By Paul Manson and Paul Gronke, Elections & Voting Information Center and TJ Pyche, Director of Operations and Partnerships, The Elections Group and
We’ve heard it many times. Sometimes, it happens as they blow out the candles of their retirement cake or turn in their resignation letter. Sometimes we hear it at what we later realize was the last time a person attended a meeting or participated in a webinar.
“The job I got into – the work I signed up for – is not what I am doing now.”
As a community, election officials are no strangers to change. Legislation like the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, or events like the 2000 election, ushered in structural changes to how jurisdictions in the United States conduct elections.
Among other changes, these laws put in place new laws, regulations, and procedures dealing with how local officials handle voter registration, especially the move away from paper and the standardization of information within states; in the certified voting equipment that offices deploy; and in the timing and methods for returning ballots, especially early in-person and absentee voting. In response, many local offices hired new staff and retrained existing staff to meet the new demands.
The elections community is once again in a period of significant structural change. But unlike past moments, hiring more people isn’t necessarily the solution—though we doubt any office would turn down the extra help.
What we’re facing now is a growing recognition that the work of election administration demands deep expertise, both the kind that already exists within offices (and that should be recognized and adequately compensated) and the kind we’ll need even more in the years ahead from future members of the workforce.
Election professionals – from election directors and clerks to front-line team members – operate in highly technical and visible work environments. Little space is provided for mistakes, and certain deadlines (the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in even-numbered years) are immovable. As many in the community say, there are no “incompletes, turn in your work later” or “do-overs” in election administration.
As organizations like the Election Center, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Elections Group, and many others contemplate the moment we’re in, it’s important to draw on what we know about the professionals we have now.
Much of the data available to us from the Elections & Voting Information Center (EVIC) focuses on jurisdictions’ chief election officials.
The breadth of responsibility and supervision required from chief election officials varies widely. Some do not have supervising responsibility, as they are the only person who works in their office, while others – those in the largest jurisdictions – may manage teams of dozens of people, often with layers of management in between them and their lowest-ranking team members.
With the data from EVIC, we only have the first note of the song. Championing the idea of election administration as a career requires looking beyond the chief election officials. The majority of people whose careers are spent in election administration do not become chief election officials. Nevertheless, especially in large jurisdictions, these professionals are highly competent and trained in technical areas like information technology, and their services are in high demand in other branches of local government and in the private sector.
The data we have is telling and likely not a surprise for those who are familiar with the field. Officials in small offices predominantly come from the private sector. In these offices, where it may be just one or two people working, there is no career “ladder,” or if there is, it has only one or two rungs. These officials spend most of their time on non-elections duties, particularly titling and recording.
As Batina Dodge, who served as County Clerk in Scotland County, MO put it on a High Turnout, Wide Margins podcast in 2021:
“… there are just so many hats that we wear… not only am I the local election Authority, but I’m Lake County Commission, on the county budget office, … responsible for accounts payable and payroll. I collect, track, and report taxes and prepare a (report for) the commission and the state auditor’s office. I issue County licenses, prepare the annual report of school funds to the State Board of Education … and we’re also responsible for the County’s 911 system. So yes there’s a lot of and I get to do all of that with two full-time staff”
One could surmise that in these offices – many of which are in rural or non-urban areas – the number of jobs in government is fewer altogether.
Figure 1: Types of Jobs that Lead to Local Election Administration
Table 1: Previous Job of Local Election Officials, by Size of Jurisdiction
| Previous Job | Overall | Fewer than 5001 | 5001-25000 | 25001-100000 | 100001-250000 | More than 250000 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private business | 40% | 40% | 41% | 38% | 39% | 32% |
| Non-elections related local govt | 30% | 29% | 29% | 34% | 34% | 25% |
| Elected Official | 8% | 8% | 5% | 12% | 7% | 12% |
| Non-elections related state or federal govt | 7% | 6% | 8% | 7% | 7% | 7% |
| Employed with a non-profit organization | 5% | 6% | 5% | 6% | 3% | 5% |
| Employed in higher education | 5% | 5% | 5% | 4% | 6% | 7% |
| Enrolled in high school, college, or graduate school | 4% | 4% | 4% | 6% | 14% | 14% |
| Volunteered or served in an unpaid capacity | 4% | 5% | 2% | 4% | 6% | 9% |
| Political campaign party, or organization | 2% | <1% | 2% | 8% | 3% | 12% |
Looking at 2022 survey results, we learned that 57% of local election officials are elected to their position. The other pathways to serving are being appointed to office (27%) and hired (15%). The distinction between appointed and hired is whether the position includes civil service protections that apply to those hired.
