The United States faces a chronic underfunding of its elections, as acknowledged by voting officials across the political spectrum. Despite the recognition of this issue, estimates of the amount spent on democracy vary considerably. However, a recent report by MIT and the American Enterprise Institute indicates that local governments spend roughly the same amount on supporting voting as on maintaining parking facilities.
In response to the need for improved election security, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that a portion of its multibillion-dollar grant program would be dedicated to this purpose. However, an NPR investigation has found that the distribution of these grants often did not align with the intended objectives. Election officials and experts have reported that at least a portion of the funds were either not allocated to reinforcing the country’s voting infrastructure or were spent haphazardly without adequate consideration for the most pressing needs ahead of a highly contentious presidential election.
The grants are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and are intended to assist state and local governments in preparing for and preventing terrorism and disasters. For some grants, DHS designates priority areas to further target the use of the funds, with election security being one of those priorities in 2023. In total, DHS allocated over $2 billion in preparedness grants, with at least $30.9 million earmarked for election security.
Despite the significant funding, it is unclear how much of the allocated money was effectively utilized by voting officials. One state election official, who spoke to NPR on condition of anonymity, stated that they were not consulted in the allocation process and were only informed of the spending plans a few days before the grant application deadline. The official expressed concern over the allocation of tens of thousands of dollars for cybersecurity risk assessments, which are already provided free of charge by the federal government.
Multiple sources cited by NPR attributed the grant rollout issues to the late announcement of the election security requirement by the federal government, which coincided with the traditional timeline for grant applications, resulting in a compressed timeframe for localities to prepare. Former election official Kim Wyman emphasized the lack of collaboration between grant applicants and local or state election administrators, which contributed to the ineffective use of funds.
The election official who spoke to NPR also raised concerns that applicants in their state may have attempted to meet the election security requirement without adjusting how the money was spent. One instance involved a bomb training exercise that supposedly benefited election security, but upon inquiry, it was revealed that no election officials were invited to participate.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report earlier this year acknowledged the challenges in implementing the new election security requirement for the grants. The report cited instances where localities fulfilled their obligations by purchasing a single security barrier, which was designated solely for election security purposes. The report also found that eight out of 16 federal officials involved in distributing the grant money faced difficulties in meeting the election security requirement, attributing it to a lack of expertise and the perceived absence of need for election security funding in certain locations.
Last week, DHS announced this year’s preparedness grant total would surpass $1.8 billion, with a required spend of approximately $27.8 million on election security. While officials and experts expressed optimism about increased involvement from voting officials this time around, concerns remain regarding the inconsistent and inadequate funding for elections. Norden emphasized the need for consistent federal funding that election officials can rely on to effectively plan and address ongoing challenges, such as physical security and artificial intelligence, that impact the voting process.
