Given that 2026 midterm elections are approaching soon, the issue of voter fraud will most certainly be a hot topic of discussion. I thought it would be helpful to break down how election security works in the state of North Carolina.

It is important to look at voting in much the same way an accounting professional would look at the process of closing the books and building accurate, reliable financial statements. In elections and accounting, the process integrates inputs, activities and controls to produce consistent, repeatable outcomes. Those activities and controls are usually performed by a mix of people and information technology systems. Over time, computing systems take on more responsibility. Sophisticated IT systems are faster and more scalable than manual processes, and they provide the kind of automation that guarantees consistency.  

In business, poor process design, weak internal controls or worse—fraud—can undermine the reliability of reported financial statements. For public companies, extensive regulations and auditing standards guard against this risk. Why? Because stakeholders must have a clear and reliable picture of a company’s financial health. Without that confidence, markets cannot function effectively. 

Failures still occur from time to time at individual companies. But the broader regulatory and auditing framework generally preserves confidence in the overall market. That systemic confidence remains essential—even when individual investors have been harmed.

In the same way that reliable financial reporting underpins stable and efficient markets, confidence in the voting process is essential to a stable and functioning democracy.  

The voting process consists of five steps, and each comes with its own potential risks, safeguards and fraud controls:

Registration

In this first step, an eligible citizen formally enrolls with their state or local election authority, which authorizes them to participate in elections. It helps ensure that elections are organized, fair, and that each eligible person votes in the correct precinct.

Primary controls at this stage are designed to verify identity and eligibility before a voter is added to the rolls. They include identity submission requirements, residency confirmation, and citizenship attestation backed by legal consequences. In addition, election authorities validate registration data against state and federal databases, helping ensure that applicants are legitimate and records are consistent across systems.

The main fraud risks during registration include false identity registration, duplicate registration and non-citizen registration. Safeguards addressing these risks include felony penalties for fraudulent registration, routine voter roll maintenance and interstate data matching systems that flag duplicate or outdated records. Address verification procedures further reduce the likelihood that ineligible or inaccurate voters remain on the rolls.

Voting

Submitting a ballot—either in person or by mail—to record your choices in an election. Once cast, a vote becomes part of the official count that determines the outcome.

Controls here focus on verifying voter identity and ensuring the integrity of the ballot submission process. In-person voting typically requires a government-issued ID and verification against a registration book. Mail-in voting often involves witness or notary requirements, signature verification and ballot tracking systems. Provisional ballots are used when eligibility is uncertain, allowing votes to be cast while subjecting them to later verification.

Fraud risks at this stage include voter impersonation, double voting (such as attempting to vote both in person and absentee) and improper ballot submission. Existing safeguards are extensive: Impersonating another voter is a felony. Bipartisan teams oversee polling places, and mail-in ballots undergo signature verification against stored records. Notary seals or witness requirements add another layer of validation, while provisional ballots are only counted after eligibility is confirmed. Finally, reconciliation processes ensure the number of ballots cast matches the number of voters checked in.

Canvassing Results

In this step, officials review and compile all vote totals after an election to ensure every valid ballot is included and the results are accurate before certification.

Controls here focus on reconciliation and verification. Officials compare the number of ballots issued, cast and counted, and they review provisional and absentee ballots to confirm eligibility and proper handling. Vote totals are checked and rechecked prior to certification to identify discrepancies or anomalies.

Common fraud risks during canvassing include tabulation errors and potential exclusion of valid ballots. Safeguards include bipartisan oversight of the canvassing process, statutory reconciliation procedures and strict chain-of-custody requirements for ballots and materials. Transparency is also a key defense, with results typically reported publicly for external scrutiny.

Auditing Results

This is the process of reviewing ballots and vote totals after voting has ended to confirm an accurate vote count follows.

Controls in the auditing phase include post-election reviews of vote totals, comparisons between paper ballots and machine tabulations, and manual recounts when discrepancies exceed defined thresholds. Importantly, tabulation systems are generally not connected to the internet, and physical chain-of-custody controls protect ballots and equipment throughout the process. Post-election machine comparison procedures further validate system performance.

The chief risks here include undetected tabulation errors and system malfunctions. Safeguards against these risks include risk-limiting audits, which use statistical methods to confirm outcomes, as well as manual reviews of sampled ballots. Publicly defined audit protocols ensure consistency and transparency, while bipartisan teams conduct counts and reconciliations to reduce the risk of bias or manipulation.

Certifying Outcomes

In this phase, election authorities officially certify that the vote totals are complete, accurate and final. Once results are certified, they become the legally recognized outcome of the election.

The controls in this phase focus on formal review and sign-off. Election officials examine the complete reconciled and audited results, ensuring that all discrepancies have been addressed and statutory requirements have been met. Certification typically involves documented approvals from designated authorities, often at multiple levels of government.

Fraud risks at the certification stage are relatively limited compared to earlier phases but may include attempts to improperly influence or delay the finalization of results. Safeguards include legal requirements governing the certification process, clear documentation standards and, in many jurisdictions, bipartisan or multi-official sign-off procedures. Public transparency and the availability of audit records further reinforce confidence that certified results accurately reflect the underlying vote.

Voter ID and Election Security in North Carolina

Like most well-designed systems, voting processes evolve over time as performance gaps are identified and controls are refined. North Carolina’s election framework is no exception. Between the 2020 and 2024 election cycles, the most significant statutory change was the implementation of a government-issued photo identification requirement, subject to specified exceptions.

The presentation of a driver’s license or other government-issued identification at the point of voting does not, on its face, impose a structural downside. The more analytically relevant question is whether that legislative change meaningfully enhances the integrity of the election or increases public confidence in the certified results.

To obtain a North Carolina driver’s license, an applicant must present documentary proof of identity and lawful presence in the United States. Identity verification, therefore, is not introduced for the first time at the polling location; it is embedded upstream within the licensing process.

No administrative system is immune to instances of document fraud, misrepresentation or human error. In control environments, scale determines significance, and  there is no evidence of the sort of widespread issuance of driver’s licenses to ineligible individuals that would imply a systemic breakdown in upstream identity controls.

If upstream identity verification mechanisms are functioning as designed, checking IDs at polling locations does not significantly improve election security and integrity. That is not inconsequential; it may promote uniformity or reinforce public perception of rigor. But analytically, the proper question is whether evidence demonstrates existing systemic failure within the control architecture.

Much of the contemporary concern regarding election integrity centers on the assertion that non-citizens are voting at scale and thereby altering outcomes. While isolated instances of unlawful voting have been identified and prosecuted, evidence of widespread participation by non-citizens at a level sufficient to affect statewide electoral results has not been demonstrated. For undocumented individuals, the legal consequences of unlawful voting include criminal liability and deportation. From an incentive perspective, the risks associated with such conduct are substantial relative to the marginal impact of a single ballot. Absent evidence of systemic participation, the claim reflects concern about theoretical vulnerability rather than demonstrated structural failure.

North Carolina’s election framework incorporates layered controls at each stage—from registration to ballot custody, tabulation, canvassing, auditing and certification. These controls are procedural, documented and subject to statutory oversight. The statutory processes of canvassing, auditing, and certification in 2020 and 2024 were executed in accordance with established law, and the certified results were not invalidated by evidence of systemic control failure.