Hired LEOs tend to come from some other position in local government (43%). A smaller but still significant number of hired LEOs make the transition from private business to service (32%). Elected and appointed LEO’s reverse this pattern, with approximately 41% from private business, and about a quarter come from local government. All other origin sources are similar, with one small exception for those that come from elected office into an election office – unsurprisingly, this is rare for hired positions.
Table 2: Previous Job of Local Election Officials, by Selection Type
| Previous Job | Overall | Appointed | Elected | Hired |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private business | 40% | 42% | 41% | 32% |
| Non-elections related local govt | 30% | 26% | 28% | 43% |
| Elected Official | 8% | 8% | 9% | 2% |
| Non-elections related state or federal govt | 7% | 8% | 6% | 7% |
| Employed with a non-profit organization | 5% | 4% | 6% | 4% |
| Employed in higher education | 5% | 6% | 5% | 4% |
| Enrolled in high school, college, or graduate school | 4% | 8% | 2% | 6% |
| Volunteered or served in an unpaid capacity | 4% | 2% | 5% | 3% |
| Political campaign party, or organization | 2% | 4% | 1% | 2% |
Whether that means that people are more or less qualified coming into their roles is an open question, perhaps worth exploring for many reasons. It is not one we can explore effectively with the data we have.
Even with the information from EVIC survey, our understanding of chief election officials is limited, and we know even less about staff-level roles and their career paths. Without a clear picture of career development pathways, making recruitment and retention policy recommendations will be a challenge.
Informing How We Move Forward
Some programs, practices, and efforts we may collectively consider include:
1. Collect More Data
Continue to improve the data landscape. Who is entering the profession? Who is staying? Who is leaving? Why are they leaving? Better longitudinal data will allow us to track the effectiveness of interventions and identify trends early.
In particular, we are not surprised that so many LEOs – from large to small, elective to appointive – come from the private sector. We have both noticed this in our research and engagement efforts. But, that begs the question: what kinds of private business experiences are the most applicable or the most common, and can that information help inform future outreach efforts?
2. Map Internal Progression Paths
Create transparent internal career ladders within election offices to help individuals see how they can grow within the profession. This might include creating job titles and mentorship opportunities for employees. Even small offices can consider implementing step increases that recognize election-specific skills and institutional knowledge.
3. Strengthen External Entry Points
Develop fellowship and internship programs that introduce individuals to the field without requiring years of prior government experience. Consider building these in partnership with local universities or community colleges. For example, the Arizona Secretary of State worked with universities in Arizona to develop the 2024 County Election Administration Fellowship program.
4. Revisit Job Classifications and Compensation
Advocate for modernized HR classifications that reflect the complexity of the work – and compare the positions not only to those in other underpaid and underfunded election offices but also other parts of government. Make the invisible work visible, such as the required skills and competencies required in logistics, information technology, communications and so on. Where possible, work with HR departments or state classification boards to update roles and salary ranges. This can open up recruitment and retention possibilities while validating the profession’s demands.
5. Tell the Story of the Profession
No one wants to join a profession that makes it seem like those in it never have any fun. Develop communication campaigns that highlight the meaningful, mission-driven nature of election work. Share personal stories from election professionals across the country to help inspire the next generation.
6. Diversify On-Ramps Without Diluting Expertise
It may be beneficial for the profession to be composed of individuals from a variety of professional backgrounds. Such diversity is arguably a strength. Instead of ushering in a wholesale change, how do you encourage programs that enhance skillsets? Encourage programs that build necessary skillsets for new and mid-career professionals (like certifications, boot camps, or rotational programs) while ensuring that institutional knowledge remains central to election operations.
Conclusion
As investments continue to be made, both from philanthropy and government, it’s important to remember that while the election workforce is not perfect, it has nevertheless proven to be remarkably resilient. What should be encouraged is a workforce that maintains that collective sense of grit and resilience – without requiring innumerable acts of individual sacrifice and heroism.
