This year’s presidential primaries cost localities about $4 million more than the state will cover

The prices for everyday purchases such as groceries, household goods and services have risen sharply in recent years, and consumers have felt that pain in their wallets.

The same is also true for staging elections, and rising costs mean that local election officials in Virginia must reconcile ballooning budgets with funding sources that often don’t match.

State law requires the Virginia Department of Elections to reimburse jurisdictions in the commonwealth for presidential primaries — the only type of election the state agency is obligated to cover. However, the funding provided for that purpose by the General Assembly, and the formula the department uses to determine reimbursement, means that most cities and counties receive only a portion of the actual costs. Many registrars, especially those in localities with tight budgets, see that gap as a big challenge.

“I would call it problematic, particularly for the counties and cities that are strapped and not as well funded as others,” said Patricia Morton, registrar for Appomattox County. “We try hard to keep our costs down.”

Elections in Virginia, from local to national offices, are administered at the city and county level, run by a local general registrar, who is also the director of elections, and an electoral board. These officials create budgets based on projections and estimates that can be upended by forces beyond their control.

Rising prices mean that the nuts and bolts of running an election cost more than they used to. The price of paper has gone up, so ballots have, too. Postage is an ever-increasing expense. Electronic voting systems become outdated and need to be replaced. Wages for officers of elections — state law requires a minimum of three in each precinct — are going up.

Efforts to expand voting access also cost more. Anna Cloeter, general registrar for Roanoke County, said that costs have increased significantly in the past four years with the introduction of no-excuse absentee voting in Virginia.

“As a result of that legislation, Roanoke County went from serving one to two or three hundred voters in the 45 days prior to any Election Day to serving thousands of early voters by mail and in person at the county’s two early voting sites,” Cloeter said. “This entails additional expenses related to ballot mailing and postage as well as staffing two early voting locations.”

A presidential primary for both the Democratic and Republican parties, which the commonwealth held in March 2024, pushes costs even higher. There are two sets of ballots, and while voters choose only one ballot to fill out, there needs to be more than enough of each type.

“Take the average we might spend on an election, then multiply that by two,” said Sara Workman, general registrar for Martinsville.

For the dual March 2024 primary, the Department of Elections reimbursed localities a total of almost $7 million  — a level of funding determined by the General Assembly in its biennial budget, according to department spokeswoman Andrea Gaines. In total, Virginia localities reported that the March 2024 presidential primary cost them $11.1 million  — roughly $4 million more than the General Assembly provided for reimbursement.

The Department of Elections arrives at the amount that individual jurisdictions are reimbursed using a formula that takes into account the funds provided by the General Assembly, the percent of Virginia’s registered voters who reside in a city or county and the total cost of the primary reported by the local elections office, Gaines said.

Where the state covered the most costs

In 13 localities, the state reimbursement covered 100% of the cost of the March presidential primaries:

Arlington County
Bristol
Charlottesville
Dinwiddie County
Falls Church
Newport News
Poquoson
Rockingham County
Smyth County
Spotsylvania County
Stafford County
Staunton
Wythe County

A similar formula for reimbursement has also been used in previous presidential primaries, according to Gaines. The difference in the previous primary was not as stark. In 2020, when there was only a Democratic presidential primary, localities reported $5.7 million in costs, of which the Department of Elections reimbursed $4.9 million.

Where the state covered the fewest costs

In 14 localities, the state covered less than 40% of the cost of the March primaries:

Charles City 22.2%
Bath County 25.8%
Middlesex County 26.6%
Henrico County 28.2%
Emporia 29.8%
Nottoway County 33.1%
Nelson County 33.5%
Richmond County 33.5%
Brunswick County 34.2%
Surry County 34.6%
Martinsville 35.0%
Buchanan County 35.6%
Lunenburg County 35.9%
Galax 37.7%

Source: State Board of Elections

The growing amount that localities report to the Department of Elections has become a frustration when crafting a budget, said Donna Weaver, Bath County’s registrar.

