Bill Overview
Title: Election Worker and Polling Place Protection Act
Description: This bill addresses certain protections for election workers and polling places. In particular, the bill prohibits, with enhanced penalties for certain types of threats and harms (1) intimidation of poll watchers, election officials, and election agents, vendors, and contractors involving violence or threats of harm; and (2) physical damage to or threats to physically damage a polling place, tabulation center, or other election infrastructure.
Sponsors: Rep. Levin, Andy [D-MI-9]
Target Audience
Population: People who work in elections and use polling places
Estimated Size: 150000000
- Election workers include poll workers, election officials, and others involved in the electoral process.
- Polling places and election infrastructure include all locations and technology used in the administration of elections.
- Elections happen globally, so protections could affect international standards, but direct impact is largely on US infrastructure.
- US citizens are directly impacted as they depend on secure elections for democratic participation.
- Intimidation and threats globally to election workers are a concern but legislation impacts are direct to the US system.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects people involved in the election process: election workers (poll workers, officials) and voters using polling places.
- Some individuals' wellbeing will not noticeably change, particularly those not directly involved or dependent on voting systems.
- Budget constraints limit direct protections to the most vulnerable or high-risk locations and personnel.
- A long-term effect on wellbeing will largely manifest as enhanced trust and feeling of safety in democratic processes.
- Implementing the policy might mitigate stress and worry over election safety for workers and voters alike.
Simulated Interviews
Poll Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm very relieved by this policy. Finally, there's a formal stance against harassment and threats.
- I hope this will make more people willing to be poll workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Election Official (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The move to enhance protections is crucial in today's climate of heightened tensions.
- It should have a positive ripple effect on trust in elections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
IT Technician at Election Infrastructure (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Physical protection is crucial, but I hope similar focus is placed on cyber threats too.
- A holistic approach would benefit our election systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired, Volunteer Poll Worker (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel much safer doing my volunteer work with these new protections.
- It should encourage more retirees like me to help out.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Poll Watcher (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional protections should ease tensions and ensure a fair process.
- The intimidation issue needed addressing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Election Vendor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's not just the election workers who need protection, our equipment and operations do too.
- The policy should reduce operational risks and stress on our business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Voter (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing polling places will be protected makes me feel more secure when voting.
- Everyone should feel safe performing their civic duty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Poll Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There have been unnecessary disruptions that these protections might prevent.
- We need a safe environment to conduct fair elections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
College Student, First-time Voter (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This gives me confidence to vote securely in person, without fear.
- Policies like this help ensure young voters are not discouraged to participate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Election Administrator (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction, protecting our workers and election integrity.
- We hope it brings back trust in fair election conduct.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31200000, High: $72800000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32448000, High: $75712000)
Year 5: $58300928 (Low: $34980556, High: $81621300)
Year 10: $72089662 (Low: $43253797, High: $100925861)
Year 100: $3138428376 (Low: $1883060000, High: $4432860000)
Key Considerations
- There is an inherent assumption that better protection against election interference will maintain public trust and participation.
- Short-term costs derived from implementation and new security measures can help prevent longer-term losses associated with potential election disruptions.
- Estimating the long-term impact on political stability and subsequent economic security is inherently challenging but important.