Election Administration Resource Hub
Upcoming Events
Related News
The resource hub connects county officials with current NACo Federal advocacy, existing resources, FAQs and best practices on election administration.
Current Advocacy
The SAVE America Act (H.R. 7296/S. 1383) establishes new requirements for state and local election administrators. These requirements are burdensome on county election officials and require massive updates with no allocation of federal resources.
As the SAVE America Act progresses through Congress, NACo has put together some resources to help counties advocate against the bill.
Jump to Section
In most states, county governments play a key role in administrating federal, state and local elections. While specific laws and ways of administering elections vary from state to state, county officials rely on assistance from state, federal and nonprofit partners to ensure elections are secure and voters understand options for casting their ballots.
This resource hub connects county officials with tools, funding opportunities and other resources for election administration.
Letters to Congress
NACo has been engaging with the 119th Congress on legislation regarding election administration and its impacts on counties and expressed its strong concerns regarding the potential impacts of an earlier version of the bill SAVE Act (H.R. 22) and other legislation including Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act (H.R. 7300).
Talking Points
Unfunded Mandate
Congress should ensure that any new federal requirements are accompanied by sufficient and sustained funding to support implementation at the state and local level.
The SAVE America Act creates new federal requirements without providing dedicated federal funding, leaving states and counties on the hook for major costs including election system redesign, staffing increases, essential workforce training, public education, database integration, and legal compliance. State and local elections are estimated to cost around $5.3 billion. Moderate estimates show that implementing the SAVE America Act would exceed current federal funding made available by the Help America Vote Act ($45 million for FY 2026) 11.3 times — an increase in election costs of approximately $510 million per election cycle. This estimate draws on national election administration spending research from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and ballot volume data reported by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s 2024 Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS).
Federal Preemption of State Laws
Congress should work with states and counties before imposing federal standards that override established state election authority.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, commonly known as the Elections Clause, provides that state legislatures determine the times, places, and manner of federal elections. Congress retains the authority to make or alter those regulations, except regarding the places of choosing Senators. The SAVE America Act imposes a uniform federal standard on an election system that is intentionally decentralized and governed primarily by state law — stripping state and local authority to implement elections that best fit the needs of our citizens. This creates a direct conflict for local election administrators who must simultaneously comply with state law and new federal mandates, with no clear legal guidance on how to reconcile the two. Any significant reinterpretation of these roles needs to be clarified by the courts. Congress should work with states and counties before imposing federal standards that override established state election authority.
Insufficient Implementation Time
Congress should provide a realistic implementation timeline that allows election administrators adequate time to prepare.
Early voting has already started. State and local election administrators will not have adequate time to implement new verification procedures, system changes, and training programs to ensure adherence and reconciliation of all state and federal laws. The bill would be effective immediately upon passage with no time for state or local election administrators to implement changes to election systems with proper administrative safeguards in place, bringing a real risk of voter disenfranchisement and carrying the potential of undermining public confidence in voting. Successful implementation would require 18 to 24 months at minimum.
Voters Need More Time
Congress should ensure that any new documentation requirements are paired with sufficient time for voters to obtain necessary records and for election officials to implement procedures without disenfranchising eligible voters.
Many eligible voters may face limited time to obtain the documentation needed to verify citizenship. Standard REAL ID compliant driver’s licenses do not uniformly verify U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explains that only enhanced driver’s licenses provide proof of citizenship, and only five states currently issue them: Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington. Recent studies highlighted by the Bipartisan Policy Center found that 9 percent of eligible voters do not have, or do not have easy access to, documentary proof of citizenship. They also found that 52 percent of registered voters do not have an unexpired passport with their current legal name and 11 percent do not have access to their birth certificate. Applied to the 211,144,275 active registered voters reported in the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s 2024 EAVS Comprehensive Report, those latter figures suggest that approximately 109.8 million registered voters may lack an unexpired passport with their current legal name and about 23.2 million may not have access to their birth certificate. As a result, many eligible voters without a passport or enhanced license may need additional records, such as a birth certificate and, in some cases, name-change documentation, to demonstrate citizenship. Obtaining those records can take time, which may create challenges for individuals attempting to gather the necessary documents or lacking resources to comply within the limited time frames and could increase administrative review burdens for state and local election officials. Without adequate time to secure and review the necessary documentation, some eligible voters could become ineligible to vote in an upcoming election cycle.
