RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate The Honest Elections Project Right-Biased for its advocacy of strict election laws and alignment with conservative election security concerns. While it avoids direct conspiracy theories, it reinforces fraud narratives without strong evidence. Its Mixed factual rating reflects selective framing and opaque funding.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: RIGHT (6.7)
Factual Reporting: MIXED (4.8)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
History
The Honest Elections Project (HEP) is a right-leaning election monitoring organization focusing on election integrity policies. According to its About page, HEP supports policies requiring voter ID, regulating mail-in ballots, preventing noncitizen voting, and ensuring voter rolls’ integrity. The group was established as a project of the 85 Fund, which is linked to the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal advocacy group.
Read our profile on the United States media and government.
Funded by / Ownership
HEP is funded through the 85 Fund, formerly the Judicial Education Project. While the group does not disclose donors, InfluenceWatch reports that it has received substantial funding from conservative networks, including donors aligned with the Federalist Society. The 85 Fund is part of a network of dark money groups that support conservative legal efforts, raising concerns about financial transparency.
The organization is affiliated with Project 2025, a policy initiative led by the Heritage Foundation, outlining a future conservative governance plan.
Analysis / Bias
HEP promotes election security measures that align with Republican and conservative viewpoints. It often opposes expansions in mail-in voting, same-day voter registration, and efforts to loosen voter ID laws. Its Election Reform page outlines its support for stricter voting requirements, emphasizing fraud prevention over accessibility.
HEP has engaged in litigation, filing lawsuits to tighten election laws in key states and arguing for voter roll maintenance and ballot security. Their litigation page highlights legal battles against changes in mail-in voting rules and automatic voter registration policies. Their Issues page focuses on perceived vulnerabilities in U.S. elections, including opposition to ranked-choice voting and concerns about potential noncitizen voting.
Regarding potential misinformation, while HEP does not explicitly claim the 2020 election was stolen, their rhetoric often implies doubts about election integrity, reinforcing narratives used to justify election law restrictions. For example, their praise for a Supreme Court ruling allowing Virginia to purge voter rolls of noncitizens aligns with broader conservative claims that noncitizen voting is a significant issue despite a lack of widespread evidence. In their testimony before the Texas Senate, HEP representatives supported Texas’ strict voting laws, reinforcing concerns about alleged voter fraud while downplaying accessibility concerns.
HEP is generally reasonably fact-based but holds strong right-leaning opinions regarding voting and voting rights.
Failed Fact Checks
- No direct failed fact checks have been documented, but their framing of election security concerns often echoes claims associated with the 2020 election fraud narrative, even if they do not explicitly state the election was stolen.
Overall, we rate The Honest Elections Project Right-Biased for its advocacy of strict election laws and alignment with conservative election security concerns. While it avoids direct conspiracy theories, it reinforces fraud narratives without strong evidence. Its Mixed factual rating reflects selective framing and opaque funding. (D. Van Zandt 03/18/2025)
Source: https://honestelections.org/
Last Updated on March 18, 2025 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources