The State of Philanthropic Funding Bans for Election Administration

Introduction by Patty Hansen

Being an elections administrator has never been more challenging. With limited budgets, our staff and volunteers work tirelessly to keep elections safe and secure. Our local governments struggle to keep up with the growing costs of staffing and supplies, with new policies passed by
federal and state lawmakers, and with the increasingly complex technological demands necessary to keep our elections safe.

In the meantime, I look forward to a safe, secure and inclusive election this year.

Background

The administration of elections is largely decentralized in the United States.¹ One result of that decentralization is that local governments — and local taxpayers- generally bear the primary responsibility for financing the administration of elections.² The heavy reliance on local taxpayer financing leads to widely disparate resources, experiences, and access for voters based on where they live.³ As has been widely reported, many jurisdictions have insufficient funding to consistently and fully fund the various staff, activities, equipment, and other resources necessary for the safe and effective administration of our national, state, and local elections.

Since Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, the federal government has occasionally appropriated funding to assist state and local governments in administering elections. The funding has been critical in boosting periodic investments in priorities such as voter registration systems and election security.

As important as the infusion of federal dollars has been, the funding makes up a relatively small portion of the total spending on elections administration,⁴ and the inconsistent and irregular nature of the funding prevents local governments and elections administrators from consistently planning or relying on it. In addition, the federal HAVA funding is provided directly to state-level election administrators (typically through secretaries of state) generally without guidelines requiring further distribution to the local governments that are largely responsible for financing the administration of
elections in most states.

Similarly, state funding to support the administration of elections varies widely from state to state but is typically relatively small compared to the funding provided by local governments and taxpayers.⁵

Within this context, private foundations have occasionally offered an important source of additional revenue to assist local elections administrators in meeting the growing demands of and complexities surrounding administering elections.

For example, when elections administrators were faced with the unprecedented challenges associated with overseeing a presidential primary and general election in 2020, the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) granted almost $350 million to local election administrators to support the work of administering safe and effective elections during a global pandemic.⁶ While providing this critical, emergency relief to local administrators, CTCL also called on federal and state leaders to address the chronic underfunding of elections administration.⁷

Since 2020, over half of the states have responded instead by banning elections administrators from accepting nongovernmental funds.⁸ This report offers a first look at whether the initial states that banned funds also offered new, additional ongoing state financing to address the funding challenges of local governments and taxpayers in administering safe and effective elections.

Private philanthropy helped alleviate an emergency, and in ‘normal years’ it can help election offices build capacity, streamline processes, and make capital investments. But private philanthropy is no substitute for predictable government funding at the local, state, and federal level.

– Center for Tech and Civic Life

Methodology

For the first eleven states that passed prohibitions on accepting private funding for the administration of elections in 2021, the Institute for Responsive Government (Responsive Gov) examined state budget and expenditure data for the two fiscal years following the prohibitions (fiscal years 2022 and 2023). Because state and local expenditures on elections often fluctuate based on the four-year election cycle, for example increasing during presidential and statewide elections and decreasing during off-cycle years, Responsive Gov compared the fiscal year 2022 and 2023 budget and expenditure data with the corresponding fiscal years four years prior (fiscal years 2018 and 2019). Actual expenditures were used when easily publicly accessible; otherwise, estimated expenditures were used. If neither actual nor estimated expenditures were available, appropriation amounts were used. For the purposes of analyzing ongoing, predictable state funding for local administrators, one-time-only payments and capital investments to support local administrators were generally not included in the analysis.⁹ See Appendix A for complete data, notes, and sources.

A Note of Caution About Comparing Data Between Jurisdictions

Finding uniform and reliable fiscal election data is challenging, and care should be taken before drawing comparative conclusions across jurisdictions. Not all states and localities report election budgets separately, and among those that do, wide variation exists around what items are included in the election-related budgets and line items and what are subsumed within a larger agency budget.¹⁰ In addition, the election-related responsibilities funded and executed directly by the state versus local administrators vary widely among the states. With these differences and data limitations in mind, Responsive Gov conducted this fiscal analysis to understand state-level funding available to localities within each state before and after prohibiting private funding, while taking care not to draw direct comparisons about levels of funding between the states.