“We’re not asking for anything over and above, just what it costs to run this election,” she said.

Most jurisdictions in Virginia did not receive from the commonwealth all that it cost them to hold the primary. Of Virginia’s 132 independent cities and counties, just 13 were fully reimbursed.

Some registrars view the reimbursement through a glass-half-full lens. Martinsville’s elections office reported costs of $29,925. The Department of Elections reimbursed the city $10,485 — a gap of more than $19,000.

“I am grateful that there is a reimbursement,” Workman said. “It would be nice to cover the whole thing but getting anything back is helpful.”

Others see less-than-total reimbursement for presidential primaries as an additional challenge for county employees and policymakers who are trying to be prudent.

In Appomattox County, the difference between the reported cost for the primaries and the reimbursement by the Department of Elections was greater than $8,000. Morton said that the county’s electoral board aims to be fiscally responsible, a reflection of the county’s leadership.

“Money is tight, and we have a very conservative board of supervisors,” she said. “They try to keep taxpayers’ costs down.”

Compounding the issue in Appomattox, Morton said, is that there will likely be a special election in January — and all the expenses that come with it — if John McGuire wins election to the U.S. House of Representatives in November and vacates his seat in the Virginia State Senate. Special elections are common occurrences throughout the commonwealth.

Radford, where the primary election cost $14,402, was reimbursed $10,638. Registrar Lindsey Williams said that Radford’s financial standing seems perpetually precarious, and her office and city can ill-afford to pony up funds to make up the difference. Williams said she budgeted to cover the nearly $4,000 gap, but expenses like that don’t endear elections officials to city leadership and finance officers.

The map above shows how much each locality had to pay for the March presidential primaries.

The map above shows what percentage of the costs the state covered in each locality.

The difference between the cost for the March primary and the reimbursement for Bath County, with just under 3,400 voters, exceeded $9,000. Weaver said that she has come to expect external funding to be insufficient, whether for grants or, in this case, presidential primaries, particularly because Bath is one of the least populous counties in the commonwealth. But she builds shortfalls like these into her budget and credits the county’s leadership with providing enough funding.

Morton said that Appomattox’s gap in presidential primary reimbursement was likewise covered through her budget, the budget of the county’s electoral board and additional county funds that zeroed out the balance.

Even the shortfalls encountered by cities and counties in the commonwealth’s more populous northern, central and eastern stretches are generally covered by local policymakers.

Henrico County reported costs of $992,466, and the Department of Elections reimbursed $279,459 — a difference of more than $700,000. Registrar Mark Coakley cited the “new norm” of 45 days of absentee voting, poll workers and early voting staff among the expenses but said that the county manager and board of supervisors do not hesitate to supplement funding needed for the county’s voters.

“In my 20 years, Henrico has not been fully funded for the presidential primaries,” Coakley said. “Henrico has great fiscally sound financing and funding for all departments. Even during the Great Recession a few years ago, voters saw no impact of services when going to the polls.”

In Virginia Beach, where the shortfall for funding the presidential primary was roughly $400,000, Registrar Christine Lewis said that receiving only 40% of the costs of the primary is a bitter pill.

“It’s a burden on the taxpayer, especially to have such low turnout,” she said. “Ultimately it’s their money.”

The Department of Elections reimbursed Prince William County about $245,000 less than it cost to hold the presidential primary. According to Registrar Eric Olsen, his agency had remained under budget during the first two years of his leadership, but the gap in funding put an end to that record.

Olsen sent a lengthy email to Department of Elections officials, with the subject line “Inadequate Presidential Primary Reimbursement,” detailing his concerns. He reminded colleagues of the extensive documentation of costs his office provided and state law that requires the commonwealth to reimburse localities for presidential primaries.

In addition to his concerns about insufficient reimbursement levels, Olsen also expressed frustration that registrars weren’t notified ahead of time that reimbursements would fall short of costs — a notice that might have allowed adjustments during a budget-building phase.

“It’s clear this is a persistent and ongoing problem from talking to other [general registrars],” Williams wrote to his colleagues in Richmond. “Is there not a way to solve it? What can we do to help?”

