• Thessalia (Lia) Merivaki, PhD | Associate Teaching Professor, Georgetown University, McCourt School of Public Policy | Associate Research Professor, The Massive Data Institute, Georgetown University
• Mara Suttmann-Lea, PhD | Associate Professor of American Politics, Connecticut College
• Paul Gronke, PhD | Professor of Political Science, Reed College | Founder & Director, Elections & Voting Information Center

Local election officials (LEOs) play a key role in educating voters. But LEOs have to balance voter education with other competing needs and demands.

Results from the 2024 Elections & Voting Information (EVIC) Local Election Official Survey and ongoing research by Merivaki and Suttmann-Lea identify three important lessons for election practitioners, policymakers, and others in the democracy space:

• Across the board, LEOs say voter education is important and professionally fulfilling.
• LEOs who serve in medium-sized jurisdictions (5001 – 25,000 and 25,001 – 100,000 registered voters) are most likely to say that resource constraints limit their ability to educate voters.
• We think this is because medium-sized jurisdictions have too many voters to rely solely on face-to-face channels (like in the smallest jurisdictions), but have insufficient staff and resources to manage multiple communication channels (like in the largest jurisdictions).

The policy solution is to right-size funding and resources for election offices, paying particular close attention to the medium-sized jurisdictions that face the greatest challenges.

While local election officials want to educate voters, many have inadequate funding to do so

According to the 2024 EVIC LEO Survey, over 98% of LEOs said their offices were fully prepared to administer a safe, secure, and accessible election, and 86% said they had sufficient funding to do so. There were almost no differences by jurisdiction size.

This is great news for American democracy. Adequate financial support increases a LEO’s capacity to better service their voters and ensure a positive experience at the polls. Additionally, a more positive voting experience translates into higher voter confidence.

Voter education translates into higher confidence in two ways: 1) directly, by increasing transparency about voting procedures and practices, and 2) indirectly, by improving the voter experience.

Voter education also plays a critical role in insulating voters from election misinformation and election denial. But none of this will work if LEOs do not have sufficient resources to counter false and misleading information about election practices and procedures.

LEOs recognize lack of citizen knowledge is a challenge for voters. As shown below, the 2024 EVIC LEO Survey found that 70% agree or strongly agree when asked whether “lack of citizen knowledge can cause significant problems. ” But those in the two medium-sized categories – LEOs serving in jurisdictions with between 5,000 to 100,000 registered voters – are most likely to say this is a challenge.

LEOs also said that they face resource constraints that limit their ability to educate voters. Only 25% of the survey respondents agree with the statement: “My office has enough time and resources to work on educating voters, along with conducting the election.”

Notably, the same offices (5,000 – 100,000 registered voters) that were most likely to identify voter education as a big problem are the least likely to say they have the resources to educate voters.

How much time and resources are needed for voter education?

The pain point for voter education seems to be somewhere in the middle. We think that the reason for this pain point is an interaction of the different paths that LEOs need to use to educate in the differently sized jurisdictions and the resources they have to do so.

In short, the medium-sized jurisdictions are too big to answer every phone call and answer every email, but are not big enough to have a dedicated communications staff or deploy paid media. We need to figure out how to right-size voter education tools for these medium-sized jurisdictions.

How do we come to this conclusion?

The EVIC LEO Survey asks LEOs what paths they use to educate voters, allowing them to make multiple choices from a list. Overall, 81% of LEOs chose “interacting with voters face-to-face in my office, via phone, or through email” while 37% chose “sharing information on social media.” Finally, 30% chose “mailing print materials.”

However, this is one of those cases where we have to look beneath the surface at differences by jurisdiction size. LEOs in the smallest jurisdictions rely almost completely on direct interaction (73% selected this option) along with social media (33% selected this option), and no other method was chosen by more than a quarter of these LEOs.

LEOs in the largest jurisdictions rely on many more methods and a somewhat different mix of outlets. The EVIC LEO Survey reported that 97% selected direct interaction while 82% were interviewed by local media (TV and radio). Additionally, 70% used social media and 64% checked “mailing print materials.” Very few (8%) say they run ads on TV and radio.

And how about LEOs in the two medium-size categories? They do it all – or at least try to do it all! They use one-on-one approaches, social media, interviews, and send print materials.

In some respects, these results are good news. Our research finds that one-on-one interactions between LEOs and voters are effective in educating voters. We also find that leveraging local media, particularly newspapers, is also effective in getting accurate information out to voters.

Given this situation, we are concerned about the capacity of LEOs, particularly in medium-sized jurisdictions, to juggle voter education along with other demands. Regardless of capacity differences, we know that voter education drops on the priority list during peak election periods or when budgets are constrained. Activities that aim to reach under-served populations, such as young voters, newly naturalized citizens, and language minority voters, are typically the first to go.

And we know that LEOs in medium-sized jurisdictions have few fully dedicated elections staff, and are much more likely to be juggling title and recording responsibilities, like LEOs in the smallest jurisdictions, rather than being dedicated to elections full-time, like LEOs in the largest jurisdictions.

This is why we think LEOs in medium-sized jurisdictions face the biggest challenges in juggling voter education with the other demands of their offices.

Recommendations to Build Voter Education Capacity

The future of resources for voter education remains uncertain. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have previously been able to fill election funding gaps, but some states have restricted the use of private funding in elections. States have also historically relied heavily on federal funds from the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 to secure elections and educate voters. However, the current landscape strongly suggests that federal resources for elections may be limited for the foreseeable future.

Given these changes, the weight of supporting LEOs in their voter education efforts largely falls on state and local governments. Without adequate resources, scaling back on voter education will likely have negative implications on voters’ capacity to successfully participate in elections. Cuts to voter education efforts also raise concerns about voter resilience against election misinformation, and confidence in election integrity.

There are three ways states can ensure that LEOs build robust and sustainable voter education infrastructures.

• State election offices should be more active in supporting LEOs with resources and technical support, as well as with certification training programs.
• State election offices should work with LEOs to establish uniform standards for nonpartisan voter education. These standards aim to ensure that voters within each state have equitable opportunities to be informed about how to participate and how elections are conducted.
• State legislatures should allocate resources to be explicitly used for voter education. At least 13 states receive this allocation from state legislatures, but the majority do not.

We also think there is an important role for researchers to help identify the most effective and efficient methods of voter education, and to focus on these medium-sized jurisdictions to see how we can right-size our education tools for these localities.