Every election cycle, parties discuss election reform as if they have plans to actually do something about it. If we know one thing about American politics, however, it’s that progress is slow and division is intentional. We also know that “democracy” is subjective and only in tact if it benefits one side while screwing the other.
For a little background, when the United States was established as a constitutional republic, power was supposed to be equally in the hands of the public and elected officials. Founders also didn’t create these legislative positions with livable salaries in mind because they were supposed to be a civic duty, not a source of revenue. While the Constitution is supposed to be a living document, politicians have been challenged several times throughout our nation’s 245-year history to establish self-governing laws intended to enhance the integrity of being a republic, but to no avail. Enrichment and self-preservation are the modus operandi, and the public is deceived into false patriotism by being complicit in by-design civil turbulence.
Perhaps, discussing why the Founders omitted term limits from the Constitution is better served for another article. However, I can summarize it as having to do with the Founders thinking that with age came wisdom and diplomatic resources. Remember that back in the 1700s, global travel was conducted via ships, so diplomatic wisdom and alliances were also something politicians had to work much harder to achieve.
Additionally, perhaps, the Founders didn’t establish the federal government’s responsibility to pay for elections because they didn’t anticipate how much money would influence elections in the future. They also probably didn’t anticipate that parties would weaponize elections procedures for political gain.
In 2021, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) introduced legislation called the “Freedom to Vote Act (S.2747).” The bill was intended to expand voter registration through automatic or same-day registration, voting access (which includes voting-by-mail and early voting); put limits who can be removed from voter rolls; establish Election Day as a federal holiday; outline criteria for redistricting; call for additional security; and post-election audits for federal elections. The bill also introduced expanded prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, expanding disclosures on campaign-related fundraising and spending, establishing new criminal offenses for election interference, and called for allowing those in prison–including individuals serving felony sentences–the rights to vote.
Even with 49 cosponsors, the bill has essentially been stalled in the Senate since September 14, 2021.
Many praised the bill when it was introduced, but at the core, it still doesn’t address why voting is such a disaster in the United States. To understand why this bill won’t go anywhere and why it’s just window dressing requires a primer on election funding.
Have you ever wondered who or what actually funds elections? Think about it. Every election, the news coverage zeroes in on states perceived to be committing voter suppression because locations are closed. But is that actually “voter suppression” or is to something far less sinister, like states not having the budget to support election infrastructure? After all, it’s much easier to sell the narrative that “Governor X is a fascist tyrant for suppressing voters and closing down voting locations”, than to digest and admit that the last time the federal government provided funding for elections was 2002.
So we’re clear, the process of exercising “democracy,” (voting) which is a constitutionally supported right, isn’t something that’s paid for by the federal government. The same federal government that continues to raise taxes on the most financially vulnerable class is also responsible for denying their rights to vote. If Democrats truly felt compelled to support voter rights, they would send a bill to President Biden’s desk immediately that ensured federal funding for all states for every election. Especially considering how every election, activists zero in on poor and undeserved communities to rip politicians and elections committees over voter suppression. After all, elections committees and states can’t be really fascist if they can’t deny election funding. And if Republicans want to shut down the fascist narrative, mandated election funding should be a priority in January, if they take both the House and the Senate.
It’s unlikely that either of these things will happen, though. Washington D.C. thrives on division, and anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.
While campaign spending is now exceeding the billion dollar mark, nobody knows exactly how much it costs to run an election in the United States, so that in itself is an issue. You have to remember that the reason some counties and states favor caucusing is because it’s cheaper than actual elections. Some can even argue that caucusing is election interference because the concept is to convince a room to vote for a single person in a majority rule outcome, thus negating the “one person-one vote” defense. In caucuses, rooms or meeting spaces are typically used for free and run by volunteers with refreshments provided by donors or parties. Additionally, the equipment required to hold a caucus is usually limited to pens and sheets of paper, making them extremely cost effective. In elections, spaces are either donated or rented, and while the people working elections are volunteers, they’re trained by paid staff. Additionally, equipment is expensive, as is the cost of maintaining them, and voting locations require security.
Due to Article, 1 Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, however, actual elections operations are left to state legislatures. This is partially because of how often elections are held. Federal elections are held every two years, but at the state level, those elections can be every year, if not several times a year. This is why states have so much autonomy to establish their own elections and operations budgets and resources. Additionally, maintaining voter rolls, training, and voter registration processes are yearly components to the operations of state elections. If you can recall, during the 2020 presidential election when COVID-19 restrictions were peaking, there were fewer volunteers than normal which contributed to voter suppression narratives. Another thing to consider is that in elections, states individually decide additional election costs and voting periods, such as early voting windows (which requires extended space rentals, and equipment and volunteer operations), and mail-in voting, which requires people to count ballots in secure locations.
While every state differs in how it handles elections, the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of 1870 guaranteed citizens the rights to vote regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Where states primarily differ on elections are their free elections laws, which have state constitutional amendments mandating open, free, and fair elections. These laws serve a whole range of purposes including the protection of voting against influence such as bribery, to just a simple blanket statement establishing free and fair elections, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Perhaps, the biggest issue with the statement “free and fair” is that we know that while citizens are free to vote, the act of voting is rather expensive given the infrastructure, technology, and training required to exercise that right. And we know that due to financial limitations from budgetary issues, elections are far from “fair.”
The cost of the 2020 election cycle was $14,403,966,687, of which, $8,703,050,547 was spent on Congressional races and $5,700,916,140 was spent on the Presidential races. Just four years prior in the contentious 2016 cycle, the total cost nationwide was just $6,511,181,587. Considering the 2020 cycle was more than double that of the 2016 cycle and yet, ensuring polling locations wasn’t a priority is just another reason why voters ought to be screaming at state legislatures to ensure that at least a portion of the money spent on campaigns gets invested into election infrastructure and volunteer training to ensure that the act of casting a ballot is fair.
At the bare minimum, federal funding ought to be earmarked to ensure our elections have tightened cybersecurity measures, however, most would like to see administrative level enhancements, too. If the United States is going to continue to use the protection of democracy in its election narratives, then the federal government has to commit to significant financial investments in elections. The government has carte blanche to raise taxes to “invest” funds wherever it feels necessary, but so far, nobody has gone to war with Washington to ensure elections funding.
While state autonomy is imperative for a healthy republic, lawmakers can’t be an arbiters of democracy when they refuse to call for meaningful election reform, so these are issues the public has to fight for. States use task forces to determine needs and have several resources to tap for election funding, but the government has a serious issue with transparency, and if these systems worked, elections issues wouldn’t be so pervasive.
Rarely should anyone be a proponent for the federal government to be responsible for the nation on a single issue, but when it comes to elections funding, this would eliminate states’ abilities to use elections in ways that would favor one party over the other. Additionally, it could fortify the integrity behind the democratic process, and could, perhaps, strengthen faith in elections systems nationwide.
Maybe these suggestions would actually render positive changes in our election systems, but for now, what we’re currently doing isn’t working, so it’s worth a shot.
