This fall, voters across the country will be participating in elections, casting their votes for US and state legislators, governors, mayors, and other contested positions. As President Trump has suggested that the federal government may intervene in national elections next year, UCS is sounding the alarm on how both science and our democracy are at risk.
Science-based policymaking is under attack by the administration, although many US voters would prefer a stronger federal scientific enterprise. Our scientists study elections—and barriers that prevent full participation in elections—to recommend fair and inclusive practices and policies, so that all eligible voters have their voices heard and their votes counted. By developing and advocating for commonsense reforms to strengthen our democracy, UCS is promoting evidence-based reforms that strengthen our democracy and make science-informed policymaking more possible.
Joseph Reed is policy director for the UCS Center for Science and Democracy, where he applies his 20 years of expertise in issue advocacy and government affairs to UCS research on voting reforms and the state of science in our democracy—including contributing to a new report coming out later this fall that analyzes racial barriers to electoral participation, and offers solutions.
AAS: It seems like the president is trying to put an end to voters’ ability to vote by mail. Is that the right choice to make elections fairer, or more secure?
JOE REED: I have serious concerns with that proposal. Limiting or eliminating vote-by-mail would make it much harder for many Americans to participate in elections, particularly low- and moderate-income workers who can’t always take time off of work, seniors, people with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minorities who may face additional barriers. Rather than enhancing fairness or security, reducing access to vote-by-mail risks disenfranchising large portions of the electorate. A healthier democracy depends on expanding safe, secure, and accessible voting options, not restricting them.
AAS: The president has also said he would sign an executive order requiring voter identification at polling places. Could this potentially disenfranchise more eligible voters?
JOE REED: Unfortunately, yes. These requirements often create barriers for eligible voters, especially older Americans, racial and ethnic minorities, Tribal members, people with disabilities, and rural residents, many of whom struggle to obtain the necessary documents due to cost, transportation, or access. Research shows that in-person voter fraud—the supposed target of these laws—is exceedingly rare. In fact, a Brennan Center for Justice report noted that an American is more likely to be struck by lightning than impersonate another voter at the polls, with only 0.0003% to 0.0025% of votes identified as fraudulent. So, do these voter ID laws address a real problem or are they simply a distraction from more urgent election security issues?
AAS: What do election scientists actually recommend to make elections fairer?
JOE REED: At UCS, we recommend making elections fairer by improving transparency and accessibility. Public access to clear, comprehensive, and machine-readable election data such as voter rolls, ballot processing records, cure rates, and results allows disparities to be identified and builds trust in the system. Equitable ballot design is also critical, ensuring ballots are easy to use for all voters, regardless of language, ability, or background. Fairness without transparency cannot exist.
Our recommendations come from conversations with community leaders, guidance from our Election Science Task Force, and follow established best practices. Our research shows that restrictive laws and poor ballot design disproportionately disenfranchise racial and ethnic minorities. We found that ballot rejection rates in majority-Black precincts doubled between 2016 and 2024. These are reasons why UCS advocates for science-based reforms to strengthen election data transparency, improve ballot and polling place design, and ensure every eligible voter can fully participate in our democracy.
AAS: The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was introduced in the Senate in July. What would it do? Why is UCS supporting its passage?
JOE REED: The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act by preventing discriminatory policies before they take effect, ensuring voters can challenge discrimination in court, and increasing transparency around voting changes. UCS supports this bill because too many communities—especially racial and ethnic minorities, low-income voters, seniors, and people with disabilities—have been disenfranchised by restrictive laws. We urge UCS members to contact their members of Congress to support this critical legislation and help protect our democracy.
AAS: Last year, UCS released an analysis that showed striking racial disparities in both voter turnout and percentage of ballots challenged, via granular data sourced from key precincts in the 2020 election. What story did that analysis tell you?
JOE REED: The report laid out how the primary risk to our elections is not fraud or illegal voting, as some would claim, but structural inequalities that have systematically diminished Black and Brown voices in critical battleground counties for years. It showed that addressing disparities in ballot rejection, turnout gaps, and improving data transparency is key to making sure we have fair representation in our elections in the future.
AAS: What can we look forward to learning more about when the new UCS report on precinct-level data from the 2024 election comes out in a couple of weeks?
JOE REED: Our upcoming precinct analysis report, Blocked from the Ballot Box, will provide deeper insights into why ballots are more frequently rejected in majority-minority precincts and how these patterns contribute to persistent racial turnout gaps. It may also shed light on the structural factors behind the 20–25 percentage point turnout differences between majority-White and majority-Black or Hispanic precincts, even after accounting for geography and governance.
AAS: Who is the intended audience for these reports, and what can they do with our findings?
JOE REED: At the top of that intended audience list for the report are the decision makers who shape how elections are run. This means county clerks, state-level administrators, and officials who oversee the nuts and bolts of our democratic process. The report is designed to land on their desks with clarity and urgency, offering insights they can use to improve transparency, bolster security, and ensure fairness in the systems they manage.
The report also serves as a strategic resource for partners and allies (advocates, organizers, and coalition leaders, for example) working in key states who are pushing for reforms and defending voting rights on the ground. For them, the findings offer both validation and credible data they can cite in briefings, oversight letters, and public campaigns. While the general public may benefit from the broader narrative, the real strength of the report lies in its ability to inform and equip those positioned to make change whether through policy, oversight, or advocacy.
AAS: How can we all be more engaged participants in our democracy?
JOE REED: You can always get involved with a local civic group or volunteer during elections, whether it’s helping register voters or making sure polling places run smoothly. Reach out to your representatives. For example, UCS has a petition you can sign right now urging your members of Congress to support scientific integrity in the federal government. Elected officials actually do want to hear from you, and your voice matters more than any algorithm. Stay informed by sticking to credible news sources that don’t dabble in conspiracy theories or clickbait rabbit holes.
And above all, talk to your neighbors. Democracy isn’t something we stream or post online. It’s something we live, together.