Jia Lissa
The landscape of American electoral integrity faces a critical juncture, with a significant number of Republican candidates for state attorney general across the nation articulating beliefs that the 2020 presidential election was marred by widespread fraud. This trend is not confined to the fringes of political discourse but has permeated mainstream campaigns for powerful legal offices, raising profound concerns among legal experts and civil rights advocates about the future administration and protection of democratic processes. A comprehensive review by WIRED has identified a slate of GOP attorney general hopefuls in at least half a dozen states, including crucial swing states, who have consistently voiced unsubstantiated claims regarding the 2020 outcome. Should these candidates be elected, several have explicitly stated their willingness to revisit and potentially challenge the settled results of the 2020 election, and all would hold pivotal sway over the conduct and certification of future presidential elections, including the upcoming 2028 contest.
The Pivotal Role of State Attorneys General in Election Oversight
The office of the state attorney general is a cornerstone of the legal and constitutional framework in the United States. As the chief legal officer for their respective states, attorneys general are entrusted with a broad mandate that includes upholding the rule of law, protecting consumer rights, and serving as the primary legal counsel for state agencies. Crucially, their role in election administration and protection, while varying in scope from state to state, is inherently significant. They act as a critical check on both state governors and the federal government, ensuring adherence to election statutes and defending the integrity of the voting process.
In recent years, the prominence of this role has been starkly highlighted. Attorneys general across the country were instrumental in countering attempts by the Trump administration to undermine electoral results, including efforts to seize ballots, obtain sensitive voter rolls, and assert federal control over state-run elections. Their actions in defending certified results and existing election laws underscored the non-partisan imperative of the office to safeguard the democratic framework. Christina Beeler, senior counsel for the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, emphasized this point to WIRED, stating, "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 potential for this office to be wielded by individuals who question the foundational legitimacy of recent elections presents an unprecedented challenge to established democratic norms.
The Shadow of 2020: A National Context
The 2020 presidential election was subjected to an unparalleled barrage of legal challenges and public accusations of fraud, predominantly by then-President Donald Trump and his allies. Over 60 lawsuits alleging widespread voter fraud were filed in various state and federal courts, nearly all of which were dismissed or failed to produce evidence substantiating the claims. Even the Supreme Court declined to hear cases seeking to overturn results in multiple states. Election officials, both Republican and Democrat, affirmed the integrity of the process, and federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), declared the 2020 election "the most secure in American history."
Despite these definitive conclusions, the narrative of a "stolen election" persisted and gained traction within certain political circles. This narrative fueled events like the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and continues to shape the platforms of many candidates seeking public office. For aspiring attorneys general, embracing this narrative often signals an alignment with a specific political base and a commitment to re-examining past election outcomes, regardless of official certifications and judicial rulings. This retrospective focus diverts attention and resources from current and future election security needs and risks eroding public trust in democratic institutions.
A State-by-State Examination of GOP Attorney General Candidates
The WIRED review specifically examined Republican candidates for attorney general in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Kansas, uncovering a consistent pattern of espousing baseless allegations about the 2020 election or expressing a willingness to reopen investigations into it.
Arizona: Warren Petersen and the Maricopa Audit Aftermath
In Arizona, State Senator Warren Petersen stands out as a prominent proponent of the "stolen election" narrative. His actions in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election were demonstrative of his commitment to challenging the results. In 2020, he signed a document urging Congress to accept 11 alternate electoral votes for Donald Trump, a clear attempt to subvert the certified will of Arizona voters. He subsequently signed another document demanding the U.S. Senate reject Arizona’s duly appointed slate of electors.
Petersen’s most significant involvement came as a central figure in orchestrating the highly controversial "Cyber Ninjas" audit of the 2020 vote in Maricopa County. This audit, initiated by the Republican-controlled Arizona Senate, was conducted by a firm with no prior experience in election auditing and was steeped in partisan controversy. Despite its premise being to uncover fraud, the audit’s own findings, released in September 2021, confirmed that Joe Biden had won Maricopa County by more votes than originally reported, effectively debunking the very claims it was meant to investigate. The entire process was a costly endeavor, burdening Arizona taxpayers with over $4 million, in addition to significant costs incurred by Maricopa County in complying with demands.
