Citizen perceptions of election legitimacy are integral to democratic longevity. When the public believes elections are fraught with fraud or suppression, they are less supportive of democracy and more supportive of anti-democratic means to seize and maintain power. Although previous work has examined American perceptions of voter fraud rates, less is known about perceptions of voter suppression or more specific opinions like who is perceived to be committing fraud or being suppressed, normative preferences for preventing fraud vs. stopping suppression, and support for restrictive election policies (beyond attitudes toward voter identification requirements). However, understanding these attitudes is necessary for understanding why many Americans think elections are illegitimate, who they blame for election illegitimacy, and what to do about it. Utilizing an elite-rhetoric model of election opinions, we demonstrate stark partisan differences in election integrity opinions. Compared to Democrats, Republicans are more likely to think fraud is frequent, more likely to think fraud is perpetrated by non-white Americans or Democrats, less likely to think non-white Americans or Democrats are suppressed, prefer preventing fraud over stopping suppression, and support restrictive reforms that Republican elites argue prevent fraud but that Democratic elites argue cause voter suppression. These effects persist among independent leaners, further demonstrating the extent to which partisan rhetoric has infiltrated public perceptions of election integrity. These stark differences comport with recent evidence that election-related opinions are largely elite-driven, show Americans disagree on basic electoral integrity facts and priorities, and the wide berth in election beliefs ripe for elite manipulation.