A person votes at a polling station in Manhattan during New York's presidential primary on April 2.
A person votes at a polling station in Manhattan during New York’s presidential primary on April 2.

Elections in the United States are chronically underfunded.

It’s one of the few things voting officials across the political spectrum agree on.

In Kentucky, for instance, Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams said before he came into office in 2020, the state had not adjusted how much it gave to counties to support elections since the 1980s.

“We had election equipment that was nearing decertification,” Adams said. “We weren’t able to do the most basic things, like recounts.”

Estimates on exactly how much the country spends on democracy every year vary, but one recent report from MIT and the American Enterprise Institute found that local governments spend roughly the same amount to support voting as they do to maintain their parking facilities.

So when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced last year that it would require a portion of a multibillion-dollar grant program to go toward election security, much of the voting community celebrated — even if it was just a sliver of the money many experts say is ultimately needed.

“This new funding has the potential to provide meaningful support to our guardians of democracy,” elections experts Larry Norden and Derek Tisler of the Brennan Center for Justice wrote at the time. “It is also a meaningful statement from the federal government that it understands threats of physical violence against those who run our elections are a threat to our democracy itself.”

But NPR has learned that in many cases, the grant allocations did not go as planned.

Multiple election officials and experts told NPR that at least some portion of the money either did not actually go to reinforcing the country’s voting infrastructure, or was spent in a haphazard manner with little thought to what was most necessary ahead of a highly contentious presidential election that has many voting officials fearful for their safety.

“That money could be really significant in buying basic things like keycard access to make sure that nobody can get in to reach voting machines, or bulletproof glass,” Norden said, in an interview with NPR. “It’s disappointing that in some cases, election officials around the country didn’t feel like they got what they needed.”

A number of issues with the 2023 election grants, including a “redirect” back to policing

The money comes from an annual grant program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, which is meant to help state and local governments prepare for and prevent terrorism and disasters. For some of the grants, DHS designates priority areas to further target what the money is spent on, and in 2023, the agency designated election security as one of those priorities.

In total in 2023, DHS allocated more than $2 billion in preparedness grants, with at least $30.9 million supposed to go toward supporting election security.

It’s unclear exactly how much of that money actually went to what voting officials in those places would have deemed effective, but it’s clear that at least a sizable portion did not.

One state election official told NPR that they were not consulted by the emergency management coordinator in their state before the election security money was allocated, and instead were told how it would be spent just a few days before the deadline for the grant application. The official did not have permission to speak publicly, but spoke to NPR about their experience with the grant program on condition of anonymity.

After asking for months to be involved in the process, the week of the grant application deadline, the election official said they joined a call with their statewide emergency management coordinator who laid out their plans for the election security money.

The election official was most struck by one line item during the meeting: Tens of thousands of dollars were slated to be spent on cybersecurity risk assessments for local governments.

The only problem?

Those exact services are already offered to local governments by the federal government at no charge.

“They were completely duplicative of things we could get for free,” the official said.

But when that was brought up, the emergency management lead said it was too late to make changes to the proposals for the money.

One problem with the grant rollout, according to multiple government sources NPR spoke to, is that localities traditionally begin working on their DHS grant applications close to a year before they are due in the spring. But the federal government did not announce the election security requirement until late February — just a couple months before the application deadline.

FEMA officials say they can’t issue guidance until grant amounts are determined by Congress and signed into law by the president.

The cramped timeline coincided with the fact that the grant applicants often don’t have a working relationship with the local or state election administrators, says Kim Wyman, a former local election official who worked on election security issues with DHS until last year.

“These grants historically have been really focused on emergency management and law enforcement, so the people in those communities knew exactly when they were coming out, how to apply, how to submit those applications,” said Wyman, now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “Whereas a number of election officials were caught flat-footed because they’d never seen them before, weren’t aware of them.”

The election official who spoke to NPR on background said it was clear that the applicants in their state were trying to satisfy the election security requirement without actually adjusting how the money was spent. Another line item was a bomb training exercise that supposedly was to benefit election security, but when asked which election officials were invited to the exercise, the emergency management lead said none.

“It was a redirect,” the voting official said. “They took federal money that was supposed to go to election security, and put it towards policing.”

FEMA did not respond to questions from NPR about the grants, but it’s clear the agency is aware of the problem.

A Government Accountability Office report from earlier this year noted the difficult rollout of the new election security requirement.

In one instance, a locality fulfilled its election security obligation by purchasing “a single security barrier … which the grantee said is restricted to use for election security purposes only,” according to the GAO report.

The report authors spoke with 16 federal officials involved with distributing the grant money, and found that eight of them “had challenges” meeting the election security requirement. Among the listed reasons for that trouble were a “lack of subject matter expertise” and “absence of a regional need to address this issue,” seemingly implying there was no need for election security funding in those locations.

“That’s a preposterous response,” said the official who spoke to NPR about their experience with the grant process. “What that tells me is you didn’t try. You didn’t talk to anybody. You just sat there and waited for the phone to ring.”

Optimism for improvements going forward

A voter casts a primary ballot at a polling place in Atlanta on March 12.
A voter casts a primary ballot at a polling place in Atlanta on March 12.

