By Shelley Kimball, PhD, Johns Hopkins University

Election officials in local offices across the country have experienced a surge in public records requests in recent years, and some of them are perceived as vexatious, unduly burdensome, frustrating, voluminous, overwhelming, or harassing. While requests for information are fundamental to government transparency, unduly burdensome requests are straining the limited resources of election officials.

Results from the 2024 Elections & Voting Information Center (EVIC) Local Election Official (LEO) Survey show that while election officials recognize the increasing burden of excessive requests, their preferred solutions emphasize transparency, openness, and the use of technology rather than punitive measures.

In the following paragraphs, we outline the issue, examine LEOs’ perspectives, and recommend actionable solutions that balance public access to information with the operational needs of local election offices.

The Challenge of Unduly Burdensome Requests

It has been difficult to gauge the proportion of records requests that fall into the category of unduly burdensome. While researchers have recognized the issue, they have not quantified the problem. In fact, some have determined it is likely rare to receive these kinds of requests. These vexatious or unduly burdensome requests have been likened to icebergs, wherein a small percentage of requests take up a larger proportion of resources and disproportionately shape perceptions. These unduly burdensome requests may be a smaller proportion of requests received, but they are causing a higher level of frustration and overwhelm.

Therefore, the first step toward understanding the issue was to evaluate the scope of the problem. Our research team is comprised of David Cuillier, PhD, of the University of Florida, me (Shelley Kimball, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University), Suzanne Piotrowski, PhD, of Rutgers University, and Ben Worthy, PhD, Birkbeck University of London, and the team’s work on this effort was funded in part by the Democracy Fund.

Our study incorporates data from the 2024 Elections & Voting Information Center (EVIC) Local Election Official Survey, the survey of local election administrators conducted annually since 2018 by EVIC and led by EVIC Director Paul Gronke, PhD (Reed College), and EVIC Research Director Paul Manson, PhD (Center for Public Service at Portland State University), with LEO interviews. Our research team, who has been analyzing unduly burdensome public records requests nationally, incorporated questions into the 2024 EVIC LEO Survey and augmented them with qualitative interviews.

According to the 2024 EVIC LEO Survey results, about two-thirds of participants, 62.3%, estimated that unduly burdensome requests make up less than half of the requests they receive, with the greatest concentration of responses at the 10% interval. A little more than one-third of participants, 37.5%, said that half or more of the requests to which they respond are unduly burdensome. About 13% said that none of the requests were unduly burdensome.

The crux of the issue is how election officials manage unduly burdensome requests, and 62% agreed that these kinds of requests significantly impeded their work. One interview participant said, “It got to the point that we were being inundated with these requests. My staff was unable to complete their day jobs as they were trying to get these things answered. It was stripping us of the ability to be efficient and do our own jobs. If we only answer these and fail to administer the election, that is a bigger problem.”

Additionally, 72% strongly agreed or agreed that a few requests disproportionately consumed a significant amount of time – the icebergs of public records requests. And 64% said that public records requests are taking more time to process than those from four years ago.

Preferred Solutions: Transparency and Efficiency Over Punishment

Survey participants were given a series of potential solutions to managing unduly burdensome requests to which they could agree or disagree on a five-point Likert scale. They were:

• Enhance training for public records staff on best practices for handling requests
• Use technology to more effectively handle records requests
• Increase public records staffing levels
• Outright deny, by law, unduly burdensome requests
• Charge additional fees for excessive search and redaction time
• Proactively post commonly requested records online
• Educate citizens on best practices for submitting requests
• Fine requesters who are unduly burdensome
• Ban requesters who are unduly burdensome from future requests

Among proposed solutions, most (83%) strongly agreed or agreed that charging additional fees for unduly burdensome requests is a strong option. However, interview participants described using fees as a deterrent for unduly burdensome requests. Interview participants thought of the imposition of fees as a test of the requester’s need for the information. One participant said, “But most of the time when you send them a bill, they pretty quickly back off.”

Participants were more likely to support training staff, 66%, but much less likely to support increasing staffing levels, 37%. In fact, staffing levels was one of the options least supported among participants. Just fewer than half of the participants, 48%, supported proactively posting records, and a large proportion (39%) were neutral to this solution.

Survey respondents supported increased use of technology by a wide margin, 77%, but they were less supportive of proactive disclosure. Just fewer than half of the participants, 48%, supported proactively posting records, and a large proportion (39%) were neutral to this solution.

Some interview participants saw these two options as a matched set. An election official in a mid-sized jurisdiction in Ohio said, “I feel like the technology and the proactive approaches are both. I mean, they create a synergy together because, you know, you’ve got to have your technology to be proactive about it.”

The highest opposition levels among the survey participants were to the more extreme solutions: banning requests, fining requesters, and outrightly denying overly burdensome requests. When digging deeper into those findings, there seemed to be correlations in the survey results between election officials’ perceptions of a heavy workload and their support of the solutions that provided stronger controls of requesters.

Participants who strongly agreed or agreed that a few public records requests consume a disproportionate amount of their time were also more likely to agree that unduly burdensome requests significantly impeded their abilities to perform their duties. They were also more likely to support the more resolute solutions to control requesters:

• Outrightly denying their requests
• Requiring requesters to pay more fees for unduly burdensome requests
• Fining requesters for making unduly burdensome requests
• Banning requesters from making future requests

Next Steps

So, what does this mean for requesters and election officials? In the balance between them, we should be leaning toward providing access to government information and civic engagement, but election officials should not have to shoulder outright harassment and vitriol. If additional fees are the solution, then the guidance for charging them should be specific. Charging additional fees should not be used as a scare tactic or cudgel to force requesters to back away from accessing government information.

Because frustration and heavy workloads led to more support of the strongest controls on requesters, focus is needed on the foundational issues that are causing heavier workloads. Find the solutions that may help ease frustrated and overwhelmed officials, such as increasing staffing, increased use of technology and proactive disclosure of public records.

Ultimately, this study shows that while transparency is essential, election offices need resources to manage requests most efficiently. Public interest in election processes will continue to grow, so it is crucial to find sustainable solutions that protect the transparency of elections and the well-being of those who administer them.