The recent Los Angeles mayoral primary illuminated the challenges and public suspicions that can arise from prolonged vote counting, even when conducted transparently. On June 2, Spencer Pratt, a Republican and former reality television personality, appeared poised to secure second place and advance to the November general election. However, over the subsequent five days, as roughly 225,000 mail ballots were tallied, progressive Democrat Nithya Raman surpassed him, ultimately claiming the final spot in the runoff.

This extended counting period, rather than a swift post-election reversal, became a focal point for skepticism. Supporters of Mr. Pratt, along with prominent Republican figures including former President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, questioned the legitimacy of the outcome, suggesting the drawn-out tally was suspicious. While Mr. Pratt garnered approximately 25 percent of the vote—roughly matching President Trump’s share in Los Angeles earlier this year—the slow erosion of his initial standing fueled allegations of impropriety.

Election experts note that such shifts in vote tallies are not unusual, but typically occur rapidly, minimizing public suspicion. The protracted nature of California’s vote counting amplifies the visibility of these fluctuations. Barry Burden, professor of political science and director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, remarked that an elongated counting process allows voters to observe every “twist and turn,” which may appear more irregular than the underlying data warrant.

California’s voting system heavily relies on mail ballots, which can be received up to a week after Election Day if postmarked on time. Given that Democratic voters tend to submit mail ballots at higher rates—and often closer to Election Day—vote counts gradually shift toward Democrats as these ballots are verified and included. In Los Angeles, early returns contained a blend of in-person votes and early-arriving mail ballots that skewed Republican, while later tallies increasingly favored Democrats.

This pattern mirrors trends observed in other states during the 2024 presidential election. For instance, Michigan saw returns briefly favor Trump before counting Election Day ballots that leaned toward Joe Biden, and Virginia experienced mid-count swings as urban areas reported results later in the process. However, California’s slower timeline, coupled with policy choices that slow ballot processing, extends this dynamic over multiple days.

Political scientists emphasize that public confidence in elections depends not only on the accuracy and security of the process but also on clear communication about how and why vote counts shift over time. The contentious claims of election fraud originating from former President Trump’s assertions about late-counted ballots contribute to polarized perceptions, especially in key battleground states and close races.

As the nation approaches November’s elections—with control of the U.S. House potentially hinging on several California contests—election officials and policymakers face heightened pressure to balance timely results with thorough verification. Experts warn that without transparent processes and public education, drawn-out counts risk fostering distrust and conspiracy theories among an already skeptical electorate.