Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Price tag for coronavirus election changes put at $2 billion

Voting changes

More drop off boxes, like this one being used by a Denver voter on Super Tuesday, are among the improvements that the Brennan Center is proposing in response to the Coronavirus pandemic.

Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

Given the myriad differences in election methods across the country, changing the way Americans vote in the time of coronavirus won't be easy. And it wouldn't be cheap, either.

The Brennan Center for Justice on Thursday said it would cost as much as $2 billion to implement the ambitious changes it recommends for a November election in which every voter can vote free of the fear of infection. Expanded online voter registration, a nationwide option to vote by mail and public safeguards at polling places are at the heart of the liberal think tank's detailed plan.


Arranging for everyone to be able to cast a ballot from home is by far the most expensive item, with a price tag between $982 million to $1.4 billion. The breakdown for this includes:

  • $413 million to $593 million for postage to mail the ballots to about 155 million registered voters — and the cost of that many postage-paid return envelopes.
  • $127 million to $164 million to install and operate drop boxes where people could deposit ballots if they wait until the last minute or don't trust the mail.
  • $120 million to $240 million to buy equipment to manage the increase in absentee ballots — including signature verification technology, high-volume sorting machines and high-speed ballot scanners.
  • $165 million for the additional people states and counties would have to hire to run that equipment and otherwise sort and count all the ballots.
  • $92 million for election officials to rent extra space for storing and then processing the incoming ocean of paper.
  • $54 million to $89 million to print the ballots and return envelopes.

Since millions of people will still want to vote in person, the Brennan Center says, $271 million will be needed to ensure that polling places meet health standards, increase the number of poll workers and expand the days that polling sites are open.

Responding to the Covid-19 pandemic, which could require all Americans to avoid most public gathering places for months, will also require $86 million for an expansion of online voter registration in states where the rules now compel people to appear in person at a government office, especially close to Election Day.

Communicating all of these changes to an already stressed and confused public is the last major element in the Brennan Center proposal. An estimated $252 million would be spent on voter education campaigns to let people know about the mail-in voting options and the expanded online voter registration opportunities.

Legislation introduced in the Senate this week by Democrats Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ron Wyden of Oregon includes many of the ideas the Brennan Center recommends. It is an opening bid by the senators, who are hoping to secure bipartisan support for including in the $1 trillion coronavirus economic stimulus package a generous federal subsidy for easing the health concerns about voting this year — principally by boosting the use of mail-in ballots.

It requires that the federal government reimburse states for the costs of implementing these changes, such as providing free postage for absentee ballots. But it does not provide an estimate of how much that reimbursement might total.

The only dollar figure in the legislation is $3 million that would be directed to the Election Assistance Commission to allow it to help administer the voting system changes.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less