Recent research shows that conversational AI can shift voter preferences, with effects persisting for weeks. Yet frontier models exhibit a documented "persuasion-reliability tradeoff", producing hallucinated or systematically distorted election information. Despite these risks, election officials lack standardized tools to systematically evaluate AI systems before deployment. We propose CivicAudit-Bench, a stakeholder-guided auditing framework to stress-test large language models for civic hallucinations, false confidence, jurisdiction-dependent failure, and asymmetric refusals/accuracy. This framework introduces a modular, counterfactual, and severity-aware auditing methodology that integrates roll-call–based alignment modeling, entity-swap probing, and jurisdiction-conditional correctness criteria. Informed by engagement with the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the toolkit consists of three modules: (1) PoliBias-US, a multi-indicator alignment screen combining Congressional roll-call ideology scaling with party-cue counterfactual sensitivity, persona robustness, and narrative-framing alignment; (2) HalluBias-Election, an evidence-linked benchmark that measures hallucinations, severity-weighted critical errors, and asymmetries via Entity-Swap Counterfactual Probing and a jurisdiction-safe completion criterion; and (3) Disclosure-Test, pre-registered experiments assessing whether transparency and calibrated-uncertainty disclosures reduce overreliance and attenuate persuasion without blocking legitimate civic information. CivicAudit-Bench outputs versioned audit scorecards and a coordinated white-hat disclosure workflow, advancing UN SDG~16 by strengthening democratic information integrity.