Reported Voting Issues: Bernalillo County, New Mexico

← Back to all state and county level reports

Table of Contents

Select a name to go to that section.

Summary of Findings

28.8% of Bernalillo County respondents (72 of 250) reported at least one of six election problems, compared with 26.5% nationally. Of the monitored problems, intimidation or harassment (11.1% vs. 7.7% nationally) is higher than the national rate by more than the margin of error. Statewide, 26.1% of New Mexico respondents (196 of 752) reported at least one problem; the chart shows Bernalillo County, New Mexico and national rates side by side. Bernalillo County respondents make up 33.2% of all New Mexico respondents (250 of 752) and 0.4% of all respondents nationally (250 of 56,077).

Figure 1. Share of Bernalillo County, New Mexico respondents reporting each problem, with the New Mexico and national shares, Aug 23–Oct 26, 2026. Bernalillo County n = 250; New Mexico n = 752 (including Bernalillo County, 33% of the state's respondents); national n = 56,077. Margin of error for the county share reporting any problem: ±5.6 percentage points, so the county figure is within the margin of error of the national rate. Source: CHIP50 survey data.

Week by week

Figure 2. Weekly share of Bernalillo County, New Mexico respondents reporting each problem (teal line with circles), with New Mexico statewide (red line with squares, including Bernalillo County) and the national share (black dashed line). The shaded band is the 95% confidence interval for the national share, which is the range the weekly figure could vary based on the sample size alone. Hollow points are weeks with fewer than 10 Bernalillo County respondents. Weeks start Monday; only problems asked about in the past day or week are shown (conflicting registration information: past week), each person counted once per week. Source: CHIP50 survey data.

Weekly groups in Bernalillo County are small (3 to 83 people), and who answered these questions changes from week to week, so treat week-to-week movement as a signal to watch, not a finding. From Aug 23–Oct 12 to Oct 13–Oct 26, the share of Bernalillo County respondents reporting any of these three problems went from 6.8% to 19.5% (205 and 82 people): a rise larger than the margin of error.

Who reported a problem

Among groups of 30 or more people, reports were most common among people with household income $100,000 and over (42.4%) and least common among people 65 and over (17.6%), against 28.8% overall. Reports rose with education, and fell with age.

Share reporting at least one of the six problems, by group, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Aug 23–Oct 26, 2026. Race/ethnicity is select-all-that-apply, so one person can appear in more than one group. Shares are shown for groups of 10 or more people. Source: CHIP50 survey data.

Follow-up detail

Follow-up detail is shown for each problem reported by more than 10 people. Not shown: conflicting registration information (no follow-up question).

New Mexico Overview

August 23 to October 26, 2026. 752 respondents across New Mexico, including people whose county is not on file.

26.1% of New Mexico respondents (196 of 752) reported at least one of six election problems, compared with 26.5% nationally. No single problem is higher than the national rate by more than the margin of error.

Figure 3. Share of New Mexico respondents reporting each problem, with the national share, Aug 23–Oct 26, 2026. New Mexico n = 752; national n = 56,077. Margin of error for the state share reporting any problem: ±3.1 percentage points, so the state figure is within the margin of error of the national rate. Source: CHIP50 survey data.

New Mexico: Week by week

Figure 4. Weekly share of New Mexico respondents reporting each problem (red line), with the national share (black dashed line). The shaded band is the 95% confidence interval for the national share, which is the range the weekly figure could vary based on the sample size alone. Hollow points are weeks with fewer than 10 New Mexico respondents. Weeks start Monday; only problems asked about in the past day or week are shown (conflicting registration information: past week), each person counted once per week. Source: CHIP50 survey data.

Weekly groups in New Mexico are small (16 to 201 people), and who answered these questions changes from week to week, so treat week-to-week movement as a signal to watch, not a finding.

New Mexico: Who reported a problem

Among groups of 30 or more people, reports were most common among people with household income $75,000 to $100,000 (40.3%) and least common among people 65 and over (18.9%), against 26.1% overall. Reports fell with age.

Share reporting at least one of the six problems, by group, New Mexico, Aug 23–Oct 26, 2026. Race/ethnicity is select-all-that-apply, so one person can appear in more than one group. Shares are shown for groups of 10 or more people. Source: CHIP50 survey data.

New Mexico: Follow-up detail

Follow-up detail is shown for each problem reported by more than 10 people. Not shown: conflicting registration information (no follow-up question).

National Overview

August 23 to October 26, 2026. 56,077 respondents who answered all six questions.

26.5% of respondents (14,861 of 56,077) reported at least one of six election problems. The most common were misleading calls or texts (15.7%) and intimidation or harassment (7.7%); the least common was registration challenge notices (2.5%).