Findings

States Fail to Provide Increased Ongoing Funding to Support Local Election Administration

Responsive Gov finds that the first class of states to pass prohibitions in 2021 did so without offering a corresponding increase in consistent and reliable support to address the ongoing, fiscal pressures faced by local governments and taxpayers associated with paying for local, state, and national elections.

Two of the states reviewed — Georgia¹¹ and Indiana,¹² — do not appear to provide any ongoing financial support to local election administrators. Although these states may occasionally provide one-time-only funding, the funding is not consistent or predictable. These states have prohibited administrators from accepting private funding for elections without creating a state-level funding source to ameliorate the challenges of disparate and insufficient local funding.

An additional four states — Kansas, Florida, North Dakota, Ohio, and Tennessee — provide reimbursements to local administrators for certain election-related expenses related to a limited number of specific elections, such as special elections and presidential preference primaries. In these states, the amounts expended fluctuate depending on the number and types of elections held in a given year and the actual approvable expenses incurred by the counties. The underlying policies regarding reimbursements for expenses have not been increased or adjusted since the state banned the acceptance of philanthropic funding.

• In theory Kansas reimburses counties for expenses related to presidential preference primary elections. In practice, Kansas did not hold a presidential preference primary election during the four years analyzed for this report.¹³
• Florida¹⁴ and North Dakota¹⁵ reimburse counties for actual expenses related to special elections only.
• Ohio reimburses counties for costs related to some statewide special elections and statewide ballot measures when the ballot measure is the only item on the ballot.¹⁶ In addition, the state provides relatively modest reimbursements for poll worker training.¹⁷
• Tennessee provides funding to local governments and officials for costs associated with special elections for the General Assembly and costs associated with presidential preference primaries.¹⁸ The state also provides $18,000 per year per county toward the compensation of certified administrators of elections.¹⁹

The remaining four states provide at least some additional sources of ongoing funding to support local elections administration. These funding streams can be important and predictable sources of funding for local administrators, but they have not been increased or otherwise adjusted since the states banned the acceptance of philanthropic funding. Local governments and taxpayers remain primarily responsible for funding election administration in these states.

• Arizona provides cyclical support for counties including reimbursements for (1) special election expenditures,²⁰ (2) presidential preference elections (PPE) based on a statutory formula,²¹ and (3) some costs associated with statewide primary and general elections, including county costs for printing, labeling, and postage for sample ballots. ²²
• Arkansas provides reimbursements to counties for some election-related expenses for state-supported political primary elections, nonpartisan (judicial) elections, special primary elections, and statewide special elections.²³
• Idaho reimburses expenses related to presidential primaries. In addition, a portion of the proceeds from the state sales tax is passed through to counties to defray costs associated with conducting elections for political subdivisions. At least $4.1 million is distributed each year, adjusted for inflation, with $2.2 million distributed equally between the counties and the remaining $1.9 million distributed based on population. Importantly, the automatic adjustment for inflation embedded within the state sales tax distribution works to ensure that the real value of the funding is not diminished over time.²⁴
• Texas provides state funding for “the reasonable and necessary costs of conducting primary elections,” postage for voter registration applications, and additional funding to defray the costs of voter registration.²⁵

State Investments in Equipment Can Provide Important Relief to Local Administrators

Although ongoing and predictable funding for local elections administrators is critical, periodic investments in new, upgraded, and maintained equipment can also provide important budgetary relief to local governments. Several of the states examined for this report have made significant recent investments in election equipment infrastructure. For example, in 2020, the Georgia Legislature authorized the use of bond balances up to $150 million for the statewide replacement of election voting systems.²⁶ In 2019, the Ohio General Assembly approved over $100 million in bonds for county voting machine acquisitions.²⁷ Indiana,²⁸ Arkansas,²⁹ and North Dakota³⁰ have made smaller investments in equipment and capital improvements during the period analyzed for this report. These state investments can help local governments avoid large, locally funded capital improvement projects and help ensure access to safe and reliable equipment throughout a state. They do not, however, address the ongoing operational costs associated with administering elections.

