The Center for Tech and Civic Life is proud to have played a role in this successful election cycle through its 2024 nonpartisan Rural and Nonmetro Election Infrastructure Grant program by granting over $3.7 million to rural and nonmetro jurisdictions to help bridge the funding gap for administering safe and secure elections around the country. As the grant program comes to a close, we have begun to get a clearer picture of what needs exist (and continue to exist) and what needs we were able to meet for rural and nonmetro election offices. At this time, the following is clear:

1. Many jurisdictions of all sizes intended to use grant funding to improve voting system security. Election departments reported intending to purchase fireproof safes to store ballot materials, security cameras, locks, bulletproof glass, on-site deputies, and more.
2. Nearly all grantees receiving a grant of just $5,000 or less (94%) said that receiving a grant of that amount would have a moderate to massive impact on their election operations. That a grant of this size could have such an impact is a signal that the funding environment for local election offices remains very challenging.
3. There continue to be unmet resource needs for rural and nonmetro election departments. While CTCL is proud of the work we did to distribute over $3.7 million in grants, 38 offices requesting $265,000 remain on the waitlist for the nonpartisan Rural and Nonmetro Election Infrastructure Grant program. While philanthropic programs such as this one may help fill gaps and address immediate needs, it is no substitute for robust, predictable government funding.

Funding recipients

In total 358 offices across 15 states have been approved to receive over $3.7 million. The majority of offices receiving grants represent the smallest jurisdiction size (up to 5,000 eligible voters), receiving grants of up to $5,000. But grantees also included small sized offices (5,001-25,000 eligible voters) and medium-sized offices (25,000-100,000 eligible voters).

Intended use of funding

Offices applied for these grants for a variety of reasons, from covering specific or individual costs, to helping subsidize a general lack of funding needed for the 2024 election cycle and beyond. The top 5 most indicated reasons for applying for the nonpartisan grants were due to needed funding or subsidizing of:

1. upgrades beyond the bare minimum (where budgets are otherwise sufficient only for basic needs);
2. one-time costs that are not anticipated for the future;
3. purchases of big-ticket items;
4. gaps in basic services due to insufficient funding; and
5. mandates that lack funding.

Offices reported that the rising costs of operations, including everything from staff to postage and supplies, have put additional pressure on already tight budgets. Many offices reported tighter than usual budgets, and one office even reported that there had been no new purchases for voting operations in the past 8 years. The result of this financial pressure is election officials going above and beyond to scrape by and deliver successful elections with minimal resources and outdated physical, technological, and administrative supplies and/or support.

One common thread is that many jurisdictions of all sizes intended to use grant funding to improve voting system security, with spending running the gamut from purchasing fireproof safes to store ballot materials, installing security cameras, bulletproof glass or locks in buildings, to on-site deputies providing security for voters and staff in polling places. Several offices reported intending to purchase new computers; one office has computers that are over 10 years old, and at least two offices intended to purchase laptops so their staff would not have to use their personal computers for activities like voter registration. Another office reported that their electronic poll book needed to be replaced as it cannot be updated to Windows 11 and will no longer be secure after 2024.

In their applications, offices were asked to indicate how they intended to use the funding, and were able to select uses from the categories physical, technological or human needs, and many offices indicated needs in multiple, or even all three categories. The graph below shows how many offices indicated intended funding uses across each category. While physical usage was the most common category selected, the most-needed single use of funds across all categories was temporary or seasonal workers, indicated by over half of offices that applied.

Most offices (86%) indicated a need for funding towards physical materials and equipment. The top applications of funding for these physical needs included voting locations (161 offices), voting hardware (136), administrative facilities (128), and storage facilities (115). Among these costs were specific needs for new signage, voting booths, ballot boxes, secure spaces and materials needed for storing ballots and other voting equipment, as well as updates to the facilities themselves. Accessibility was a major theme, including facility updates such as the building of ramps, replacing or installing automatic doors, repairing broken elevators, or purchasing portable equipment to move about the facility such as voter assistant carts. However, security was a priority across many election offices, and innovative physical uses of this funding included locked and/or fire- and weather-proof ballot and equipment storage, upgrading or installing advanced locks on facilities, and even installing bullet-proof glass to clerk windows in several jurisdictions.

Technological improvements were named by 69% of offices, and the specific needs were extremely varied. The top uses in this area included electronic poll books (80), voter registration systems (67), tabulation systems (64), election systems (63), election management systems (60), public information systems (51), internal production software and servers (51), and results reporting (41). Many offices reported that these systems and hardware could not be appropriately updated or replaced with the funding allocated to their offices, and these upgrades and purchases would greatly improve both day-to-day functions and security as well as Election Day operations. Interestingly, responses varied from huge updates such as funding part of a $100,000 ballot processing system, to replacing a substandard $50 printer not meant for bulk printing, but bearing the printing load for voting in their jurisdiction. Implementing security systems, often including camera systems, was also a common need across all jurisdiction sizes.

Finally, 63% of offices that applied intended to use the funding for human resources. This included the single most-needed use of funds across all categories, temporary or seasonal support positions (186 offices) in addition to strategic and operational positions (87), among others. Seasonal and temporary workers were needed not only for the polls on Election Day, but also to address an increase in early voting, sometimes due to new or lengthened mandates, as in Michigan and Connecticut, as well as the need for more help with ballot processing. Also included in this category was the common need to hire deputies on Election Day to provide security for both voters and officials at polling places.

Impact of funding

Where budgets are small, every dollar counts. Whether offsetting major investments in equipment, software or facilities, funding the postage and materials needed to conduct elections in person or by mail, or investing in election day security for poll workers and voters, grantees agreed that these funds would have an impact on the November election.

Overall, most offices (65.4%) reported that the money would have a “massive” impact on their election operations. Notably, 94% of the smallest jurisdictions, which received grants of $5,000 or less, said that receiving a grant of that amount would have a moderate to massive impact on their election operations. That a grant of this size could have such an impact is a signal that the funding environment for local election offices remains very challenging. One office even reported having such a constrained budget that they were already in the red in October, well before the November election. Additionally, these grants also served as a catalyst to unlock additional funds in some jurisdictions, as was the case in Colorado, where grantees could use the grant to unlock additional, local matching funds for uses such as security cameras and door locking systems.

While the Rural and Nonmetro Election Infrastructure Grant program had a tremendous impact on its grantees, it is worth noting that unmet needs and funding gaps persist for many rural and nonmetro election jurisdictions. 38 offices requesting $265,000 remain on the waitlist for the grant program, signaling that attaining robust, predictable government funding continues to be a challenge.

We continue to be in a process of listening to hard-working election officials across the country, to better understand their funding needs and how this grant program was one piece that helped them move towards excellence in election administration. We look forward to sharing a final report about the grant program in 2025.