“No Evidence” Is Not the Same as “No Issue”

Aug 4
2 min read

Election arguments become less useful when different claims are compressed into the same phrase. “An incident occurred,” “a process needs improvement,” and “the result was changed” are separate propositions. Each needs support appropriate to its scope.

Define the claim

When someone says there is “no evidence,” ask: evidence of what? A specific allegation, a broader pattern, or an effect on a particular result?

Apply the same precision to claims that fraud has been proved. Evidence about one incident does not establish every allegation about a different election. The scope of the conclusion must stay connected to the scope of the record.

A ballot drop box in Denver, October 2020. Contextual election imagery; this photograph is not connected to the North Carolina case discussed in the article. Photo: Jami430. Source · CC BY-SA 4.0. Image unmodified.

Read the actual finding

North Carolina's State Board of Elections ordered a new election in the 2018 Ninth Congressional District contest after examining evidence of misconduct and irregularities. Its March 13, 2019 order provides the findings and reasoning.

That documented case demonstrates why specific records matter. It is not a substitute for evidence about another contest. Read the order before treating a summary of it as proof of a broader claim.

Keep the categories separate

An allegation is a claim to investigate. A documented violation establishes a particular problem. Questions about organization, scale, and effect require further analysis. A procedural decision may answer a narrower question than the public debate assumes.

Specify which category the evidence supports. If the record does not resolve a question, leave it unresolved rather than filling the gap with certainty.

Discuss safeguards precisely

A proposal to improve election administration should explain the problem it addresses, the evidence for that problem, and the tradeoffs of the proposed response. Evaluate those questions on their merits.

Confidence depends on a standard that allows documented problems to be examined while rejecting conclusions the evidence cannot carry.