Conclusion

None of the eleven states that prohibited the acceptance of philanthropic funding have provided a corresponding increase in consistent and reliable state funding for the local governments and taxpayers that primarily shoulder the burden of paying for local, state, and national elections. Seven of the eleven states continue to provide either no ongoing funding to local elections administrators or only help fund a limited number of specific and rarely occurring elections, such as special elections and presidential preference primaries. The remaining four states offer some additional funding for local elections administrators but have similarly failed to increase support since banning philanthropic funding. Local elections administrators need ongoing and reliable sources of funding to meet the growing demands associated with providing safe and secure elections and complying with the mandates placed upon them by federal and state lawmakers. Federal and state lawmakers could help local officials better meet these demands by creating and expanding sources of ongoing funding and by ensuring that new and existing funding streams have built-in mechanisms to adjust rising costs. Restricting access to relatively small- but occasionally critically important- sources of philanthropic funding, further hamstrings local elections officials without offering real solutions to their varied funding struggles.

^{1 Katherine Hale, Robert Montjoy, and Mitchell Brown, “The Structure of Election Administration at State and Local Levels,” in Administering Elections: How American Elections Work (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 27–51.
2 Veazey, Tara. “State and Local Spending on the Administration of Elections: Insights From a Review of 12 States and 93 Localities.” Institute for Responsive Government, October 24, 2023, https://responsivegov.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/State-and-Local-Spending-on-the-Administration-of-Elections-Insights-From-a-Review-of- 12-States-and-93-Localities.pdf; Charles Stewart III, “The Cost of Conducting Elections,” MIT Election Data & Science Lab, 2022, https://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/ files/2022-05/TheCostofConductingElections-2022.pdf.
3 Veazey, “State and Local Spending on the Administration of Elections: Insights From a Review of 12 States and 93 Localities;” Stewart, “The Cost of Conducting Elections;” Center for Tech and Civic Life, “Election Officials Made Democracy Happen in 2020: The New Case for Predictable Government Funding,” n.d., https://www.techandciviclife.org/ wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Election-Officials-Made-Democracy-Happen-in-2020.pdf, 17.
4 Stewart, “The Cost of Conducting Elections,” 5.
5 Veazey, “State and Local Spending;” Stewart, “The Cost of Conducting Elections,” 4; National Center for State Legislatures, “The Price of Democracy: Splitting the Bill for Elections,” 2015.
6 Center for Tech and Civic Life, “Election Officials Made Democracy Happen in 2020: The New Case for Predictable Government Funding,” 17. 7 Center for Tech and Civic Life, “Election Officials Made Democracy Happen in 2020: The New Case for Predictable Government Funding,” 20.
8 National Conference of State Legislatures, “Prohibiting Private Funding of Elections,” April 9, 2024, accessed May 10, 2024, https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/prohibiting-private-funding-of-elections.
9 The focus of this report is on ongoing sources of funding that local administrators can plan and budget around but see the “STATE INVESTMENTS IN EQUIPMENT CAN PROVIDE IMPORTANT RELIEF TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS” section of this report for information about one-time-only and capital investments in elections equipment.
10 Veazey, “State and Local Spending,” 2-3; Stewart, “The Cost of Conducting Elections,” 4.
11 Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission, “Budgetary Compliance Report, FY 2018,” accessed May 10, 2024, https://gsfic.georgia.gov/document/publication/ fy2018-budgetary-compliance-report-bcr/download, 294; FY 2019, https://gsfic.georgia.gov/document/document/fy2019-budgetary-compliance-report-bcr/download, 294; FY 2022 at https://gsfic.georgia.gov/document/document/fy2022-budgetary-compliance-report-bcr/download, 306; Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission, “Budgetary Compliance Report, FY 2023,” accessed May 10, 2024, https://gsfic.georgia.gov/document/document/2023-budgetary-compliance-report/download, 310. Note, however, that Georgia has made significant funding available for capital investments in technology and equipment, discussed in the “STATE INVESTMENTS IN EQUIPMENT CAN PROVIDE IMPORTANT RELIEF TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS” section of this report.
