26 NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2026 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL On election day, you visit polling stations and election commissions. You observe how officials perform their functions, carefully noting whether the process conforms with standards on such issues as secrecy of the vote. You observe how votes are counted and tabulated, and whether results are publicly accessible. And then you write a detailed report to elucidate your findings. Embassy vs. Multilateral Election Observation There are many reasons for U.S. embassies (and counterparts from other democracies) to observe foreign elections. But there are also important differences between diplomatic observation and the work of professional international EOMs in the 21st century. One difference is that diplomats work to advance all their country’s national interests, while international observers must focus solely on analyzing the electoral process. For more than 20 years, the most reputable international election observer groups have all signed on to a common Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and a mandatory code of conduct that stress impartiality, objectivity, accuracy, integrity, professionalism, and noninterference in the electoral process. Another difference between a good international EOM and even the best work by diplomats is that assessments by serious observer groups are always based on international standards accepted by the state concerned. And the main products of an international mission—typically a statement shortly after the election and a final report with detailed recommendations— flow from analyzing the extent to which an election was in line with those standards. ODIHR’s methodology mandates that teams are multinational, with everyone bound by the same code of conduct. It also dictates that judgments be based on facts, not rumors or disinformation. Larger missions include systematic media monitoring. EOM methodologies must continually be updated to confront new challenges, including new voting and campaign technologies but also new tactics by autocrats to cover their tracks. For example, the most pressing election monitoring issues in 2026, not surprisingly, include foreign interference and disinformation, deepfakes, AI, and online harassment. OSCE observed U.S. elections from 2002 to 2024. For the 2026 midterms? Not invited. Further, international observers operate on the invitation of the host authorities. In the OSCE area (Europe, Eurasia, and North America), all states have made a political commitment to invite OSCE observers for their national elections. But it is still incumbent on the state to send an invitation in good time. This is a nearly universal practice, but it has been flouted recently by Russia and Belarus. What About U.S. Elections? I’m often asked, “When will international observers visit the United States?” In fact, the United States has not only been a historic supporter of international election observation but also regularly invited ODIHR, along with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), to observe its elections. ODIHR and OSCE PA teams observed a dozen U.S. elections from 2002 through 2024, always commenting favorably on the U.S. electoral system and raising almost no questions about the integrity of the vote, while offering recommendations to address such persistent problems as gerrymandering, voter registration, campaign finance, and access for international observers (in some states). Notably, immediately after observing the 2020 U.S. presidential election, an international mission from ODIHR and the OSCE PA stressed that it saw no evidence of widescale fraud. The ODIHR team noted in its final report that the January 6 riots “constituted an attempt to circumvent the democratic process.” The current administration expressed unhappiness about these findings, even suggesting that ODIHR should “rescind” this “inaccurate” report. ODIHR reports on the United States, as well as all OSCE states, are available at www.osce.org/odihr/elections. In 2026 the Trump administration did not invite OSCE observation of midterm elections. ODIHR and the OSCE PA expressed regret, noting that this “is not in line with the commitments undertaken by all OSCE participating States” while they “look forward to the opportunity to observe future federal elections in accordance with ODIHR’s established methodology.” This administration’s shameful failure to invite OSCE observers adds to a long list of signals that it does not consider itself bound by basic international commitments championed and honored by the U.S. under presidents of both parties for many decades. It also feeds the arguments of autocrats who frequently (and falsely) accuse credible international observer organizations of “double standards,” significantly undermining the work of U.S. citizens conscientiously promoting democracy overseas. Looking ahead, when OSCE experts can again observe U.S. elections, their findings and recommendations should be taken very seriously. n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=