Petersen’s involvement did not conclude with the audit’s findings. Earlier this year, he complied with a grand jury subpoena, handing over files related to the Cyber Ninjas audit to the FBI as part of its ongoing investigation into the 2020 election in Maricopa County. Furthermore, in his primary campaign for attorney general, Petersen explicitly signaled a desire to relitigate the 2020 election if elected, advocating for an expansion of the attorney general’s Election Integrity Unit. "People will know we’re serious about it," Petersen stated during a July primary campaign event, drawing a parallel to the Trump Department of Justice. Recent polls indicate a tight race between Petersen and his Democratic opponent, Kris Mayes, underscoring the high stakes of this election for Arizona’s electoral future.
Georgia: Brian Strickland and Persistent Scrutiny
Georgia, a state that became a focal point of Trumpworld’s conspiracy theories following the 2020 election, features Brian Strickland as the GOP nominee for attorney general. As a state senator in 2020, Strickland shared a press release advocating for an investigation into "fraudulent activities" in the 2020 election, a forensic audit of the state’s results, and the implementation of new voting laws. These demands echoed the widespread, unsubstantiated claims of election irregularities that proliferated after the election.
Strickland has continued to align himself with efforts to scrutinize the 2020 election. When FBI officials raided Fulton County’s election offices earlier this year to seize ballots from the 2020 election, an action that raised questions among some legal observers, Strickland characterized it as a measure of "transparency." In a February post on X (formerly Twitter), he asserted, "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 faith in elections, his comments implicitly endorse the ongoing questioning of past election administration in a county that was central to the 2020 election disputes. An Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll published recently showed Strickland in a statistical tie with his Democratic opponent, Tanya Miller, highlighting the close contest and the significant implications for Georgia, a state that has seen its election system come under intense scrutiny and legislative changes since 2020.
Kansas: Kris Kobach’s Long History of Election Fraud Claims
Unlike the other candidates on this list who are vying for the office, Kris Kobach already holds the position of attorney general in Kansas, having won the race in 2022. Kobach has a long and well-documented history of promoting baseless conspiracy theories about fraudulent elections, predating the 2020 election. During his tenure as Kansas’s secretary of state from 2011 to 2019, he repeatedly claimed that an estimated 18,000 noncitizens were on the state’s voter rolls. This claim was based on non-peer-reviewed research that initially identified only six individuals who may have attempted to register or registered to vote, a stark contrast to the sweeping figure he cited.
In 2017, then-President Trump appointed Kobach to co-chair the short-lived Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. This commission, often dubbed the "voter fraud commission," was ostensibly created to investigate allegations of widespread voter fraud. However, it was ultimately dissolved in January 2018 without finding any evidence of systemic fraud, a major setback for its stated purpose and for Kobach’s long-standing claims.
Following the 2020 election, Kobach continued his involvement in efforts to challenge results. He served as an adviser to Texas’s unsuccessful effort to overturn the election results in several states. 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 action that had no legal basis. In 2022, Kobach was announced as a headliner at a Kansas rally alongside prominent election denier and MyPillow founder Mike Lindell, further solidifying his association with the movement. Recent polling data suggests Kobach is in a tight contest with his Democratic opponent, Chris Mann, as he seeks re-election, indicating that his long-standing positions on election integrity continue to be a defining feature of his political identity.
Michigan: Doug Lloyd and the Question of Relitigation
In Michigan, Eaton County prosecutor Doug Lloyd secured the GOP nomination for attorney general earlier this year. His primary victory came after a contentious race that initially included Matt DePerno, a lawyer 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 his case is ongoing.) While Lloyd is not typically categorized as an outright "election denier" and has presented himself as more moderate than his Democratic opponent, Eli Savit, his statements indicate a willingness to revisit the 2020 election.
In a recent podcast interview reviewed by WIRED, Lloyd was asked about "credible concerns raised by voters about the 2020 election." He responded by signaling his openness to relitigating the issue, despite the passage of six years and multiple audits and certifications. "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 suggests a potential willingness to use the investigatory powers of the Attorney General’s office to re-examine past election results based on "concerns," even in the absence of new, credible evidence of widespread fraud. Recent polling shows Lloyd in a tied race against Savit, highlighting the close contest and the potential for a shift in how Michigan’s top legal office approaches election oversight.
Nevada: Adriana Guzmán Fralick and the Push for Restrictive Voting Laws
In Nevada, lawyer Adriana Guzmán Fralick has received an endorsement from Donald Trump for the attorney general position, an alignment likely stemming from her stated commitment to election reforms aligned with the "stolen election" narrative. Fralick has championed a state-level version of the "SAVE Act," a legislative proposal that Trump has unsuccessfully sought to pass federally. This act would impose stringent restrictions on eligible voters, primarily by mandating the production of a passport or birth certificate for voter registration. Experts, including the Brennan Center for Justice, have repeatedly warned that such requirements could disenfranchise millions of American citizens who do not readily possess these specific documents, disproportionately affecting minority voters, the elderly, and low-income individuals.