12 Indiana State Budget Agency, “2019-2021 as Submitted Budget, Agency Summary,” accessed May 10, 2024, https://www.in.gov/sba/files/AS_2019_Summary-by-Agency.pdf, 4; Indiana State Budget Agency, “2021-2023 as Submitted Budget, Agency Summary,” accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.in.gov/sba/files/AS_2021_Summary-by-Agency. pdf, 4; Indiana State Budget Agency, “2023-2025 As-Submitted Budget, Agency Summary,” accessed May 10, 2024, https://www.in.gov/sba/files/AS_2023_Summary-by- Agency-1-5-2023.pdf, 4-5.
13 Kansas Division of the Budget, “The Governor’s Budget Report: Volume 2, Fiscal Year 2020,” accessed June 18, 2024, https://budget.kansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FY_2020_ GBR_Vol2-02-04-2019.pdf, 169; Kansas Division of the Budget, “The Governor’s Budget Report: Volume 2, Fiscal Year 2021, accessed May 10, 2024, https://budget.kansas.gov/ wp-content/uploads/FY2021_GBR_Vol2.pdf-1-16-2020.pdf, 169; Kansas Legislative Research Department, “Budget Analysis Fiscal Year 2024: Volume I, Governor’s Budget Report Overview General Government,” February 2023, accessed June 18, 2024, https://klrd.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ba_volume_1.pdf, 110-113; Kansas Legislative Research Department, “Budget Analysis Fiscal Year 2025: Volume I, Governor’s Budget Report Overview General Government,” February 2024, accessed May 10, 2024, https://klrd.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/03/Volume1.pdf, 100-103. Kansas held its first PPP since 1992 in 2024. Kansas Secretary of State, “Presidential Preference Primary Information,” accessed May 14, 2024, Kansas Secretary of State | Elections | Presidential Preference Primary (ks.gov).
14 Fla. Stat. §100.102; Florida Division of Elections, “Special Election Reimbursement Request for Expenditures,” April 2019, accessed June 18, 2024, https://soe.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/ DE%20Guide%200005-Special%20Election%20Reimbursement%20201904.pdf.
15 N.D.C.C. § 16.1-01-02.3; Agency Budget Detail, North Dakota Management and Budget, “Agency Budget Detail (by Agency): 2021-2023 Executive Budget Recommendation by Agency,” accessed June 18, 2024, https://www.omb.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/financial-transparency/state-budgets/2021-23-detail-book/MVBA2021R02.pdf. Note, however, that for FY 2019-2021, the legislature made a one-time-only appropriation to fund the purchase of statewide voting and e-poll books for counties, discussed in the “STATE INVESTMENTS IN EQUIPMENT CAN PROVIDE IMPORTANT RELIEF TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS” section of this report.
16 Ohio Rev. Code §3501.17; Ohio Rev. Code §3513.301 et seq.; Ohio Rev. Code §3521.03. Note, however, that the 2019 legislature approved debt instruments of up to $104.5 million to pay for county voting machines, discussed in the “STATE INVESTMENTS IN EQUIPMENT CAN PROVIDE IMPORTANT RELIEF TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS” section of this report.
17 For the years evaluated, poll working training reimbursements averaged under $250,000 per year. Terry Steele, “Greenbook LBO Analysis of Enacted Budget: Ohio Secretary of State” (Legislative Budget Office, August 2021), accessed June 18, 2024, https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/assets/legislation/134/hb110/en/files/hb110-sos-greenbook-as-enrolled- 134th-general-assembly.pdf, 6.
18 Tenn. Code Ann. §2-12-109(2)(c); Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-109(2)(d). 19 Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-209.
20 For example, $2.5 million was expended in FY 2018 to fund a special election. Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “FY 2019 Appropriations Report: Department of State – Secretary of State,” accessed June 18, 2024, https://azjlbc.gov/19AR/sos.pdf, 327.
21 The PPE funding is appropriated in the fiscal year preceding the general presidential election. By law, counties are reimbursed up to $1.25 per active registered voter in the county. In FY 2020, the legislature authorized the SOS to reimburse counties at a higher rate than is statutorily required. The budget included an “intent clause stating that the appropriation and reimbursement rates for the 2020 PPE do not set a precedent for reimbursement levels of future PPEs.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, FY 2021 Appropriations Report: Department of State – Secretary of State,” accessed June 18, 2024, FY 2021 Appropriations Report – Department of State – Secretary of State (azjlbc. gov), 292.
