Cleta Mitchell’s election denial network releases new blueprint to severely restrict voting

Cleta Mitchell’s anti-voting group released a sweeping new “model laws” handbook Thursday that urges lawmakers and election officials to severely restrict mail-in voting, eliminate same-day voter registration, impose rigorous ID requirements, conduct mass voter challenges and empower officials to deny and delay certification. 

The release by the Election Integrity Network (EIN) marks a dangerous escalation from one of the most influential election denial operations in right-wing politics. It outlines a vision that would transform voting from a fundamental democratic right to a complicated, rule-bound process accessible only to those who can navigate a maze of requirements. 

“Today, Election Integrity Network releases the Model Election Laws Handbook,” wrote Mitchell, the lawyer who joined President Donald Trump’s infamous call pressuring Georgia’s chief election official to “find” enough votes to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, in a post on X. “It is a total framework for repairing the damage done to our election systems by the left.”

The handbook is framed as a state-by-state legislative guide for “election integrity.” But its proposals are rooted in the same distrust of elections and conspiracy-laden claims about fraud, noncitizen voting and corrupt election officials that have animated the GOP’s anti-voting push since 2020.

“What has become clear is that those who oppose election integrity really want corruption of our elections,” Mitchell wrote in a letter accompanying the handbook. “Ours is a binary choice when it comes to election policy: choose either election integrity vs. corrupt, inaccurate, and insecure elections.”

EIN’s influence makes the handbook more than a fringe document. Several Trump administration appointees and federal officials with election-related roles have direct ties to Mitchell’s network

Mitchell and EIN call the handbook a plan to “restore” election integrity. But for voters, election workers and democracy advocates, its most extreme proposals point in another direction, fewer voting options, more rejected ballots, more surveillance of voters, more opportunities for mass challenges and more power for officials to deny legitimate election results.

The extensive handbook translates the election denial movement’s wish list into model legislation that lawmakers, local officials and activists can copy into state law. EIN says the document is meant for “state lawmakers, election administrators, and citizen advocates,” and provides language to “select complete bills or individual sections” and combine them into state proposals.

The result is a far-reaching roadmap to make voting harder and election administration more vulnerable to partisan interference.

One of the most alarming proposals would redefine election certification — the formal step where officials sign off on election results — as a discretionary act. That means officials could claim they have the power to refuse or delay certification if they say they have unresolved concerns.

“Certification of election results by canvassing boards, county or municipal governing bodies, or the [Chief Election Official] is a discretionary duty, not a purely ministerial act,” the handbook states. “Election officials responsible for certification shall withhold certification if material discrepancies or unresolved irregularities remain that call into question the accuracy of the results.”

“An election official or member of a canvassing board shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability solely for refusing or failing to certify election results that the official reasonably believes are inaccurate or incomplete due to unresolved reconciliation or verification issues,” the handbook reads.

That proposal cuts directly against long-standing guardrails around election certification.

For pro-democracy advocates, that is one of the most dangerous ideas in the document, acting as a legal shield for the very conduct that election deniers attempted after 2020, when local officials in several states faced pressure to block or delay certification.

The handbook also takes direct aim at pro-voting policies, including mail-in voting, absentee voting and early voting. 

It calls for limiting early voting to no longer than seven days and restoring Election Day as the main voting period. It also calls for repealing no-excuse absentee voting — the policy that allows voters to cast absentee ballots without having to provide a qualifying reason. Trump has called for the same rollback of mail voting.

“No-excuse absentee voting is repealed,” the handbook states. “Absentee voting shall be permitted only for voters who meet … verifiable categories.”

The proposal would also ban drop boxes, prohibit permanent absentee voter lists and reject all mail-in ballots that arrive after polls close on Election Day, even if they were sent and postmarked before the deadline.

“Absentee ballots received after the close of polls on Election Day shall not be counted, regardless of postmark or mailing date,” the handbook states. “No grace periods, postmark rules, or late-arrival allowances shall apply.”

A case brought by the Republican National Committee that aims to end grace periods was recently heard by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the handbook’s proposals on providing identification for voting go far beyond even the most strict voter ID laws.

It would require every voter, regardless of how they cast a ballot, to present or provide photo identification that confirms not only their identity but also their U.S. citizenship and state residency — a standard many common IDs don’t meet. Most driver’s licenses don’t prove citizenship, while passports don’t show a current residential address.

The handbook proposes a free “For Voting Only” card — but only after they present documentary proof of citizenship, identity, age and residency, shifting the burden onto voters to navigate another bureaucratic process.

“Each individual who casts a ballot in any election held in this State shall present or provide valid photo identification before the ballot is issued or counted, regardless of the method of voting,” the handbook states. “To obtain a ‘For Voting Only’ photo identification card, the applicant shall present documentary proof of United States citizenship, identity, age, and residency as prescribed by the [Chief Election Official].”

The handbook also targets ballot curing, the process that lets eligible voters fix technical problems with mail-in ballots, such as a missing signature or a signature mismatch.

“Post-election ‘curing’ of absentee or mail ballots for defects such as missing or mismatched signatures, missing identification, or incomplete information is prohibited,” the handbook states. “Election officials may notify voters of deficiencies identified before Election Day to allow the voter to correct the issue or vote in person, but no deficiencies may be cured after the close of polls on Election Day.”

Taken together, those provisions would create more chances for eligible voters to lose their ballots over paperwork issues, postal delays or administrative mistakes.

The handbook further leans heavily into the right’s noncitizen voting panic, despite research showing noncitizen voting is vanishingly rare and already illegal in federal elections and state elections.

“As a condition of registration, each applicant shall provide physical documentary proof of United States citizenship,” the handbook states. “States must confirm citizenship status of current registered voters; compare voter rolls to state DMV / other data.”

The handbook would also empower private citizens to challenge other voters’ registrations, even without personal knowledge of the person being challenged.

“Citizen challenges may be supported by affidavits, public records, or other documentation,” the handbook states. “And shall not be rejected solely because the challenger lacks personal knowledge of the registrant.”

That proposal mirrors a broader trend among election denial groups that have promoted mass voter challenges using databases and tools that voting rights groups say can manufacture suspicion around ordinary voter-roll maintenance issues.

The handbook proposes publishing voter lists before elections and publishing a list of all people who voted within three calendar days after each election, including the method they used to cast a ballot. 

While voter histories are already public in many states, EIN’s proposal would make those records more immediate, searchable and useful to activists seeking to scrutinize and challenge particular voters.

The document also targets election technology, showcasing the election denial movement’s growing obsession over voting machines and electronic systems. 

It calls for banning touchscreen voting machines, direct-recording electronic devices and ballot-marking devices. It also calls for prohibiting electronic pollbooks as the primary check-in system at polling places and early voting sites.

Finally, the handbook contains provisions explicitly aimed at some of the country’s most vulnerable voters. 

It proposes that homeless voters not be allowed to register or vote at shelters or resource centers, requiring them instead to use election offices or government facilities.

“Homeless voters shall not be required or permitted to register or vote at an advocacy center, homeless shelter, or partisan organization’s office, in order to minimize potential undue influence and to preserve neutrality in the voting environment,” the handbook states.

For voters in nursing homes, hospitals and other care facilities, the handbook calls for special voting deputies to be deployed, review identification documents and observe voters inserting completed ballots into security envelopes.

This story has been updated.