Criminal Penalties for Election Workers
Congress should avoid imposing criminal penalties on election administrators and ensure clear and consistent legal standards that do not create unnecessary legal risk for workers or increased liability for counties.
The SAVE America Act imposes criminal penalties for “registering an applicant to vote in an election for Federal office who fails to present documentary proof of United States citizenship,” but it does not clearly define which election actors could be held liable for that act. It also requires a state or local official, in certain cases, to determine whether an applicant has “sufficiently established” citizenship and to sign an affidavit explaining the basis for that decision. That ambiguity is especially concerning in jurisdictions that rely on local election staff, temporary poll workers, and same-day or early voting personnel to review documents and process registrations in real time. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s 2024 EAVS Comprehensive Report found that 49.9 percent of counties reported difficulty recruiting poll workers and that 59.2 percent of poll workers were age 61 or older. Against that backdrop, the SAVE America Act creates new criminal liability in a way that is both punitive and ambiguous for election administration. In practice, the bill could chill participation by the very workers counties depend on to administer elections accurately and efficiently, while also placing those workers in the difficult position of making time-sensitive eligibility decisions that, if made incorrectly, could expose them not only to criminal liability under the bill but also to potential claims under existing federal law if eligible voters are improperly denied registration or voting rights.
Workforce Training Burden
Congress should ensure adequate funding and time to support the training required to implement new documentation and verification requirements.
Implementing documentary proof of citizenship would require massive training for election workers which remains an unfunded mandate. The Election Assistance Commission’s 2024 EAVS reported that 772,433 poll workers served during the 2024 general election. Using that reported staffing level, and assuming 2 to 4 hours of additional instruction for new documentary proof of citizenship procedures, implementation would likely require between 1.5 million and 3.1 million additional training hours for poll workers alone during the initial implementation cycle. Total training needs would be higher when accounting for election administrators and other staff responsible for voter registration processing and documentary verification.
Back-End vs. Front-End Solution
Congress should prioritize investments in modernizing back-end election systems in coordination with state and local governments.
Systems are already in place and used on the back-end by state and local governments to verify voter eligibility. The SAVE America Act proposes to check citizenship verification on the front-end of the process rather than make improvements to old and aging technical systems currently in use — further compounding the need for a proper implementation timeline. Federal lawmakers should work with state and local governments to improve and modernize back-end election systems.
One-Size-Fits-All Approach
Congress should work with state and local governments to develop election policies that reflect the diversity of election systems across the country and provide flexibility in how requirements are implemented.
Election administration is decentralized and varies state by state. The SAVE America Act imposes a single federal standard on election systems that operate very differently across states. States that primarily conduct elections by mail — such as Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington — rely heavily on back-end data verification rather than in-person procedures. Requiring a uniform in-person citizenship verification model would force these states to redesign their systems entirely. Congress should study the impacts of in-person citizenship verification to ensure implementation does not place election administrators or voters in unnecessary harm and work with states and local governments to develop policies and procedures that meet the diversity of how elections are administered across the country.
Common Misconceptions and Clarifications
To help ground discussion of election administration and voter verification, several common public misconceptions can be clarified. Click below to see the realities for each election myth.
Myths and Realities
Reality: Voting by mail accounts for approximately 31% of all ballots cast. The Brookings Institution found that mail voting fraud between 2016 and 2022 was 0.000043% — approximately 2.5 cases per 1 million votes cast.