22 See for example, Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “FY 2023 Baseline Report: Department of State – Secretary of State,” accessed June 28, 2024, FY 2023 Baseline Book – Department of State – Secretary of State (azjlbc.gov),
23 Ark. Code Ann. §7-7-201; Ark. Admin. Code 108.00.5-501 to 108.00.5-507; Bureau of Legislative Research, Arkansas Legislative Council, “Summary of Operating Expenditures for State Agencies and Institutions for Fiscal Years 2012-13 Through 2021-22,” May 10, 2024, https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FBLR+Public ations%2FFiscal+Service+Division%5CK.+A-BOOK-10+Year+Expenditure+History+By+State+Entity+++AND++++B-BOOK-Various+Statistical+Data%2FA+Book+2022+- +Ten+Year+Expenditure+History.pdf, 13, 79, 80; Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, “2023-2025-Agency-Request-Budget-Manuals: Board of Election Commissioners,” October 17, 2022, accessed June 18, 2024, https://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/budgetManuals/0232_election_cmsrs2024.pdf; Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, “2023-2025-Agency-Request-Budget-Manuals: Secretary of State,” October 25, 2022, accessed June 18, 2024, https://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/ images/uploads/budgetManuals/0063_sos2024.pdf. Arkansas also provides county voting system grants at the discretion of the secretary of state, discussed in the “STATE INVESTMENTS IN EQUIPMENT CAN PROVIDE IMPORTANT RELIEF TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS” section of this report.
24 Idaho Code Ann. § 63-3638. Legislative Services Office, “2018 Idaho Fiscal Facts,” accessed May 10, 2024, https://legislature.idaho.gov/lso/bpa/pubs/ff/?y=2018, 29; Legislative Services Office, “2019 Idaho Fiscal Facts,” accessed May 10, 2024, https://legislature.idaho.gov/lso/bpa/pubs/ff/?y=2019, 27; Legislative Services Office, “2022 Idaho Fiscal Facts,” accessed May 10, 2024, https://legislature.idaho.gov/lso/bpa/pubs/ff/?y=2022, 30; Legislative Services Office, “2018 Idaho Fiscal Facts,” accessed May 10, 2024, https://legislature.idaho.gov/lso/bpa/pubs/ff/?y=2023, 31.
25 Tex. Election Code §§ 173.001 to 173.088; Tex. Election Code § 191.006.
26 Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, “Budget in Brief Amended Fiscal Year 2019 & Fiscal Year 2020,” accessed June 18, 2024, https://opb.georgia.gov/document/budget- briefs/fy-2020-afy-2019/download, 378; Sam Sachs, “Elections Law Signed, Brings Reforms, New Voting Machines to Georgia,” News 3, April 9, 2019, https://www.wrbl.com/ news/local-news/elections-law-signed-brings-reforms-new-voting-machines-to-georgia/.
27 “As of [August 2023,] there have been $80 million in obligations issued for 53 counties to acquire new voting machines.” Terry Steele, “Greenbook LBO Analysis of Enacted Budget: Ohio Secretary of State” (Legislative Budget Office, August 2023), accessed June 18, 2024, https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/assets/legislation/135/hb33/en0/files/hb33-sos- greenbook-as-enacted-135th-general-assembly.pdf, 4.
28 Indiana approved $10 million in 2019 for election security improvements, including the replacement of county electronic tabulation equipment. Indiana State Budget Agency, “List of Appropriations Made by the Regular Session of the 2019 General Assembly for the Biennium July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021,” accessed June 18, 2024, https://www. in.gov/sba/files/AP_2019_0_0_0_1_The_Whole_Budget_Report.pdf, 5, D-13 ; Secretary of State Connie Lawson, “Indiana Secretary of State, FY22 & FY23 Budget Committee Presentation,” Slide show, December 14, 2020, https://www.in.gov/sba/files/6.-Secretary-of-State-Presentation.pdf.
29 Arkansas provides county voting system grants made at the discretion of the Secretary of State with funding from fees collected in association with the Uniform Commercial Code and a one-time transfer into the county voting system grant fund by the 2019 Legislature. From FY 2018 through FY 2022, actual grant expenditures ranged from a low of $876,837 in FY 2019 to a high of $9,178,505 in FY 2020. Bureau of Legislative Research, Arkansas Legislative Council, “Summary of Operating Expenditures for State Agencies and Institutions for Fiscal Years 2012-13 Through 2021-22,” 33.
30 The North Dakota Legislature made a one-time-only appropriation of $11.22 million for FY 2019 – 2021, including $8.2 million in state special revenue funding for purchasing statewide voting and e-poll books for counties. Legislative Council, “66th Legislative Assembly State Budget Actions for the 2019-21 Biennium,” June 2019, accessed June 18, 2024, https://ndlegis.gov/sites/default/files/fiscal/2019-21/docs/2019-21_state_budget_actions.pdf.}