Lessons Learned from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

Atkeson L.R., Hansen W.L., Maestas C.D., Weimer E., Oliver M.T.

In this chapter, we extend our theoretical and empirical examination of the role that party polarization and COVID-19-related risk factors, such as age, play in how people choose to vote, either by mail, early in-person or on Election Day, during the pandemic. We first addressed these questions in the context of the state of New Mexico in our article “Should I vote-by-mail or in-person? The impact of COVID-19 risk factors and partisanship on vote mode decisions in the 2020 presidential election” (Atkeson et al., PLoS One 17, 2022). Here, we compare our New Mexico results to Florida using highly reliable individual-level observational data from official voter administrative records from both states. We find consistent age and party effects in vote mode decision-making across both states and consider the implications of our findings for how health risk and partisanship interact to influence decision-making.

Grose C.R.

This chapter examines the role of private philanthropy in local election administration during the 2020 election, and how philanthropy sought to increase nonpartisan voter access. Through the examination of two programs—the USC Schwarzenegger Institute and the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL)—I find bipartisan support and show these philanthropic programs made an impact. I also uncover backlash from conspiracy-minded observers. Nonpartisan philanthropic groups changed how the 2020 election was conducted. These programs allowed for a more expansive election administration during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the workers who administered the elections did so at personal risk. These programs can show us how future elections can be funded, protected, and expanded using government dollars.

Gronke P., Kimball D.

This chapter provides an introduction to over 8000 local officials who manage the key administrative processes of American elections. The twin challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and escalating partisan polarization have increased the degree of difficulty for local election officials (LEOs). Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of LEOs rising to the challenge to deliver safe and secure elections. This chapter proposes common theoretical perspectives for studying LEOs, and a short preview of each chapter. We also introduce three important themes that appear throughout the book. First, states and local jurisdictions are laboratories of election administration, and LEOs are a key source of innovation. Second, LEOs are political elites, with unique backgrounds and experiences that set them apart from the broader public. These features mean that LEOs hold a position of great responsibility to shape public debates about election laws and election integrity. Third, LEOs need resources and support to do their job safely and effectively. Recent threats directed at some LEOs, and indicators of LEOs leaving the profession, underscore the importance of a safe working environment. We hope this volume will spark interest in others to examine the critical role of LEOs as stewards of democracy.

Suttmann-Lea M., Merivaki T.

In this chapter, we offer an overview of how voter education policy is designed across the states, highlighting how local election officials (LEOs) view their role as a trusted source of election information for voters across the United States. We conceptualize voter education as efforts that provide voters with the information about how to vote, as well as efforts that aim to inform the public about the broader electoral process—how elections are actually run and protected. Both components of voter education are related to the broader goals of lowering information barriers to voting and bolstering greater confidence in the process of election administration. We first present a “voter education toolbox” and use it to identify gaps in voter access to information about the election process. We then focus on LEO voter education on social media as an accessible and dynamic tool to reach new and existing voters. We argue variation in the accessibility of information from election officials impacts the election information ecosystem and increases the costs for voters who reside in jurisdictions where their LEO is not engaging in robust voter education efforts. We conclude by sharing LEOs’ views on which changes they want to see in elections moving forward, illustrating the value of voter education from the perspective of the public servants who make elections work.

Manion A., Anthony J., Kimball D., Udani A., Gronke P.

In this chapter, we compare local election officials’ and public opinion on identically worded questions in two national surveys conducted prior to the 2020 election. We examine the values, beliefs, and opinions that local election officials (LEOs) have about election integrity and reform and how their opinions differ from the public at large. We argue that the position of LEOs as “elites” and “experts” in election administration will lead them to have more nuanced and informed opinions about some aspects of the election system. In particular, LEOs believe that voter fraud occurs less frequently than many in the general public, and we think LEOs are closer to the truth on that question. At the same time, the attitudes and beliefs of LEOs share some features with the mass public, particularly when evaluating issues that are at a “distance” from local administration, such as levels of election integrity at the national level and support levels for particular election reforms. Comparing the opinions of LEOs to the general public is important in the current political environment where election officials are often forced to respond to unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.

