated fraud claims raises concerns about how his office might be used to interpret election laws, investigate allegations, and potentially influence future election outcomes in the state. Recent polling suggests Kobach is in a tight race with his Democratic opponent, Chris Mann, underscoring the ongoing electoral contest over these critical issues.
Michigan: Doug Lloyd’s Ambivalent Stance on 2020
In Michigan, a state that also experienced intense scrutiny and legal challenges following the 2020 election, Eaton County prosecutor Doug Lloyd secured the GOP nomination for Attorney General earlier this year. The Republican primary for this office had previously included Matt DePerno, a lawyer currently facing felony charges for undue possession of a voting machine and conspiracy in the wake of the 2020 election. (DePerno has pleaded not guilty, and the case remains pending.)
While Lloyd has not been typically labeled as an outright election denier and has claimed to be more moderate than his Democratic opponent, Eli Savit, his statements reveal a potential openness to revisiting the 2020 election results. In a recent podcast interview reviewed by WIRED, when asked about "credible concerns raised by voters about the 2020 election," Lloyd signaled his willingness to relitigate the six-year-old issue. "I believe the attorney general has the ability to actually use their investigative officers within their office or the Michigan State Police to actually go back and look at those items," Lloyd told the MI True Red podcast. "And so as I look at it, you know, I want to take those things in."
This statement, while couched in terms of responding to "voter concerns," suggests a readiness to utilize the investigative powers of the Attorney General’s office to re-examine an election whose results have been thoroughly vetted and affirmed. Such an approach, even if not explicitly endorsing fraud claims, risks creating a perpetual cycle of post-election challenges and undermines the finality and legitimacy of electoral outcomes. The implication is that even without new, compelling evidence, an AG could launch politically motivated inquiries, further eroding public trust in the electoral system. Recent polling shows Lloyd tied in his race against Savit.
Nevada: Adriana Guzmán Fralick and Restrictive Voting Proposals
In Nevada, another key swing state, lawyer Adriana Guzmán Fralick has received an endorsement from former President Trump for the Attorney General position. Fralick’s campaign platform includes a strong focus on what she terms "secure elections," echoing Trump’s rhetoric and proposals. She has explicitly stated her intention to push for Nevada’s version of the "SAVE Act," a legislative proposal that Trump has unsuccessfully attempted to pass at the federal level.
The SAVE Act, or its state-level equivalents, would impose severe restrictions on eligible voters by requiring individuals registered to vote to produce a passport or birth certificate as proof of citizenship. This requirement is highly controversial, as experts from organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice and American Progress have repeatedly warned that such measures would disenfranchise millions of American citizens who do not readily possess these specific documents. According to analysis, tens of millions of legitimate voters could be affected by such stringent identification requirements.
Fralick’s Advocacy and Associations:
- SAVE Nevada Act: On Facebook earlier this year, Guzmán Fralick wrote, "President Trump is fighting for secure elections—but DC keeps dragging its feet. Nevada shouldn’t have to wait. As your Attorney General, I will push for the SAVE Nevada Act to remove non-citizens from our voter rolls, count all ballots on Election Day, and end universal mail-in voting. What Washington won’t finish, Nevada will." Her platform explicitly targets universal mail-in voting, a method that proved crucial for voter access during the COVID-19 pandemic and has been repeatedly validated as secure.
- Controversial Endorsement: Guzmán Fralick has also touted the endorsement of Joey Gilbert, a far-right former boxer turned MAGA influencer. Gilbert gained notoriety for spreading conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic and for his involvement in the events of January 6, 2021. Gilbert, who calls Fralick a "friend," was present at the rally at the Capitol on January 6th, and although he did not enter the building, he was captured on video near serial conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, chanting "1776," a slogan often associated with radical anti-government movements.
The promotion of highly restrictive voting legislation like the SAVE Act and associations with figures linked to the January 6th Capitol events underscore a profound alignment with the election denial movement. If elected, Guzmán Fralick could utilize the Attorney General’s office to aggressively pursue these legislative changes, significantly altering voter access and participation in Nevada. Recent polling shows Guzmán Fralick trailing her Democratic opponent, Nicole Cannizzaro, by 8 points.
Broader Implications for Democratic Governance
The pattern observed in these states highlights a significant and ongoing challenge to the foundational principles of American democracy. The candidacies of individuals who either actively promote or are willing to revisit disproven claims of election fraud for the office of Attorney General carry profound implications:
- Erosion of Public Trust: Persistent questioning of election outcomes by high-ranking legal officials can severely erode public confidence in democratic institutions and the legitimacy of electoral processes. When the state’s chief legal officer suggests that past elections were rife with fraud, even without evidence, it sows seeds of doubt that can be difficult to dislodge.
- Politicization of Justice: The Attorney General’s office is meant to be a non-partisan arbiter of justice and upholder of the law. If the office becomes a vehicle for politically motivated investigations into past elections or for enacting partisan voting reforms, it risks undermining the independence of the legal system and the principle of equal justice under law.
- Threat to Future Elections: Attorneys General play a critical role in defending state election laws, certifying results, and responding to legal challenges. An AG committed to the "stolen election" narrative could refuse to defend legitimate election outcomes, initiate frivolous lawsuits, or support efforts to overturn results based on partisan objections rather than legal merit. This is particularly concerning as the nation looks towards the 2024 and 2028 presidential elections, where the actions of state attorneys general could prove pivotal in potential disputes.
- Disenfranchisement: Proposals like the SAVE Act, championed by some of these candidates, threaten to disenfranchise millions of eligible citizens, disproportionately affecting minority groups, the elderly, and low-income individuals who may face greater hurdles in obtaining specific identification documents.
The candidacies examined by WIRED underscore a critical moment for American democracy. The role of the Attorney General is to ensure that the rule of law is applied fairly and impartially. When candidates for this crucial office base their platforms on disproven conspiracy theories and signal a willingness to use their power to pursue partisan agendas related to election outcomes, the very foundations of electoral integrity are at stake. The outcomes of these races will not only determine the legal landscape of these states but also send a powerful message about the resilience of democratic norms in the face of sustained challenges.