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 directly reflects key tenets of the election denial movement: the unsubstantiated claim of widespread non-citizen voting, a call to eliminate mail-in voting (which significantly expanded during the pandemic and was targeted by fraud claims), and the implied distrust in existing ballot counting methods.
Guzmán Fralick has also publicly touted the endorsement of Joey Gilbert, a far-right former boxer turned MAGA influencer known for spreading conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 pandemic. Gilbert, who refers to Fralick as a "friend," was present at the rally near the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. While he did not enter the building, he was captured on video alongside serial conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, chanting "1776," a slogan often invoked by those who believe the 2020 election was illegitimate and advocating for a revolutionary response. Recent polling indicates Guzmán Fralick trails her Democratic opponent, Nicole Cannizzaro, by 8 points, but her candidacy underscores the pervasive influence of election denialism in state-level political contests.
Broader Implications for American Democracy
The emergence of a slate of attorney general candidates who openly question the legitimacy of past elections or express a willingness to re-investigate settled outcomes poses significant risks to the bedrock principles of American democracy. The attorney general’s office is not merely a political platform but a legal one, tasked with defending the state’s laws and constitution. A chief legal officer who views a past, certified election as illegitimate could pursue several avenues that undermine democratic processes:
- Weaponization of Investigative Powers: An AG committed to relitigating 2020 could deploy state investigative resources (e.g., state police, special units) to conduct new inquiries into past election results, even without credible evidence of fraud. This could lead to endless, politically motivated audits and investigations, draining taxpayer money and resources, and sowing further distrust in elections.
- Refusal to Defend Election Laws: An AG could refuse to defend existing state election laws in court if they deem those laws insufficiently "secure" or contributing to alleged fraud. This could leave states vulnerable to legal challenges and create chaos in election administration.
- Pressure on Local Election Officials: The AG’s office has significant sway over local prosecutors and election officials. An AG who believes the 2020 election was stolen could exert undue pressure on these officials to adopt restrictive voting policies, purge voter rolls based on flimsy evidence, or even face investigations for actions deemed compliant with existing law but problematic by the AG.
- Influence on Future Certifications: While the Secretary of State typically certifies election results, the AG can play a critical advisory role and could potentially intervene in disputes, file lawsuits, or provide legal opinions that seek to delay or challenge future certifications.
- Erosion of Public Trust: Each new, baseless investigation or challenge to a certified election further erodes public confidence in the integrity of the voting process, irrespective of its outcome. This can lead to decreased voter participation and increased political polarization.
Expert Perspectives and Warnings
Legal scholars and civil rights organizations consistently warn that the politicization of the attorney general’s office, particularly concerning election integrity, threatens the non-partisan application of justice and the stability of democratic institutions. "The role of the attorney general is to be the chief legal officer for the state, upholding the law as written, not to pursue political vendettas or baseless conspiracy theories," commented a senior legal analyst at a non-profit focusing on electoral reform, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about ongoing political races. "When candidates pledge to ‘relitigate’ elections that have been thoroughly vetted and certified, they are essentially promising to use a powerful state office to undermine established facts and processes. This is a profound departure from the traditional duties of the office."
The focus on "election integrity" by these candidates often translates into policies that disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. Measures like the SAVE Act, championed by Adriana Guzmán Fralick, exemplify this. While framed as preventing non-citizen voting, which is already illegal and rare, such laws create significant barriers for legitimate voters who may lack specific documentation, expanding the potential for disenfranchisement.
Conclusion: The Stakes for 2024 and Beyond
The candidacies of these Republican attorney general hopefuls underscore a continuing ideological battle over the legitimacy of American elections. The decisions made by voters in these state-level races will not only determine who serves as their state’s top legal officer but will also profoundly influence the integrity of future elections, including the pivotal 2024 presidential contest and beyond. If elected, these attorneys general would be positioned to shape election laws, oversee investigations into alleged fraud, and potentially influence the certification of results in states that are frequently decisive in national elections. Their commitment to upholding the rule of law and respecting established electoral outcomes, or conversely, their willingness to revisit and challenge them based on unsubstantiated claims, represents a critical test for the resilience of American democracy. The outcomes of these races will send a clear signal about the nation’s collective stance on the foundational principles of free, fair, and credible elections.
