Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Elections require more consistent federal funding, per report

North Carolina primary election workers

Election workers await voters in Cary, N.C., on Tuesday. Their salaries are one of many expenses lines in local election officials' budgets.

Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images

Elections are the central pillar around which a democratic republic is built — the manifestation of citizen representation in government. And yet, local governments put the funding of election administration on par with parking garages, and the federal government only chips in when there’s a crisis.

That’s the conclusion drawn from “The Cost of Conducting Elections,” a new report issued by the National Institute of Civil Discourse’s Common Sense American program in conjunction with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab.

This report examines the challenges and sources of election funding, focusing on the past 20 years. It also considers the role of the federal government in election funding and recommends a more consistent model for financial support.


Elections incur both short- and long-term costs. Yearly costs include printing of ballots and information materials, salaries of temporary election staff, rental of polling places, and postage for mailed materials. Longer-term costs focus on maintaining election infrastructure and include maintenance of the voter registration database, testing and securing voting equipment and computer systems, and training election officials.

Local governments bear most of the fiscal burden of running elections, totals that can be difficult to calculate given the variety of ways state and local governments develop budgets and account for spending. Still, based on a variety of sources such as research conducted by the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and a paper prepared by the Election Infrastructure Initiative, the report estimates that local governments spend about $5 billion each year on elections.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

This makes up a miniscule percentage of the $2 trillion local governments spend per year—about on par with the amount spent on managing public parking facilities.

That’s one of the reasons “election administrators have described themselves as the least powerful lobby in state legislatures and often the last constituency to receive funds at the local level,” according to a 2014 report issued by the Presidential Commission on Election Administration.

Though local governments are largely responsible, state governments often contribute to election spending. A few states, such as Alaska and Delaware take primary responsibility for running and paying for elections, while others contribute funds proportional to the number of state offices on the ballot. One important task that falls to states is maintaining a statewide voter registration system. Additionally, though states sometimes help with the costs of new voting equipment, replacing outdated voting equipment is often difficult as few state or local governments have funds specifically earmarked for capital purchases.

The federal government also provides money for elections, although such funds accounted for only about 4 percent of election spending between 2003 and 2020. Federal funding thus far has been crisis-based. In the last 20 years, money has been allocated three times — through 2002’s Help America Vote Act, which approved funding to improve election administration; the money appropriated by Congress in 2018 for election cybersecurity in light of concerns raised about the 2016 election; and via the 2020 CARES Act, which offered funding to offset additional costs caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, including expanding early and mail-in voting and enacting health safety measures at polling places.

These additional pandemic-related costs were also covered through philanthropic efforts, including flexible donations from sources such as Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg’s foundation and Arnold Schwarzenegger as well as in-kind donations such hand sanitizer and the use of stadiums for social-distanced voting. According to the report, some states have banned private assistance, and have not replaced this funding with increased state appropriations.

NICD’s research focuses on federal funds, considering several arguments about whether the federal government should play a larger role in election funding. The main argument against election spending by the federal government is that elections are “strictly a state matter.” The report then offers several rebuttals to this idea:

First, the federal government should cover some costs because it requires that states hold elections and has imposed additional costs through mandates through legislation such as the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act and National Voter Registration Act. Indeed, elections have been referred to as the first unfunded federal mandate, per the report. Next, about half of all voters say they are “federal-only” voters who often fail to cast ballots in state- or local-only elections. Finally, foreign interference in elections has emerged as a national security threat.

The report presents several ideas for increasing federal election funding:

  • Instead of being crisis-based, it could be based on a set rule, such as an amount equal to one-third of election costs.
  • It could be based on the amount of space federal offices occupy on ballots, known as ballot “real estate,” or on the proportion of “federal-only” voters, likely in the range of one-third to one-half of all voters.

Regardless of the method chosen, it is important that federal funding becomes a regular appropriation in the federal budget, according to the report, so local governments know what to expect when building their budget . The researchers also suggest an application-based grant system or a set amount of money to be used over time for capital expenditures such as voting equipment and computer systems.

Additional suggestions for how the federal government could assist election administration include funding research into election spending, which would allow researchers a better understanding of where election funding comes from and how it is used. That would improve administration and “recount insurance,” which would lower costs for states to conduct recounts or post-election audits.

The federal government is already moving toward implementing some of these suggestions. President Biden’s budget for fiscal 2023 includes a proposed $10 billion for election administration over the next 10 years. One-fifth of that total would be allocated this year, followed by $800 million to $900 million every year after. Biden’s budget also includes $5 billion for the U.S. Postal Service to expand mail-in voting.

Read More

Pete Hegseth walking in a congressional hallway

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be defense secretary, and his wife, Jennifer, make their way to a meetin with Sen. Ted Budd on Dec. 2.

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Hegseth is the wrong leader for women in the military, warn women veterans and lawmakers

Originally published by The 19th.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As Pete Hegseth tries to persuade senators to support him to lead the Department of Defense in the Trump administration, several lawmakers, women veterans and military advocates warn that his confirmation could be detrimental to women in the military and reverse progress in combating sexual assault in the Armed Forces.

Keep ReadingShow less
disinformation spelled out
TolikoffPhotography/Getty Images

Listening in a time of disinformation

The very fabric of truth is unraveling at an alarming rate; Howard Thurman's wisdom about listening for the sound of the genuine is not just relevant but urgent. In the face of the escalating crisis of disinformation, distortion and the unsettling normalization of immoral and unethical practices, particularly in electoral politics and executive leadership, the need to cultivate the art of discernment and informed listening is more pressing than ever.
Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump and Joe Biden in the Oval Office

President-elect Donald Trump and President Joe Biden meet in the Oval Office on Nov. 13.

Jabin Botsford /The Washington Post via Getty Images

Selfish Biden has given us four years of Trump

It’s been a rough go of it for those of us still clinging to antiquated notions that with leadership and power should come things like honesty, integrity, morality, and expertise.

One look at any number of Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks and it’s clear those things no longer matter to a great number of people. (Hell, one look at Trump himself and that’s painfully, comically obvious.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Notre Dame at night

People gather to watch the reopening ceremony of the Notre Dame Cathedral on Dec. 7.

Telmo Pinto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Cherishing our institutions: Notre Dame’s miraculous reopening

We witnessed a marvel in Paris this weekend.

When a devastating 2019 fire nearly brought Notre Dame Cathedral to the ground, President Emanuel Macron set the ostensibly impossible goal of restoring and reopening the 860-year-old Gothic masterpiece within five years. Restorations on that scale usually take decades. It took almost 200 years to complete the cathedral in the first place, starting in 1163 during the Middle Ages.

Could Macron’s audacious challenge — made while the building was still smoldering — be met?

Keep ReadingShow less