Olsen said that he doesn’t expect a response from the Department of Elections until after the November election, as their hands are full until then. But he wrote the email to place the issue in front of state bureaucrats, policymakers and citizens.

“Overall, we’ve seen increased demands for transparency and additional legislation that increases requirements for what it is we do to run elections. We have typically not seen funding support for that. … The larger issue is that if we want to make sure elections are fair and secure, we have to make sure they are funded,” he said.

Bristol — a city that until several years ago was considered financially distressed — made the exclusive list of 13 Virginia jurisdictions fully reimbursed for the presidential primary. The city reported a cost of $12,564 to stage the election and received exactly that amount in return.

Registrar Blakley Morris credited the feat to Bristol’s small size, to good estimating and to favorable professional relationships.

“Primaries generally have a low turnout,” he said. “I didn’t have as many workers as I would in a general election.”

Morris said that he tries to conduct business as cost-effectively as possible and that forging good relationships — with the city’s ballot vendor, for instance — helps to keep expenses low.

“Bristol is in a lot better shape than it was three, four or more years ago. I started here two-and-a-half years back, and my city has been good to me since then. They’ve given me everything I need,” he said.

But for those localities that were reimbursed less than their costs for the March primary, the fiscal gymnastics needed to accommodate the shortfall could potentially have downstream consequences.

Cloeter, in Roanoke County, where the difference between reported costs and reimbursement was nearly $47,000, said that as with other budget discrepancies, “unfunded portions are made priorities in the subsequent budgeting process and could take away from other county programs and departments.”

Williams, of Radford, said that the turn of events on the national political stage are likewise frustrating for her and for voters she’s heard from.

In the Democratic primary, voters had their say in their nominee — President Joe Biden handily won with greater than 88% of votes cast in Virginia — only for that decision to be invalidated when he dropped out of the race, Williams said.

“To many people, it feels like we lost money for nothing,” Williams said. “They say that we could have just had a Republican primary.”

Williams said that she has heard multiple voters who wonder why the party even held a primary if its results were meaningless — sentiments that are difficult for Williams to hear knowing that her city paid more than $4,000 for the process.

After Biden dropped out of the race, Coakley, in Henrico County, said that his office fielded calls from voters wondering if they could change their vote or inquiring whether there would be another primary held.

Workman, in Martinsville, said that despite all the effort she and her colleagues exert to conduct elections, and despite all the drama that plays out on the national stage, her office remains committed to the goal of making the electoral process as smooth as possible for the city’s residents.

“We make sure to let them know that their voice is heard, and we want them to cast their vote,” she said. “We are doing everything possible in my office to make them feel respected.”

Prince William County registrar objects to 'insufficient' state funding for presidential primaries

In June, Prince William County registrar Eric Olsen complained to the State Board of Elections that the state provides "insufficient" funds to cover the cost of presidential primaries. Here's his letter:

I have some concerns about the reimbursement I wanted to share.

Our office received only 60% of our actual election costs despite extensive documentation. We provided a summary of costs and a 107-page supporting document detailing all invoices and payments associated with the March 5 ^th election. Our office reported ONLY direct costs that we incurred due to holding the March primary election. Other jurisdictions I communicated with indicated they also received insufficient funds, some in better or worse proportion to our own shortfall.

Virginia Code 24.2-545 states “The cost of the presidential primary shall be paid by the Commonwealth pursuant to the provisions of the appropriation act.” The ELECT advisory dated on September 27, 2023, indicated that “Amounts requested must represent ‘actual and direct’ expenses incurred to the conduct of the March 5, 2024, elections.” I had no reason to believe that our office would not be compensated roughly in line with requested funds. Looking closely, 97% of our requested expenditures are absolutely required by law, including hiring election officers, printing ballots, managing mail ballots, and conducting early voting.