Reality: Mail voting systems include multiple verification steps, such as signature verification, ballot tracking, voter registration checks, and audit procedures. States that have used vote by mail for many years have developed layered safeguards to verify voter eligibility and ballot integrity.
Reality: State and local governments administer elections for more than 330 million Americans. Any changes to federal election law must be developed in partnership with state and local authorities, fully funded, and accompanied by reasonable implementation timelines to ensure every eligible voter is able to cast their vote.
Reality: Federal law requires safeguards before removing voters from voter rolls; under the National Voter Registration Act, officials must send notice and generally cannot remove a voter for inactivity unless the voter fails to respond and does not vote in two federal election cycles (about four years). Many voters do not notify their previous county when they move, which means their prior registration can remain on the voter rolls until election officials identify the move through interstate data sharing, motor vehicle records, or the NVRA confirmation process.
Advocacy
Senate to vote on SAVE America Act; Major impacts to county election administration
The U.S. Senate is slated to vote on the SAVE America Act (S. 1383/H.R. 7296). This comes after the Trump administration declared the bill the highest priority item and requested a vote. The act has major repercussions for county election administration.
Featured Resources
The County Landscape Project: An Overview of County-Level Election Administration
From voter registration to the final count, county governments are the foundation upon which free and fair elections stand. NACo's research brief examines the scope of responsibilities, variations in local election systems and canvassing procedures, and funding for election costs.
Discover the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Clearinghouse Community
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission invites all election officials to join its online community to network with other officials to share information, resources and best practices.
Electionline: Election Center News Updates
Published by The Election Center—also known as the National Association of Election Officials, Electionline provides timely, nonpartisan news on processes that guide national elections.
PODCAST: High Turnout Wide Margins
Co-hosts Brianna Lennon, county clerk in Boone County, Missouri and Eric Fey, director of elections in St. Louis County, Missouri, talk to subject-matter elections experts and local election administrators to ask the questions that are most meaningful to their work and talk with colleagues about how to best approach issues like voter education, cybersecurity, and integrity. The importance of High Turnout Wide Margins is two-fold. The first, as well as the original goal of the podcast, is to give voice to the actual people running elections at the local level. The podcast has become a must-listen for state and local elections officials and has even been used in the training of elections staff throughout the country. Second, HTWM educates and provides valuable insight into the process of elections for everyday voters. While voters may be aware of the electoral college, Congress, etc., this podcast draws back the curtain so that the day-to-day work of election administration can be understood more thoroughly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below are frequently asked questions regarding the role of counties in election administration.
County election staffing varies state by state but most counties have an elected constitutional or row officer, such as a county clerk or recorder, while others have election directors that are appointed by the county’s chief executive official or legislative board. All counties employ teams made up of hired staff and/or seasonal workers and volunteers to administer elections in their communities. Fifteen states use a single election official model where election administration is managed by one appointed or elected individual. In seven states, a county board is responsible for election administration and acts as the chief county election authority. Twenty-six states use a mixture of local board of elections and two or more individuals. Counties oversee election administration in 36 states, six states have a shared county and municipality responsibility, four states have no county role in elections and two states implement a different system. Alaska has state oversight and Delaware is state managed and county implemented. For more detail on staffing structures, see NACo’s report: An Overview of County-Level Election Administration.
Election funding includes a mix of federal, state and local sources. In some cases, philanthropic grant funding is also utilized, although 27 states have prohibited, limited or regulated this form of funding as of the end of 2023. Counties often pay for county-level elections, while states cover costs for state and federal elections. As of 2024, election administration costs are covered by both county and state funds in 21 states; by either the state, municipality or county in 13 states; by county and municipality in 9 states; by municipality and the state in three states; and by state-only funds in two states.
