The Electoral Integrity Project, in partnership with the Carter Center, held its 6th annual virtual conference during the week of July 6th, 2026, co-convened by Holly Ann Garnett (Royal Military College/Queen’s University, Canada), Toby James (University of East Anglia, UK), and Anthony J. DeMattee (The Carter Center, USA), the conference brought together academics and practitioners from across the globe.
Across eight panels and two practitioner roundtables, the programme explored a variety of topics and contexts, from voter registration in Nepal to post-election dispute resolution in Malawi.
The first panel, Electoral Integrity at the Polls, opened the week with studies on poll watchers, party nominated poll workers, and proxy voting, highlighting that public beliefs about electoral safeguards often diverge sharply from how those safeguards operate in practice.
Practitioners echoed this concern. The Round Table Electoral Management Resiliency: Independence in Practice gathered three former heads of electoral commissions (Lorenzo Córdova Vianello, National Electoral Institute of Mexico; Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Elections Canada; and Peter Wardle, Electoral Commission of the UK) for a candid discussion on what institutional independence looks like in daily practice. One key question emerged: how and when can electoral management bodies push back against governments? Panelists identified institutional culture as the foundation of resilience. Independence, they argued, is sustained by a shared sense of identity and purpose—grounded in core values of service and duty within the body itself and supported by practical tools and strategic partnerships.
In the panel Voter Perceptions and Trust, the gap between practice and perception was explored in a number of excellent paper presentations. For example, Thessalia Merivaki (Georgetown University) and Natalie Scala (Towson University) presented evidence from a study of Anne Arundel County’s 2024 election (US), highlighting the trade-offs between electronic and mail voting and public perceptions of accuracy. They argued while the problem presents as administrative, its root is communicative. Building trust in elections means making information both accurate and easily accessible. A similar pattern surfaced in a paper on the Information Environment in elections, in which Svitlana Chernykh and Nicolas Bidddle (Australian National University) presented the initial results of a survey experiment on artificial intelligence and electoral integrity. Findings suggested voter confidence depends on how governments and electoral management bodies react to electoral challenges.
Additional topics covered in the workshop included:
Election Design and Candidates and Politicians—explored the process of rules shaping who contests elections and on what terms.
Election Observation—examined the life and afterlife of observer missions, including the fallout of the USAID democracy-funding withdrawal.
Contentious Elections—dove into vote buying, electoral violence, and recount disputes.
Voter Inclusion and Accessibility—discussed the reality of mail voting, public outreach, and out-of-country voting for large diasporas.
Sessions are available to watch on the EIP YouTube channel. Full programme details and the full set of conference papers can be found on the conference page.