Our agency has been under budget for the first two fiscal years of my leadership , but that will end this fiscal year due to the state not reimbursing our locality properly for the costs of the March election. Our team takes great pride in managing taxpayer dollars in a responsible way, and I think all of Virginia’s localities accomplish a lot under significant fiscal restraints.

Here are my two main concerns with this process:

1. The funding levels of the appropriation act are clearly insufficient . I am curious what steps can be taken to improve the level of reimbursement in the future and if the localities can provide any support/assistance. I do not believe the state has met its burden under Virginia Code 24.2-545. I suspect that is largely due to the level of funds allocated by the legislature, and we are happy to support advocacy in that area.
2. The communication of the reimbursement process does not provide detailed or timely information to GRs. While the instructions and process to submit reimbursement were clear, the planning process and timing of information left out key details and did not provide them at the appropriate timeline for planning.

Item #1:  Insufficient Funds

Our reimbursement for Prince William County essentially covers our outgoing mail ballot expenses, ballot printing, and election officer pay for Election Day. Here is what it does not cover:

• A minimal and responsible amount of overtime equaling less than 10% of our staff pay is not reimbursed.
• Payments for 20+ officers working early voting (required by local ordinance) is not reimbursed.
• Payment for all CAP and canvass officers, required by Code, is not reimbursed.
• Payments to temporary staff for mail intake, equipment prep, training, etc. (all required by Code) are not reimbursed.
• Payment for equipment delivery, useless unless transported to the polling place, is not reimbursed.
• Payment for communication equipment we must rent to communicate with 103 precincts is not reimbursed.
• Salaries, copying, office supplies, etc. are not even requested but are part of our general operations.

After gathering information from several jurisdictions, localities are reimbursed not as a portion of their request, but at a rate roughly equivalent to $1.15 per registered voter. This is a sensible approach on its face, but why not share that formula with the localities so they can anticipate budget shortfalls?  Why does the memo on this topic say the per capita basis is “related to actual costs” when it clearly is not?  And why not supply the memo sooner during a timeframe appropriate for budget formulation?

Roughly $1.80-2.00 per registered voter is a more appropriate amount , and any planned formula for the future should not only be set near that level but (1) provide for inflation over 3 years and (2) build in more funds than needed to account for potential additional legal requirements. Alternatively, the state could provide an actual review of expenses that pays out 100% for ALL qualifying expenses and pays 0% for unqualified ones. Either process would be sufficient.  I believe the current one is not.

Item #2:  Insufficient Communication

If the reimbursements are largely just formula-based, these approximate amounts should be shared with GRs well in advance during the budget building phase for the relevant fiscal year. The use of a formula was not totally clear in the advisory from September 27, 2023, and certainly, an estimated amount of that formula could have been included. The communications received would lead the reader to think, ‘I will be reimbursed for all qualified expenses that are documented and meet the criteria.’  This is not the case. Our check recently arrived without any further explanation. No advisory was sent that would give GRs additional details or clarification.

It’s clear this is a persistent and ongoing problem from talking to other GRs. The fact that this reimbursement occurs only once every four years probably adds to that challenge with new state leadership being thrust into the matter without having been part of the planning for it.  Issues and problems faced during reimbursement are put on the shelf until 3-4 years later.

Is there not a way to solve it?   What can we do to help? I’m not trying to attack/criticize ELECT or the staff working on this.  Your hands may well be tied, and in my experience, ELECT staff is knowledgeable and helpful.  But I think change and action are needed to sufficiently reimburse localities for running the presidential primary election as the Code demands. At a minimum , ELECT should provide timely and detailed information with estimated numbers to assist GRs (especially new GRs!) in the preparation of their budgets well before Presidential Primary years. In an ideal scenario , the reimbursement should fully fund localities for required expenditures.

Thank you for your time. I have no expectation of any response before this election. I know you all are busy just as we are, and the closing of the fiscal year within days or weeks of the election is as much of a challenge for you as it is for us. Best of luck this election, and please consider possible changes to this process in the future.

The post This year’s presidential primaries cost localities about $4 million more than the state will cover appeared first on Cardinal News .