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) grant programs are the main source of federal funding. States must submit a request with a proposed budget and description of how funds will be used. Other federal grants include:
- Election Security Grant, which provides funding to improve election administration, election security and election technology
- Section 251 Requirement Payments, which provides funding for states to carry out HAVA requirements
- Homeland Security Grant Program, which is available for improving election infrastructure, both physical security and cybersecurity
Since 2022, the Department of Justice has also allowed funds from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports law enforcement and criminal justice initiatives, to be used to protect election workers from violence and threats.
With exceptions and limitations, some states allow for private funding of elections. About half of states have laws limiting acceptance of private contributions following the donation and use of private funds during the COVID 19 pandemic and the 2020 election. The U.S. Congress has introduced bills regarding private funding (e.g. 118th Congress bills H.R. 4563 and H.R. 2934), but no further action has been taken or enacted into law.
Security measures vary based on state law and specific voting systems. Counties ensure election security by upholding requirements and following common best practices, such as the use of security cameras, locks, audits on the wider election process and cybersecurity testing for voting machines. Strict chain-of-custody procedures ensure ballot security, including limiting the number and authority of individuals who can access ballots and securing ballot storage to ensure integrity of audits or recounts. Many counties have cybersecurity measures in place, and 49 states have a post-election audit to ensure the equipment worked correctly during voting. Cyber measures include encryption of systems, multifactor authentication and monitoring systems for suspicious activity.
No. There may be cases in which a polling place has WiFi accessibility, such as in a public library, but this access for staff does not mean that voting machines or systems are connected to the internet. Some counties allow ballot scanners to be connected to protected private networks for staff use only; however, most states do not allow voting machines to be connected to the internet.
With variance by state, county election offices have multifaceted processes to prevent voter fraud. Generally, counties ensure that current and accurate voter rolls are maintained, which includes collaborating with other states to compare and update registration and voting records. In most states, voting more than once is a felony. In instances where voter eligibility cannot be verified, the individual may be allowed to vote by a provisional ballot, which will only be processed and counted after the voter’s eligibility is verified.
There are many ways to learn about election administration, including online resources provided by NACo, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and other organizations. Local elections offices have county-specific information. The Election Center also offers a CERA Certification course on election administration training and information. Participating in workshops, webinars and community events hosted by local and national nonprofits may be a great way to both learn about and participate in the election process. Becoming a poll watcher or worker is another way to be involved.
Election result announcement timelines vary by jurisdiction due to several factors, including:
- State laws prohibiting the processing or tabulation of ballots until after the polls close on election night
- Lack of resources to help expedite the processing or tabulation of ballots, such as modernized equipment and ballot tabulators
- Ballots mailed close to Election Day may arrive days after polls close on election night
The initial results posted on election night are unofficial and typically reported throughout the ballots tabulation process. In some states, early and mail-in votes are already processed and tabulated by Election Day and reported as soon as polls close. However, state laws and resource constraints may require counties more time to complete ballot processing and tabulation. In these cases, reported results may not be final for several days following Election Day. Results are considered to be official once the authorized election official issues the final election certifications.
Community Engagement and Communication
An essential county role is providing voters with accurate, timely and clear communication on election information and processes. These resources and county examples can help officials develop election communication policies and procedures.
Communicating State Measures for Election Security
Bipartisan Policy Center explains how states protect election transparency, accuracy and accountability. County officials can use this as a reference sheet or as talking points when speaking to the public.
County Staff Information Sharing
NACo’s County News article explains how county election officials use their voices to overcome challenges to election administration by providing the public with reliable information.
Developing a Public Communications Plan Guide
This joint report by Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Election Assistance Commission details how to create a public communications plan to mitigate risk to election infrastructure and operations, including customizable planning worksheets.
Best Practices
Hamilton County offered behind-the-scenes tours to the public, offering a transparent look into how poll workers are trained and ballots tabulated. Learn more about their program here.
