Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Biden proposes spending billions on election security

election workers

Biden's proposed grants would include money for equipment and training, among other apsects of elecoin security.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The fiscal 2023 budget plan President Biden released Monday would allocate billions of dollars in election security grants and nearly double the budget for the Election Assistance Commission, which administers such grants.

White House budget proposals do not define future spending but rather serve as a reflection of the administration’s values. With election reform bills stalled in Congress, Biden is now pushing to invest in election administration and security through the agency designed to provide resources to the states.


The EAC, which was created in 2002 under the Help America Vote Act, provides voluntary guidance to states on how to follow the limited election administration requirements established by federal law. It also certifies election equipment and administers election-related grants.

Biden’s budget calls for $10 billion in election security grants, to be allocated over a 10-year period “to support critical state and local election infrastructure.”

The money can be spent on HAVA-related programs “such as upgrades to registration databases, voting systems, and physical structures; support recruitment, training, and retention of election workers; improve physical and cyber security; and improve voters' access to reliable elections.”

In early December, conservative think tanks wrote to congressional leaders requesting significant investment in election security at the state and local levels. And later that month, 14 state election officials called on the administration to spend $20 billion over 10 years for election equipment, training, security and facilities.

The Center for Tech and Civic Life had echoed that funding request, and while its leaders still believe more is needed, they celebrated Biden’s proposal.

“Our recent polling shows bipartisan support for federal funding for local election officials. President Biden is showing leadership and making the case that we must invest in state and local election departments. He’s right and Congress should follow suit,” said Tiana Epps-Johnson, executive director of CTCL.

Congress has appropriated funds for HAVA spending three times previously: $380 million in 2018 and $425 million in 2020, but just $75 million this year.

In addition, the Biden budget would establish $250 million in election innovation grants. State and local governments would compete for the money, to be spent on projects that improve the administration of federal elections.

“Eligible uses of funding will include capital investment to accelerate modernization of secure voting systems, efforts to expand voter access, including vote-by-mail, voter education, language proficiency, usability, voter technology, and other initiatives to enhance and secure administration of Federal elections that do not meaningfully impair access,” according to the budget proposal.

Biden proposed nearly doubling the EAC budget, from $16 million to $30 million. That includes increased compensation for full-time personnel from $5 million to $8 million.

Election administration and security have been major issues at the heart of the ongoing politicization of the 2020 election. Republicans continue to claim Donald Trump was robbed of a second term by people committing election crimes (even though there is no evidence of widespread fraud) and Democrats argue that GOP legislators are attempting to stifle voting rights of minority voters heading into the 2022 midterm elections.

The president is also asking Congress to provide a 15 percent increase for the Federal Election Commission. While the FEC is responsible for enforcing federal election laws (among other tasks), it rarely takes action thanks to the polarization among its commissioners.

The White House, through its agencies, spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually to promote and defend democracy abroad. Biden has requested keeping those expenditure lines — the Democracy Fund ($290 million) and the National Endowment for Democracy ($300 million) — flat next year.

A bipartisan bill has been proposed in the House of Representatives to establish similar funding for grants to improve democracy at home. The Building Civic Bridges Act would task AmeriCorps with administering grants to increase civic engagement and decrease polarization.

Read More

Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep Reading Show less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep Reading Show less
The Great Political Finger Trap

Protesters gather near the White House on November 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. The group Refuse Fascism held a rally and afterwards held hands in a long line holding yellow "Crime Scene Do Not Cross" tape along Lafayette Square near the White House.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The Great Political Finger Trap

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination earlier this year, a YouGov poll was released exploring sentiments around political violence. The responses raised some alarm, with 25% of those who self-identified as “very liberal,” and nearly 20% of those polled between the ages of 18 and 29, saying that violence was sometimes justified “in order to achieve political goals.” Numerous commentators, including many within the bridging space, lamented the loss of civility and the straying from democratic ideals. Others pointed to ends justifying means, to cases of injustice and incivility so egregious, as they saw it, that it simply demanded an extreme response.

But amidst this heated debate over what is justified in seeking political ends, another question is often overlooked: do the extreme measures work? Or, do acts of escalation lead to a cycle of greater escalation, deepening divisions, and making our crises harder to resolve, and ultimately undermining the political ends they seek?

Keep Reading Show less