Throughout one of the most divisive election cycles in modern history, the world was shown the resiliency of the democratic system of elected representation in the United States. Record numbers of eligible voters registered and cast a ballot this cycle. While the credit for these accomplishments lies with the voters, there remains a group of dedicated individuals who helped make this all possible: election administrators.
The process of administering an election extends far beyond the month before election day. These public servants and their staff—if they have any—facilitate candidate filings, procure and test voting equipment, and communicate with voters throughout it all. The nation commends them for their tireless effort and advocacy for the democratic process.
Their work is so vital that in 2017, the Department of Homeland Security officially designated elections as a critical infrastructure. But election administrators continually lack the support and resources needed to efficiently administer an election.
Such a scarcity of resources was on full display in recent months in areas that bore the brunt of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, where election officials and other civil servants found themselves in the tough position of meeting public expectations while also providing necessary disaster relief.
While these areas received disaster relief from the federal government, problems facing election administrators persist throughout the remainder of the country. Low budgets, few or no staff, outdated equipment, partisan scrutiny, and rampant disinformation and security challenges have placed historic strains on our election system.
Moreover, jurisdictions often compete for high-demand resources, prompting one election administrator to exclaim that if their equipment were painted “Caterpillar yellow,” then perhaps their department would be able to receive ample support to meet the needs of a growing electorate.
Yet again we saw voters standing in extremely long lines. We must consider if the election officials requested funds for additional resources to increase capacity during the busiest times but were denied those requests? Were election officials resourced with the tools and policies to provide information to voters about their options in voting and what to expect the wait time to be when they got there? Similarly, as we continue to wait for some races to be called, have requests for high-speed scanners, additional processing staff, and policy changes to allow for earlier processing been denied? Funding has understandably focused on securing our elections, but we must also ensure that capacity can accommodate the electorate efficiently and quickly—both in casting their vote as well as reporting the results.
Many of the problems facing election administrators were examined earlier this year at a symposium in Lawrence, Kan., where our institutes invited administrators and policy experts to examine why funding more than 8,000 election jurisdictions across the country is such a complex issue. The main takeaway? It doesn’t have to be—more funding allows for more efficiency in administering an election.
In our federal system of government, the responsibility of determining the “time, place, and manner” of elections lies with the states. Even then, states delegate most authority to local jurisdictions. While logical in theory, it’s a different picture in practice. With such limited fiscal resources, most counties in the country allocate only 0.54 percent of their budget to election administration. Some look to the federal government to fill gaps in funding, yet only 4 percent of federal dollars spent since 2000 have aided election administration.
Continually underfunding this critical infrastructure risks causing greater problems, in addition to exacerbating those that already exist. Modernization of equipment and processes can help our county clerks and secretaries of state meet the increasing needs of enhancing cybersecurity, safeguarding public health, and more—all of which can restore broader, bipartisan trust in our elections systems. Only a bipartisan approach to adequately funding our elections can help achieve this.
The leaders our institutes are named after demonstrated time and time again how a prominent Republican and Democrat could come together to pass reasonable yet essential legislation on a bipartisan basis. The people of Kansas and Massachusetts continued to support them as their elected representatives because they dedicated themselves to addressing complicated policy problems that affected millions of Americans, regardless of their party affiliation.
That same leadership is needed today to address the challenges in administering our nation’s elections.
Adam Hinds is the CEO of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute. Audrey Coleman is Director of the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics.