Maricopa County developed an Elections Command Center, inspired by centralized emergency management systems, to help communicate accurate information and increase transparency to the public. It was made of six elected officials and a team of election professionals. In one election cycle they held 16 press conferences, over 600 reporter interviews and responded to more than 500 media outlets. Read about their accomplishments here with some visual aids here.
San Benito County’s Artful Democracy Initiative used public spaces and art to promote civic engagement with elections. See the art and descriptions on how they used each piece here.
The county used comic book styling to make its voter guides more engaging and approachable and expanded its use to voter education materials, covering topics from voter registration to tabulating results. Using visuals and comic book-style art can simplify complex information. This style also contributes to the county’s brand identity, allowing voters to recognize which materials were from Snohomish County Elections. Learn more here.
To help build community trust through transparency, Thurston County produced short videos on local election workers. These videos showcased personal stories and workers’ connections to their roles. The project, titled “Your Neighbors, Your Elections,” built invaluable community trust and successfully increased recruitment for poll workers. Watch one of their videos here and click here to learn more about the program.
Showcased in this pdf from Weber County Elections in Weber County, Utah are a selection of social media graphics used to engage voters. Weber County employs a variety of methods to increase voter interest. Humor and puns are applied to remind and educate voters about voter registration and share important election dates. Election and political history are utilized throughout the year to entertain and engage voters, with special attention given to unusual or weird facts. Additionally, every election a two-page media sheet is shared for easy access so media agents and campaigns can glean the most sought-after information, in a one-stop format. You can also find their complete 2018 EAC submission here.
Workforce Security
Election officials and poll workers are nonpartisan, trusted administrators of our elections. Ensuring they work in a safe environment is key for elections to run smoothly and to prevent staffing shortages. This research provides insight into challenges and offers actionable solutions.
Analysis of Threat Harassment Data for the 2024 Election
Princeton University’s Bridging Divides Initiative (BDI) report provides data on threats to election officials and workers and threat surge patterns. Over a two-year period over 170 incidents occurred with the vast majority targeting election officials and poll workers.
Responding to Threats and Harassment Against Local Government
BDI also details how election workers are preparing and responding to threats and incidents. This report provides recommendations to better support election officials. In addition to providing support resources for officials, they also place emphasis on building networks of trust and providing training for non-election city officials.
Security Assessment Checklist
The Committee for Safe and Secure Elections provides expert resources and advice to help election officials prepare for every eventuality during election season. This resource synthesizes many different security measures as a final checklist for peak safety. Find CSSE’s resources and contact information here.
Best Practices
Macomb County partners with the Committee for Secure and Safe Elections to conduct Election Security Training programs to increase coordination and preparedness between law enforcement and election officials. These programs have reported increased preparedness and will continue on a periodic basis. Learn more about the county's program here.
By using interactive maps, the county connected law enforcement and election offices to improve the response time to safety situations during elections. Click here to find more details on how the county actioned these maps.
Cybersecurity
Counties are prioritizing securing digital systems from bad actors and preparing for technological failures in emergencies. These resources help improve cybersecurity and inform county officials of various features they may encounter.
Rise of the Machine: Risk and Governance in the Age of Algorithms
As artificial intelligence (AI) transforms every sector, local election officials face unique challenges and opportunities. This training is designed for those on the front lines of election administration. It provides a foundation for understanding AI’s potential impact on election infrastructure and related local government services, with a focus on risks, safeguards, and practical steps you can take to protect and strengthen your work.
Best Practices for Election Technology
Election Assistance Center provides recommendations and best practices for election administrator interactions with, and usage of, technology across all stages of the election cycle. See their full suite of resources here.
Preparing for Artificial Intelligence and Other Challenges to Election Administration
Bipartisan Policy Center outlines results from tabletop exercises conducted on AI election integrity threats and how election officials perceive the issues and respond. Key findings suggest that AI exacerbates existing issues and existing responses can be improved rather than replaced.
Best Practices
Anne Arundel County, Md.
