By Paul Gronke and Paul Manson
Kyle Yoder and April Tan of the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) released a focus brief on the use and abuse of public records requests, how these requests have impacted local elections offices, and what legislative solutions have been shown to ease the burden placed on local election officials (LEOs).
The research team at the Elections & Voting Information Center (EVIC) has been tracking public records requests in our 2023 EVIC LEO Survey, part of a broader investigation into workloads, staffing, and administrative burdens. The survey provides additional evidence about the dramatic increase in workload resulting from public records requests, particularly in medium-sized and larger jurisdictions where these requests seem to be concentrated.
We also collected nuanced information about how LEOs respond to these requests as part of a deep dive into elections staffing in the State of Oregon. This research, combined with our LEO Survey results, lead us to propose a friendly amendment to the first of the four legislative proposals made by Yoder and Tan.
Their first proposal is to require: Processing Election-Related Records Requests at the State Level
The stated rationale is “a law enacted in the State of Washington in 2023, all requests for records from the statewide voter registration database or for any standard reports generated by the database must be made to and fulfilled by the secretary of state.”
Our research in the State of Oregon highlights a few potential issues with this proposal — mainly it is too limiting. Not all election-related public records requests are for data or reports from the statewide voter registration system. County-specific election records and local election administrative choices are unlikely to be integrated into the statewide database. Second, there is substantial variation in how much administrative authority resides at the local level versus administrative authority at the state (see this overview from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) for a quick overview).
It seems reasonable to suggest that requests for information from the statewide registration system be forwarded (or have to be submitted to) the state, but that we provide resources and capabilities for localities to respond to other requests.
Our amendment creates a wider umbrella that would ensure that all counties and local jurisdictions have some capacity to respond to these requests. This amendment (additions in bold) threads this needle:
Processing statewide voter registration system election records requests at the state level, standardizing how requests are processed by local jurisdictions, and providing funding to local jurisdictions to sufficiently respond to these requests.
We provide our survey results and rationale for this amendment below.
Survey Evidence on Changes in LEO Workload
Across the board, LEOs have reported to us that their workload has been increasing. Most dramatically, our 2023 survey shows how burdensome election work has become during the “peak” periods (which can extend as long as six weeks before and a week after Election Day).
The reasons for the workload increases are varied, with the largest impact on the smallest offices. These increases are proportionally higher because the typical LEO in a small office dedicates less than 10 hours/week to election work in non-peak times.
What about specific administrative tasks? We asked LEOs how much their workload has changed across different areas, “compared to four years ago”. We chose that time point specifically to encompass one midterm and one presidential cycle.
Three tasks stand out with the highest increase in reported workload over the past four years:
- Preparing for pre-Election Day voting
- Preparing for Election Day voting
- Public records requests
Our survey shows how these requests have become particularly burdensome for medium-sized and larger jurisdictions with the same pattern emerging for “citizen complaints” and “media requests.”
How Clerks in Oregon Deal with Public Records Requests
In late 2023, EVIC interviewed 34 of 36 Oregon clerks to identify more effective and efficient staffing of these offices. Our report, conducted in collaboration with the Oregon Secretary of State’s Division of Elections, highlighted how even in a relatively stable election system like Oregon, which has been fully vote-by-mail since 2000, the workload demands and staffing models have fallen out of sync with the current reality of the job.
And one of these realities is a big increase in public records requests.
Many topics came up in our conversations, but public records were notably high on the agenda of every clerk we spoke to. In fact, the term “public records” appears 228 times across the 33 interviews. What did clerks in Oregon tell us about these requests?
The frequency and quantity of requests has increased enormously. These two quotes are typical:
“We get inundated with public records requests …”
“… you know, go back five years, we would probably get two or three public records requests in an election cycle, now we get two or three a day …”
Also, in the past, requests generally came from the press or groups versed in laws and procedures of that state or locality. Now we are seeing a nationalization of these requests moving through informal social media channels, and citizen activists making requests that can be at times nonsensical. Clerks shared with us, for example, requests for information about polling place locations and poll workers, both of which don’t exist in our state.
All of our respondents said they worked hard to respond to requests, but how they did this varied tremendously. Some told us they developed a request form, charged for staff time, and had access to an attorney. A few told us they’d even added new positions to handle public records:
“… the county has established an office to take that load off of the clerk, because you know, you’re not the only ones who see public records requests …”
“… we’ve built into one of these new positions … will be doing public records requests. In the past, that’s not something we’ve ever considered.”
These clerks are well-positioned to handle the requests, even if the process is being misused.
Other clerks told a very different story, however. Out of a desire to be responsive and transparent, some clerks told us they answered most requests, on the phone or using email. It was not clear that they were documenting the content, frequency, or cost of these requests. A few clerks shared with us that their county had only limited access to an attorney who was not a county employee.
The variation in capacity and in how identical requests were treated across counties raised concerns for us. In our June 2023 report, we recommended:
- Standardize or potentially consolidate public records request processes for various types of emerging public requests.
- Create a new statewide position in the Elections Division to support counties in addressing public records requests.
- Encourage the use of intake forms for public records requests.
- Provide guidance on “boilerplate” or “cookie cutter” requests.
This doesn’t sound so different from the CEIR recommendation, and it isn’t in spirit. Our amended proposal provides more flexibility, allows for county-level processing in some cases, and perhaps most importantly, recognizes that budgets and funding at the local level are critical for the near term.
We can’t keep expecting local election offices to do it all and not fund them adequately.
Nonetheless, these differences are only a very minor shade of grey. We commend CEIR and many others for highlighting the abuse of public records requests and proposing reasonable policy solutions. To the degree that states can help standardize procedures, smooth processing, and reduce the burden on local offices, we are in 100% support.
