How California’s Slow-Motion Election Disaster Is Destroying Trust in America
Earlier this spring, a Reuters/Ipsos poll delivered a sobering wake-up call that virtually flew under the radar. Roughly 63% of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was stolen - and the skepticism doesn’t stop there. That same survey reported that 21% of independents and 9% of Democrats held similar views on fraud deciding the election. With independents now making up a record-high 45% of Americans, that adds up to tens of millions across the political spectrum who question whether their votes truly decide elections.
This isn’t a fringe issue as some would want you to believe - it’s the broad erosion of confidence that threatens turnout and legitimacy.
I’m not writing to re-litigate the 2020 election. Both parties have hurled fraud accusations when convenient - Hillary Clinton did in the aftermath of her landslide loss in 2016, and President Donald Trump did after his loss in 2020. The real crisis, actually, is the accelerating erosion of institutional trust paired with rising voter apathy. When processes look sloppy, secretive, or overly complicated, people tune out. Democracy doesn’t die from one dramatic theft; it withers from quiet, compounding disillusionment.
California’s recent primary stands as Exhibit A in this slow-motion disaster. The nation’s most populous state, saddled with its chaotic jungle primary system, still has millions of ballots unprocessed nearly a week after polls closed. As I write, roughly 3.6 million ballots remain pending statewide, heavily concentrated in massive counties like Los Angeles. Projections indicate full certification could stretch weeks, with final results potentially not expected until mid-July.
Why? California’s universal vote-by-mail system - a pandemic product that was made permanent in 2021 - automatically sends ballots to every registered voter. Those technically postmarked by Election Day can arrive and count days later, followed by signature verification, curing periods, and manual processing. California officials have pointed to staffing shortages and the sheer scale - over 23 million registered voters. And while recent laws have tried to accelerate things, the late-arriving mail-ins keep the backlog alive.
What makes California the focal point is this: every other state in the nation has delivered substantial election results on election night, and developing countries like India, with its 1.4 billion people, tabulate just as fast despite a massive logistical operation. California’s delays aren’t some unavoidable fate; they are the direct result of bad policy.
Prolonged uncertainty doesn’t just frustrate voters - it supercharges every rumor and suppresses future participation. Perception of vulnerability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of apathy.
The barriers to oversight only make it worse. California’s SB73, signed just before the primary, restricts federal investigators’ access to voter rolls, systems, and processes absent specific court orders or state-law violations. Framed as shielding against “interference,” it lands amid ongoing scrutiny and voter roll challenges from the Department of Justice, raising serious questions about transparency.
Poll watchers and observers encounter their own practical obstacles. California state law permits party representatives, candidates, and groups to observe, but partisan election officials tightly control numbers, proximity, noise, and activities. Restricted sightlines, guardrails, and discretionary enforcement can render oversight more symbolic than substantive. Audits do happen, but since they are often layered with delays, restricted access, and defensive legal barriers, the whole setup invites doubt. Even without proven widespread fraud, when the system seems to resist real-time scrutiny, public faith collapses.
This isn’t unique to California, but it highlights a deeper national tension over expanding access through mail-in ballots, same-day registration, and digital systems. Digital voting machines, in particular, heighten anxiety because vulnerabilities have already been demonstrated. Tangible paper ballots, on the other hand, offer robust audit trails that software alone cannot provide.
And even though I hate to admit it, this is the one subject we can look to Europe for lessons on. France conducts elections primarily in-person on a single day, and voters must show identification. Universal mail-in voting is virtually nonexistent domestically, and limited absentee voting requires justification. France’s model is proof that with strict identity checks and auditable paper processes, you get fast, credible results.
Germany, the United Kingdom, and many other European nations prioritize same-day, in-person paper voting with identification requirements and strong chains of custody. Hand-counting or hybrids maintain both speed and trust: India’s electronic voting machines paired with paper trails demonstrate that scale doesn’t justify endless delays. America’s fragmented, mail-heavy patchwork often trades timeliness and verifiability for volume - without equivalent safeguards.
Americans overwhelmingly recognize the problem. Voter ID maintains 80% or more bipartisan support across repeated polls, including strong majorities of independents and Democrats. That very principle is in the SAVE America Act, which requires proof of citizenship for federal voter registration and adds critical voter roll checks. It passed the House earlier this year, yet remains stalled in the Senate despite repeated calls from President Trump for Senate Republicans to make it a priority.
This November, however, California voters will have the rare opportunity to act. The Voter Identification, Citizenship Verification, and Registered Voter List Administration Initiative - or just the California Voter ID Initiative - would mandate government-issued identification for in-person voting, push citizenship verification using government databases, require annual accuracy reports on voter rolls, and empower State Auditor reviews. If voters do approve the initiative, California would become the 37th state to require identification when voting.
These aren’t extreme changes, but they are maintenance for a strained system. And while they won’t eliminate every risk or instantly heal all skepticism, they do signal seriousness.
Of course, other measures can be taken: layer in mandatory paper trails, aggressive risk-limiting audits, unrestricted poll-watcher access, strict postmark and deadline enforcement, boosted resources for timely counting, and proactive voter roll maintenance using federal data. That combination of aggressive policy deflates stolen-election narratives by addressing the root causes.
America stands at a defining crossroads. Politicians defending opaque systems, and those filibustering or outright opposing measures like the SAVE America Act, are ignoring the overwhelming consensus. They gamble that voter frustration won’t deliver consequences. But history proves that bet often fails, and that apathy today hardens into abandonment tomorrow.
Two groups hold the power, and for once, they’re not inherently partisan. The American people must demand transparency, speed, and verifiability. America’s leaders must enact commonsense reforms that balance access with integrity. Because when we prove that our elections resist theft - or even the appearance of it - only then will trust rebuild, participation rebound, and democracy regain strength.
California’s mess serves as a loud warning. America must act before the next cycle cements perception into permanent damage.
Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.