Anne Arundel County used advanced technology in ballot sorting and scanning to increase election cybersecurity, ballot security and notifying voters of the processing of their votes.
County Election Staffing
These resources and county examples can help officials recruit and retain election administration staff.
Election Official Turnover Rates from 2000-2024
Bipartisan Policy Center and UCLA explore election staff turnover rates since 2000, indicating that rates are rising and negatively impacting election administration. The BPC expands on this report with data from the 2024 election here.
Mitigating Turnover Among Local Election Officials
Currently election offices are significantly understaffed. To combat this turnover, election experts argue that funding must be increased, and staff empowerment is crucial to support election officials and increase retention. This article provides data behind these arguments and policy recommendations to begin progress.
Best Practices
Miami-Dade County, Fla
Collaborating with a local community college allowed Miami-Dade County to recruit many young people as poll workers via targeted outreach. This allowed local elections to be accessible and equitable while also giving young voters the opportunity to serve their communities. Click here to learn more about the program.
Election Funding
Finding funding for elections is one of the largest challenges facing election administrators. Counties can use these resources and consider these proposals for covering elections costs like new voting equipment and staffing expenses.
Proposals for Funding Election Administration
In 2025 the Institute for Election Administration Research & Practice, a collaboration of Auburn University and the Election Center, solicited proposals from across the country that introduced practical solutions to address the critical issue of adequate funding of election administration across local, state, and national levels in the United States. The top 10 proposals presented their ideas at the October 2025 symposium at Auburn University, and an expert panel reviewed and scored each proposal. These proposals and the feedback from the expert panel were featured in a special issue of the Journal of Election Administration Research and Practice.
The Importance of Funding Election Infrastructure
County governments play a crucial role in maintaining the smooth operation of our communities, and the security and efficiency of election infrastructure is no exception. Election infrastructure is a rapidly evolving field, with new challenges such as cybersecurity threats, resource and personnel shortages, and shifting voter expectations.
Staying informed on these developments is important for all county leaders, not just election officials. This webinar will provide valuable insights on how robust federal funding of local election offices can bolster county operations, build public confidence, and help your community navigate these modern challenges.
Election Security Grant
Learn about the Help America Vote Act’s (HAVA) Election Security Grant. Traditionally, these grant funds are allocated at the state level. More information on election security grants in your state can be found on the County Explorer tool.
Bolstering and Funding Practices for Resilient Elections
The Kennedy Institute and Dole Institute partnered to compile and analyze state and local models for successfully funding election administration, with academic analysis, real world practices and expert testimony for sustainable solutions.
Federal Updates
Find general information on federal guidelines as well as up-to-date information on new federal resources, guidance and actions. To see NACo's current advocacy around elections click here.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission expands use of election security funds to include countering AI-generated disinformation
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission has expanded eligible uses of Help America Vote Act-authorized election security grant funds to including activities related to combatting election disinformation generated by Artificial Intelligence.
HAVA Grant Guidance: Using HAVA Funds to Combat AI-Generate Mis/Disinformation
The Election Assistance Commission provides detailed guidelines of the allowed use of funds for HAVA grants, including thresholds and exclusions.
What are the Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines?
Bipartisan Policy Center explains how the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines apply to voting technology and how 2025 Executive Order 14248 impacts voting systems.
Federal Elections Policy: Executive Orders, Legislation and County Impacts
State and county election experts come together in this educational webinar to discuss the impacts of the recent Executive Order No. 14399 titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections” and the potential passage of the SAVE America Act (S. 1383). They share how the policies can impact election administrators on the ground and provide advice on evaluation.
NACo urges Congress to protect HAVA Election Security Grants in FY 2027
NACo sent a letter to congressional leaders urging the Senate to restore Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Election Security Grants to at least the FY 2026 enacted level of $45 million in the FY 2027 FSGG appropriations bill.
