Bill Overview
Title: Election Security Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses election security through grant programs and requirements for voting systems and paper ballots. Among other provisions, the bill (1) establishes requirements for voting systems, including that systems use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots; (2) directs the Election Assistance Commission to award grants to states for specified activities, including replacing voting systems and improving the security of the systems; and (3) requires states and jurisdictions to carry out postelection audits for all federal elections.
Sponsors: Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Target Audience
Population: People who participate in or are involved in federal elections
Estimated Size: 162000000
- The bill impacts all voters in federal elections as it establishes requirements on how their votes are cast and verified.
- Election officials and workers will be impacted as they will need to adapt to the new requirements for voting systems and administer postelection audits.
- States and jurisdictions will be tasked with carrying out the new requirements, directly affecting state government operations.
- The security and election technology industry may see shifts in demand for products that meet the new security requirements.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects voters, election officials, state governments, and the election security industry. Most of the population of 162 million directly or indirectly involved in federal elections can be affected, as they either vote, work in elections, or are involved in governance.
- We will simulate interviews across a range of these stakeholders, including voters from diverse age groups, political affiliations, and election officials.
- The budget is focused on enhancing security through grants and technological updates; thus actual impact will vary from direct benefits like increased trust and indirect effects like changes in operational procedures.
- We need to be mindful of the snake oil phenomenon – spending without improving actual outcomes, especially since the policy impacts a vast and varied demographic across the country.
Simulated Interviews
Election Official (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an election official, I think the focus on security is crucial given recent election controversies.
- The added audits will increase transparency but also our workload significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Farmer and occasional poll worker (Rural Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I always worry about fraud, so paper ballots and audits give me more confidence.
- I hope these changes don't complicate voting too much for rural folks like us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about my vote being counted accurately, so I welcome audits.
- It might be hard to adjust to new systems, hope they are senior-friendly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think tech advances in elections are exciting, as long as security is a top priority.
- Concerned if tech fails, will paper backup be foolproof?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Tech Developer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy actually boosts demand for secure systems, possibly benefiting our business.
- Audits are logical but must not burden the digital transition too much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Election Security Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act is a step in the right direction for election integrity.
- It's good to see increased funding for security solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Voter Turnout Activist (New York, NY)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security is important but making voting accessible must remain a priority.
- I support policies that encourage participation without overcomplicating the process.
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 |
State Election Commissioner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The implementation costs are concerning given our limited state budget.
- However, this policy could increase public trust, which is vital.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Policy Advisor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balanced measures between security and accessibility are essential.
- I think these changes can restore some of the lost confidence if executed transparently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Graphic Designer (Portland, OR)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's great to have more secure elections, but I hope this also enhances the voter experience.
- As someone working in design, simplifying without compromising is key.
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 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 3: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 5: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The implementation timeline and states' ability to comply with new requirements may affect costs.
- The need for swift allocation and use of grant funds by states could challenge effective use of resources.
- Potential legal challenges by states or jurisdictions resisting federal mandates might affect budgeting.