Figure 5. Share of respondents reporting each problem, national, Aug 23–Oct 26, 2026. Each person counted once; bases vary slightly by question (56,077 to 56,446). Margin of error for the national share reporting any problem: ±0.4 percentage points. Source: CHIP50 survey data.

National: Week by week

Figure 6. Weekly share of respondents reporting each problem, national. The shaded band is the 95% confidence interval for the national share, which is the range the weekly figure could vary based on the sample size alone. Weeks start Monday; only problems asked about in the past day or week are shown (conflicting registration information: past week), each person counted once per week, so weekly rates are lower than full-period rates. Source: CHIP50 survey data.

Misleading calls or texts went from 6.8% in the week of Aug 31 to 11.8% in the week of Oct 19; being discouraged from registering went from 1.9% in the week of Aug 31 to 2.0% in the week of Oct 19; conflicting registration information went from 2.0% in the week of Aug 31 to 2.1% in the week of Oct 19. Weeks have 2,874 to 16,019 respondents (the first, partial week 388), so the margin of error is narrow except in that first week. From Aug 23–Oct 12 to Oct 13–Oct 26, the share of respondents reporting any of these three problems went from 10.4% to 13.9% (44,992 and 16,011 people): a rise larger than the margin of error.

National: Who reported a problem

Among groups of 200 or more people, reports were most common among people aged 18 to 24 (42.5%) and least common among people 65 and over (19.0%), against 26.5% overall. Reports rose with income and education, and fell with age. By race and ethnicity, reports were most common among Hispanic or Latino respondents (33.6%, 1628 of 4850), 8 points higher than White or Caucasian respondents (25.1%, 10421 of 41451), a difference larger than the margin of error; Asian or Asian American respondents (30.5%), Black or African American respondents (30.2%), Other respondents (30.1%), Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian respondents (29.3%) and Native American or Alaska Native respondents (29.0%) fell in between.

Share reporting at least one of the six problems, by group, national. Race/ethnicity is select-all-that-apply, so one person can appear in more than one group. Source: CHIP50 survey data.

National: Follow-up detail

Follow-up detail for respondents nationwide who reported each problem. Not shown: conflicting registration information (no follow-up question).

About the survey

The 2026 Voting Information Trends research Initiative tracks how people get voting information and monitors possible election-related problems reported at the county level. We focus on issues respondents say they have personally experienced or observed, including misleading election communications, intimidation, voter registration problems, and difficulties completing voting-related tasks. The goal is to identify signals that may warrant closer attention.

We survey about 1,000 U.S. adults each day through an online, nonprobability sample covering all 50 states and Washington, D.C. State-level quotas are used for race, ethnicity, age, and gender. We also collect additional responses from selected counties identified as higher risk by the Voting Rights Lab (VRL), whose 2026 risk index considers factors including electoral competitiveness, election laws and procedures, litigation, and concerns involving state and local election actors.

How to read this report

Counties with at least 50 respondents are ranked by the share of unique respondents reporting at least one monitored problem during the data-collection period. We also report results for individual problems, weekly trends, demographic groups, and when sample sizes allow, additional follow-up detail.

Weekly trends are shown only for questions that ask about experiences in the past day or week, and each respondent is counted once per week. Figures include a 95% margin of error based on sample size. We describe a county as higher than the national rate only when the difference is larger than that margin.

When a respondent selects a problem but then states in an optional written follow-up that nothing actually happened, we recode the response as not reporting the problem. These contradictions are identified using a large language model (LLM) assisted coding and reviewed by a member of the research team.

About the data

These results are signals, not estimates of prevalence. The survey is not nationally or locally representative, and results should not be used to estimate how common a problem is in the country or in any county. Figures are unweighted and describe the people who responded. Unlike individual reports found on social media, these responses come from a standardized survey using the same questions and time periods across respondents, allowing us to compare patterns across places and against a national benchmark.

The purpose of the survey is to identify issues that may warrant independent investigation or verification. Election officials, journalists, and other organizations can then assess those reports and respond when appropriate.

Because the data are self-reported, a response does not by itself verify that the reported problem occurred. Respondents may also interpret questions differently from researchers. For example, some reports of “misleading calls or texts” describe campaign messages rather than false voting information, and some registration notices may come from campaigns or advocacy organizations rather than election offices. These findings should therefore be treated as signals of where to look more closely, not counts of verified incidents.

Use of AI in this report

The research team wrote and reviewed the “About the survey” section. The summaries of the results are filled in automatically from templates built with AI. All numbers come directly from the survey data. Automated text can contain errors, so readers should check the summaries against the tables and charts.