White House issues Executive Order on mail-in ballot procedures and citizenship verification
White House issues Executive Order on mail-in ballot procedures and citizenship verification
Senate to vote on SAVE America Act; Major impacts to county election administration
The U.S. Senate is slated to vote on the SAVE America Act (S. 1383/H.R. 7296). This comes after the Trump administration declared the bill the highest priority item and requested a vote. The act has major repercussions for county election administration.
MEGA Act moves in House; NACo raises county concerns
On Feb. 10, the U.S. House Committee on Administration held a hearing to consider the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act (H.R. 7300), which was introduced by Committee Chairman Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis).
House passes SAVE America Act; Major impacts on county election administration
Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives is slated to vote on the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (H.R. 22), making it the chamber’s second vote on a version of the legislation in less than a year.
Election Partners
Explore election administration organizations, departments and agencies to learn about their functions and access additional resources for local county officials.
Federal Partners
EAC is a bipartisan, independent federal commission that was established to help officials meet election administration guidelines set forth by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Governed by two Republican and two Democrat commissioners, EAC staff provides election-related resources, develops the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines and serves as the national clearinghouse for election administration information. EAC is the main source of federal grants for election administration activities as authorized by HAVA. More information on election security grants in your state can be found on the County Explorer tool.
- Election Security Grants provide federal funding to improve election administration, technology and security.
- The EAC’s Clearinghouse Community brings together election officials nationwide to collaborate on election administration.
- Glossary of election terminology with key terms and phrases used in the administration of elections, available in several languages
- Listing of election security resources, including resources for voters, non-voting technology, procurement, cybersecurity, election audits and best practices
- Communications 101 toolkit on communicating with the public and planning for emergent issues with a five-video training series
- Interactive map showing state election policy data, plus links to state, territory and local offices and jurisdictional voting information
- AI toolkit with an overview of generative artificial intelligence tools, their impacts on election administration and how to manage AI-generated content
- Election security resources, such as the Secure Elections Toolkit, for communicating to the public information regarding election security
- Accessibility video training series, which provides ways to improve physical accessibility of election facilities as well as the accessibility of websites and communications
DHS houses the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) that works with both public and private partners to ensure cybersecurity and physical security of critical infrastructure, including election infrastructure. CISA has also provided resources on election security and disinformation and misinformation.
- Cybersecurity toolkit to improve cybersecurity and cyber resilience, such as assessing risk and protecting information.
- Election Security Resource Library provides materials on physical security checklists, prevention practices, cybersecurity, operational risk information and election security services.
- Generative AI and the 2024 Election Cycle reports on the unique risks associated with generative AI and election security.
- Election Infrastructure Security Resource Guide describes CISA-provided assessments, trainings and services on election security.
- Resources for Law Enforcement offers risk mitigation guidance and training and exercises for law enforcement on addressing election security threats.
DOJ oversees enforcement of federal election laws and partners with state and local law enforcement officials to prosecute election crimes. Some DOJ state and local assistance grant funds can be used on election worker protection activities.
- Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program primarily focuses on criminal justice funding but was expanded in 2022 to include protecting election workers. As of early 2026, there are no opportunities available with this grant.
- FBI Election Threats Task Force is led by the DOJ Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section to address violence and threats against election workers.
- FBI's Election Crimes and Security page offers key information on cybersecurity, voter suppression, threats against election workers, fraud and other federal election crimes and clarifications.
USPS plays a critical role in elections by handling election mail, including ballots, voter registration cards and absentee voting applications. The Official Election Mail Kit includes resources on election mail, reminders and recommendations for voter and election officials.
Under the Election Observer Program, the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration can designate and credential House of Representative staffers to observe the election procedures to ensure that certified federal office winners are chosen in a free and fair election. The program is codified by the Congressional Observer Access Act of 2024 (HR 6513). Election observer laws vary by state and can be viewed here.