Ferrer J., Geyn I.

This chapter examines the role of elected officials  in administering America’s elections. After exploring the historical roots of directly electing local election officials and recent trends in election administration, we detail the responsibilities these officials hold, where and how they are elected, and the descriptive characteristics of those who are elected. We use comprehensive original data on local election administration in the United States as well as the 2020 Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials to shed light on the ever-important local level of U.S. election administration. We focus on six dimensions of election administration: the degree of uniformity within states, the number and type of independent election administration authorities, the geographic level of responsibility, the selection method, and the partisan nature of these offices. These dimensions are mapped between states and jurisdictions as well as over time, providing a complete picture of local election administration in the United States. We conclude by tackling the tricky question of whether election officials should be elected.

Suttmann-Lea M., Gronke P.

This chapter explores the ethos and culture of election administration. We argue the ethos and culture of election administration is an important addition to our understanding of the systems of election administration and their effects on the voter experience. We use the perspectives of the individuals who occupy this unique bureaucratic and administrative role in our democratic system as a lens for our assessment: local election officials (LEOs). This approach follows a rich tradition within the public administration and public policy literature that considers the organizational, bureaucratic, administrative culture, and public service orientations that are held by a set of public actors occupying a particular space or role in a governmental system. We show the ethos of election administration can be most fully revealed by a creative combination of survey analysis that is informed and complemented by qualitative research methods that allow local election administrators to speak in their own voice. The combination of these data supports a growing body of evidence suggesting local election officials are increasingly voter-centered, but that there are also important nuances in how they see themselves in their roles as the stewards of democracy. Overall, our data suggest a culture of election administration that encourages access to voting and participation, yes, but one that balances this interest with a motivation for efficiency and security in their service to the broader system of American democracy.

Gordon G., King B.A., Manson P.

This chapter examines diversity in public service and the challenges of representation within U.S. election administration. History demonstrates how elected and election officials have used and abused their power to influence who can vote and how they vote, often disenfranchising members of marginalized groups. By examining representative bureaucracy in public agencies, we show the lasting impact of history on diversity in bureaucracies and public trust. Then, we turn our attention to election administrators. More specifically, we examine demographic and turnover trends in the field of election administration. Finally, this chapter recommends some ways to recruit the next generation of election officials and how to make our nation’s election administrators reflect the people they serve.

Gronke P., Manson P., Adona N., Lee J.

This chapter provides a detailed look at the demographic and professional profiles of local election officials (LEOs) in the United States, what features of these profiles have remained stable and which have changed over time, and what administrative and political processes are the most likely causes of these profiles. Drawing on three years of national surveys of LEOs in 2018, 2019, and 2020, we show that even in a period of dramatic disruption in politics and elections, the “typical” LEO in 2020 is not that different from the “typical” LEO 15 years earlier: a mid-50s white female earning just under $50,000 a year. We explore the career trajectories of LEOs—workload, job satisfaction, and career trajectories—to help fill out this portrait of these frontline workers of American democracy. The second half of the chapter takes a deep dive into gender and election administration, providing some reasons that the elections community remains so heavily female. This first look at the “who” of election administration provides an important basis of comparison to situate election administration in local government more broadly and is a necessary foundation for any scholars, researchers, and reformers working on elections.

Lee J., Gronke P.

In this chapter, we provide evidence to support the use of a specific sampling algorithm for drawing random samples of local election officials (LEOs) in the United States. Surveying LEOs creates unique challenges that cannot be resolved with normal probability sampling methods. The enormous diversity of local jurisdictions and the hyperfederalized institutional structure of American elections combine to create methodological challenges to drawing a random sample that allows generalizations both about LEOs and about the American voting experience. The chapter explores the statistical foundations of several unequal inclusion probability sampling methods. We show using simulations that the extremely skewed distribution of jurisdictions (by population size) causes anomalies in the sampling process, resulting in overly variant samples and extreme values for some sampling weights when using the “minimal support” sampling algorithm. We further show that the “random systematic” sampling method is superior for this context, resulting in lower variance estimates, and is just as easy to implement as minimal support.