Last week, DHS announced this year’s preparedness grant total would be more than $1.8 billion, with a required spend of roughly $27.8 million on election security.

Generally, officials and experts NPR spoke with expressed optimism that voting officials would be more involved this time around.

“I think part of it was it was the first time it was happening. It happened kind of late in the cycle. And so election officials were not always as included as they should have been in developing the plan,” said Norden, of the Brennan Center for Justice. “My guess is that it’s going to be a little bit smoother this year, because everybody that’s involved in that process is going to be more aware from the start that election officials need to be included in the process to begin with.”

The election official who spoke to NPR on background said this time they made a conscious effort to engage the local grant applicants ahead of the deadline, but they weren’t sure that was happening in other states.

Multiple experts including Norden said the grant rollout pointed to a broader challenge for local election officials: They never have a clear sense of when or how much more funding is coming from the federal government, so it’s hard to plan around.

In the past six years, unrelated to the DHS grants, Congress has allocated more than $400 million some years and zero dollars others. In 2024, lawmakers settled on $55 million for elections — a fraction of what many election experts say is needed each year.

“If we could see a consistent number that election officials could rely on, that would make planning a lot easier. And frankly, it would mean that we wouldn’t be falling behind the way we are now when there are new challenges, whether it’s physical security or artificial intelligence that election officials have to address,” Norden said. “Hopefully this little bucket of money, this $30 million [of DHS grant money], will now be consistent. So election officials will know that it’s there. And again, while it’s small relatively … it’s definitely better than nothing.”

Transcript:

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

Election officials in the U.S. constantly ask the federal government for more money. So last year, when the Department of Homeland Security announced new grants to support election security in 2024, those election officials were celebrating. Today, though, NPR is reporting that at least some of the money did not actually go to supporting elections. NPR’s Miles Parks covers voting. He is the first to report this story. Hey there, Miles.

MILES PARKS, BYLINE: Hey there.

KELLY: OK. So this all sounds great. Money to support free, fair, safe elections – all good. How was this supposed to work?

PARKS: So this was actually part of a long-running grant program that’s aimed at preparing the nation for terrorist attacks and natural disasters. In total, DHS distributes these preparedness grants roughly $2 billion a year. And last year DHS announced that some of this money – roughly $30 million – needed to be spent on improving election security ahead of 2024.

KELLY: I gather you’re about to tell me that there’s a twist…

PARKS: Right.

KELLY: …To this story. What is it?

PARKS: Yeah. We found that at least some of this money either didn’t go to reinforcing voting infrastructure or spent in a haphazard way that did not prioritize the needs of voting officials, which I should note – those needs have grown more pronounced since 2020 and the threat environment – all the threats and harassment we’ve heard that voting officials are facing. Here’s Larry Norden, who I talked to. He’s an elections expert at the Brennan Center for Justice.

LARRY NORDEN: That money could be really significant in buying basic things like, you know, key card access to make sure that nobody can get in to reach voting machines or sometimes bulletproof glass. And it’s disappointing that, in some cases, election officials around the country didn’t feel like they got what they needed.

PARKS: Norden also told me that $30 million is just a little bit in the context of what election officials actually need every year to put on voting. So every little bit helps when you consider the amount of pressure these people are under this year.

KELLY: OK, well, now I’m totally curious. If they did not spend this money on election security, what did it get spent on?

PARKS: So what I heard from a number of officials and experts was that this voting security requirement was added really late in the grant cycle – I think late February when the applications are due that spring. I talked to one statewide voting official who said they were not consulted at all on where this money should go. And when they reached out to try to suggest things that would actually help protect voting in their state, they were told it was too late. The money had already been spoken for.

Among the list of things it was going to was a bomb training exercise that supposedly would benefit election security. But when the voting official asked what election officials will be there, they were told none. This election official said they felt essentially that the money was redirected away from elections back to local law enforcement agencies.

KELLY: Can we say which state you’re talking about here?

PARKS: We can’t. The election official asked not to be named because they didn’t have permission to speak about these grant programs on the record.

KELLY: OK. But I guess my broader question is, is that an isolated event, or if we reached out to a bunch of officials in every state, would we be hearing similar things?

PARKS: It’s clearly not an isolated incident. A report came out recently from the government accountability office that found that of the 16 federal distributing officials involved with this grant program, eight of them said they had trouble meeting the election security requirement.

KELLY: Interesting. We said this is an annual program. Is this spending requirement in place for this year, this election year?

PARKS: Yes, it is. And generally, there is optimism from the people I’ve talked to that year two will be smoother since everyone involved had an idea that this requirement would be there again. In many ways, though, what I heard over and over again is that the story is representative of a bigger problem for local election administrators. They have no idea how much money the federal government is going to give them in each election year, and that is really hard to prepare for. For a long time, they’ve just been begging for more consistency.

KELLY: Thank you, Miles.

PARKS: Thank you.

KELLY: NPR’s Miles Parks. And NPR has reached out to FEMA, which distributes the grants, for comment. We have yet to hear back.

(SOUNDBITE OF JAY-Z SONG, “COMING OF AGE (FEAT. MEMPHIS BLEEK)”)