In interviews with more than a dozen elected officials from Michigan to Missouri, CNN has learned that there is a growing concern that the infrastructure, manpower and security protocols needed to conduct timely and fair elections amid a global pandemic in the country are at risk as local officials visit Congress and the White House to find a deal on a broader incentive package.
“There are enough things to worry about with this election,” said Gerry Pelissero, Gogebic County, Michigan County Council. “The last thing we need to worry about is that we can pay for it.”
The good news, experts say, is that the investment required is relatively small compared to the price tags of the major incentive letters that have come out of Washington over the past six months. The Brennan Center, a nonpartisan arm of New York University, estimates earlier this year that it would cost about $ 4 billion nationwide to pay for more poll workers, personal protective equipment, additional post-in-ballots personnel and technological advances. which could ensure that results are determined on time.
Compared to the more than $ 3 trillion spent so far, experts say, it’s a drop in the bucket. More concerning, they claim, is how hard a fight it has become to secure funding from Congress in any case.
“It’s such a small investment that is needed to ensure the stability and security of our electoral system. It’s just mind-boggling that it’s so difficult to achieve and that Congress cannot agree to it. to make basic investment in our government and in the democratic system, “said Wendy Weiser, Vice President for Democracy at the Brennan Center. “That this is such a heavy lift points to some dramatic failure of management.”
Hidden negotiations, increasing funds
On Capitol Hill, funding for by-elections has become one of the primary sticking points in negotiations between Second Chamber member Nancy Pelosi and Democratic First Chamber leader Chuck Schumer and the White House. Democrats passed the HEROES law in May, claiming $ 3.6 billion in election funds, while the Republican proposal from the House of Representatives did not include any. Talks are stalled, with no sign of reaching an agreement.
Local officials said they expected money from the March CARES Act, which included $ 400 million in electoral assistance, by November.
In Greene County, Missouri, the $ 150,000 received by the federal government earlier this year has almost disappeared. Nearly $ 50,000 was spent on plexiglass shields to protect workers in the primary. Another $ 50,000 was spent on a high-speed calculator to help process the unusually high number of mail-in polls the province expects. More funding went to hire additional staff to clear the facilities between voters and in Missouri, any absentee ballot must be opened and inspected by a two-party team. With more ballots in the mail, the cost of these inspectors is expected to skyrocket.
Beginning of the budget, County Clerk Shane Schoeller, a Republican, says they now do not have the money to cover what needs to be done.
“We are still short $ 60,000,” Schoeller told CNN. “This is about on election night, no matter who you vote for, voters need to know who the next president is.”
With budget and state budgets imminent from a decline in revenue due to virus shutdowns, many local officials say the federal government may be the only place to turn to make sure they have the funding they need.
“The bottom line is that this election will cost dramatically more,” said Terry Burton, director of the Wood County Board of Elections in Ohio. “The preparations involved, the personal protective equipment, the postage costs, the amount of personnel to increase all the various aspects of conducting an election during a pandemic, will dramatically increase the cost of elections throughout Ohio and throughout the country.”
More vote for post-in means spending more money
For many states, including Ohio, where the majority of votes would normally be personal, the increase in mail-in voting has created new financial penalties for local government.
“We are committed to personal voting and that will not become the reality of these elections. That will change what we do and where we need new staff,” Burton said.
Burton said a normal presidential election would cost about $ 750,000, but this year he expects Wood County’s costs to be up to 50% higher. While the county received about $ 100,000 in CARES funding, Burton said, “That will not cover it.”
“We’re running this email election … but we still have to use the same resources for personal voting on election day,” Burton said. “To me, it’s nonpartisan. To say that this election costs more is simply a fact that exists because of what we need to do to protect the electorate, protect the process and protect the workers in this environment.”
Part of the issue is that many states are increasing the ability to vote by mail to prevent personal voting because of concerns that people in crowded locations could easily spread coronavirus. In Bremer County, Iowa, auditor Shelley Wolf said they needed to rent extra space to hold elections so people could stay away.
“That was $ 5,000 that I did not plan to spend,” she said.
As a result, states that are normally ready to run one election in person are now trying to run two elections: one in person and one by post, says Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson, who focuses on electoral law.
“I think they’re trying two things with the resources to do half of one thing right, which means they’re trying to do it personally and vote by mail, if they have the funding to do it half personally,” Levinson said .
“We are writing in strong support of additional federal funding to enable the smooth and secure administration of elections in 2020,” the 10 Democrats and one Republican wrote to senators including majority leaders Mitch McConnell and Schumer. “The stakes are high. And time is short.”
On Capitol Hill, some Republicans argue that there should be more funding for election assistance. Republican sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the leadership, said it is not really a question of whether more money for electoral security should be included in each incentive, but how much.
“As we get closer to the election, it becomes less partisan because it becomes unrealistic to expect states to meet new federal standards,” Blunt said. “There are more expenses this year, whether it’s personal or by mail, and we can help with that.”
Asked how much Congress should give, Blunt said, “I’m not negotiating that.”
“I know that $ 3.6 billion will not be a standard of control. That was a number of March and April. All the primaries have already been. We must have enough money to do our best and be sure that the elections in November can be kept safe, and the results can be handled appropriately, “Blunt said.
Work against the clock
However, the lack of progress on Capitol Hill cannot change every moment. It has been almost a week since negotiators met and the expectation is growing that any new funding for election security could be shoved over government funding by the end of September.
The lack of certainty has forced states to plan without guarantee that they will get the money they need.
Tracy Wimmer, the spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State’s office, said the state expects it will take about $ 15 million to run the election after it has already raised $ 13 million.
“We have allocated our first funds from the CARES Act without expecting additional funding. However, Secretary Benson has focused on the fact that those funds have not been sufficient since they were approved by Congress,” Wimmer said.
In Connecticut, Secretary of State Denise Merrill’s office says she plans to run the November election with the funding she already has, but additional funding from Congress would allow her to fund critically important purchases, such as more dropboxes to in the state so that people can cast absent ballots to ensure their votes are up by election day.
“We are not counting on anything we have not already received,” said Gabe Rosenberg, Merrill’s director of communications. “That being said, we obviously need more from the federal government.”
Currently, the state has 200 dropboxes. Connecticut has 169 cities, so there are enough boxes for each city and a few extra in the cities that have larger populations. But Rosenberg said the state would buy more boxes if it had more funding.
Rosenberg said it would also buy additional PPE for demand workers.
“There are impossible things we could do with just a little more money,” Rosenberg said.
.