Other Partners
BPC is a research and advocacy organization that works towards enduring bipartisan solutions across a range of policy areas. It supports election administration through providing election data, toolkits and other resources.
- Elections Workforce Advisory Council supports research on solutions for election workers. You can find all publications from the Council here.
- To find all of their elections related research and work click here.
CTCL works with election officials to modernize elections and safely use new technologies towards a healthy, representative democracy for all Americans.
- Self-paced, online, free courses for election workers across a range of topics including cybersecurity, public messaging and using election data.
CSSE is a coalition of election officials and law enforcement officials focused on protecting election workers and voters from threats or violence.
- Law Enforcement Quick Reference Guides provide key election protection provisions found in each state.
- Five Steps to Safer Elections is a how-to guide on improving cooperation between law enforcement and election officials.
- CSSE videos on increasing trust and reducing threats against election officials.
Created by the Election Resource Center, the Election Security Exchange is a group of nonpartisan election professionals and security experts who serve election officials through resources, engagement and education.
NASS is a membership organization for secretaries of state. One of the most vital roles that secretaries of state (and lieutenant governors) play is that of the chief election official.
- Chief State Election Official Locator (by state)
- NASS briefings on election security and administration
NASED is a membership organization for state election directors.
- Find the individual(s) who help administer election-related materials using their State Election Director Locator Tool.
- Election communications toolkit with social media graphics, videos in English and Spanish and tip sheets.
NCSL is a membership organization that represents state legislatures with federal partners.
- 2025 State Elections Legislation Database tracks state legislation related to election administration weekly.
- NCSL State Liaisons Directory
- Election Conversations, which are interviews of local election officials or legislative election leaders conducted by NCSL’s Elections and Redistricting team.
The Election Center is a membership organization for individuals who work in election administration. They provide resources for election officials including the CERA professional certification program for election workers.
- Standards of Conduct for Election and Registration Officials Toolkit
- Journal of Election Administration, Research and Practice is a biannual e-journal published in partnership with the Auburn University Election Administration Initiative.
- Election Consulting, which provides professional solutions to election officials for daily operations and voter registration.
The Elections Group is a team of nonpartisan election experts that work with local and state election offices and nonprofits on advancing election administration. They help offices implement new programs or improve processes for voters and administrators.
- Election Communications Plan maps out a 60-day plan with templates, tips and Public Service Announcements.
- Chain of Custody Guide on how to mitigate, identify and solve breaches in ballot security.
- Communications Resource Desk provides free to low-cost help on communications-related work, from graphic design to crisis communication.
- De-escalation Resources include a pocket guide and posters with tips and reminders for dealing with situations that may arise at voting places.
- Additional resources include templates, guides, workbooks, case studies and articles on election-related materials.
DOJ rule grants extension on ADA web-based accessibility requirements
DOJ has announced plans to explore ways to lower the cost of compliance with its 2024 Final Rule on web-based accessibility requirements for state and local governments.
Senate Agriculture Committee introduces 2026 Farm Bill, following House passage
On June 23, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) introduced the Senate version of the 2026 Farm Bill, the Agricultural Act of 2026.
Congress begins reauthorization process for Great American Outdoors Act
On June 10, the leaders of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources introduced the Great American Outdoors 250 Act, which would reauthorize programs stood up in the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) to invest in recreation facilities on public lands. Led by Natural Resources Chair Burce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), the bipartisan proposal would provide $1.9 billion annually to tackle deferred maintenance projects.
FCC considers preemption of local authorities in broadband permitting process
Counties are partners in broadband deployment efforts – not barriers – and pursuing one-size-fits-all regulations will further burden progress towards closing the digital divide
U.S. Department of Agriculture announces reorganization
On July 24, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced a major reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that will relocate thousands of federal employees, restructure regional offices and consolidate administrative services and operations. The changes are expected to reduce USDA’s footprint in Washington, D.C. and shift more personnel to regional hubs across the country.