What Would Election Consolidation Mean for Local Election Officials in South Carolina?

What do election officials do in between presidential elections? A lot more than many realize. Our new data shows that local election officials oversee multiple elections each year—far more than just federal and statewide contests.

This analysis explores how many elections local officials administer annually and examines South Carolina as a case study for election consolidation, a policy that could reduce their workload by merging election dates. We show that:

• The average election official administers 2.1 elections each year.
• Frequent elections contribute to voter fatigue and increase administrative burdens for election officials.
• Merging local and special elections with existing state and federal contests could reduce the number of elections South Carolina’s election works administer each year by 41%.

How Many Elections Does a Typical Local Election Official Administer Each Year?

The United States is an outlier in both the frequency and complexity of its elections. Unlike most countries where federal elections occur every few years, U.S. voters cast ballots at multiple levels of government—federal, state, county, municipal, and special jurisdictions—often in separate contests. Primary and runoff elections further add to the cycle, as do special elections to fill vacancies.

The average state sees its typical chief local election official administer 2.1 elections each year. This includes 1.8 federal, state, primary, special, and runoff elections, and an additional 0.3 municipal elections. Figure 1 shows the significant discrepancy across states, with Oklahoma officials administering over four elections per year and Wyoming just one. 

Figure 1: Average Number of Elections Run per Year by Local Election Officials, 2014-2020 

How do Election Schedules Impact Voters and Election Officials?

Academic research has long focused on the potential fatiguing effects of too many elections. If people are asked to come to the polls too often, they are less likely to show up each time, potentially leading to unrepresentative outcomes. This is especially the case when voters are tasked with voting on obscure offices and technical questions. 

What has garnered less attention is the effect frequent elections have on the election officials in charge of administering them. A recent Bipartisan Policy Center report found that turnover among election officials has been growing over the past two decades, increasing from 28% in 2004 to 39% in 2022, a 38% increase. One of the major reasons for this increase identified by the report was the increasing demands of the job over the past two decades, especially the growing complexity of administering each individual election.

Each election, officials are typically expected to update lists of eligible registered voters, select polling locations, recruit and train poll workers, program and test voting equipment, verify candidates’ eligibility, write and print ballots, distribute resources to polling locations, communicate dates and voting rules to voters, ensure candidate compliance with electioneering and campaign finance laws, oversee Election Day voting, and tabulate and certify election results. Election officials also must administer absentee and early in-person voting, if applicable, distribute overseas and military ballots, communicate with media, and ensure all tasks are completed within budget. Additionally, each election requires officials to adhere to a vast array of federal and state laws.

Packed election schedules not only add to the stress of the job, but take time away from important duties undertaken between each election. Election officials need time to register voters, maintain accurate voter rolls, attend training, recruit and train staff and poll workers, and plan the next election to ensure a smooth, accessible experience for all voters.

Given all of these duties, it is unsurprising that recent survey data from the Elections & Voting Information Center shows average election staff workloads increase between 50 and 900% between non-election and election periods, depending on jurisdiction size. Reported workloads over 40 hours per week are routine around an election, which can last for as much as three months surrounding an election date.

What is Election Consolidation and Why Does it Matter?

Election consolidation refers to the joining of separate elections together. For example, holding a school board election at the same time as a statewide election so that voters only have to complete one ballot and election officials only have to run one election. 

Election consolidation has been shown to both reduce costs and increase turnout and can take a number of forms. States can consolidate multiple levels of government into the same election, such as holding congressional, state, and county officer elections on the same date. They can also run all elections on the federal schedule, which tends to have the highest impact on voter turnout. States can also reduce the number of special elections by holding these concurrently with regularly scheduled contests. 

States have also selected alternatives to runoff elections such as ranked choice voting, which is also known as “instant-runoff voting” for mathematically simulating what would happen in a runoff election. 

What Could Election Consolidation Mean for South Carolina?

South Carolina’s election schedule is more complicated than most. The state holds elections for various levels of government throughout the year, which may include special elections and asynchronous runoffs. State law requires that special elections be scheduled on the eleventh, thirteenth, and twentieth Tuesday after a vacancy for primary, primary runoff, and general elections, respectively. This means special elections get scheduled unpredictably throughout the year, wasting limited resources and creating confusion for the public. Regular municipal elections are also scheduled throughout the year, with varying and overlapping schedules across counties.

South Carolina’s legislature is currently considering a move toward election consolidation and presents a good case study of what such a move would mean for its election officials. 

South Carolina ranks third in the nation in the total number of elections held each year and fourth in special and municipal elections (Figure 2). On average, South Carolina county election officials administer 1.4 municipal and special elections each year on separate dates from other elections, which make up over 40% of all elections administered in the state. South Carolina election officials run 155% more special and municipal elections than the national average. 

Figure 2: Average Number of Local or Special Elections Run Per Year by Local Election Officials, 2014-2020

While the state average is between three to four elections per year, some counties administer far more. Horry County, home to Myrtle Beach, holds 5.4 elections on average each year, and no county administers fewer than two.

Even with consolidation, South Carolina would remain above the national average in the number of elections administered. However, reducing the number of elections could ease the strain on local election officials, improve resource allocation, and simplify the voting process for the public. Aligning special and local elections with state and federal contests would result in a 41% reduction in elections administered. Even a limited approach to consolidation—grouping local and special elections on a single designated date—would still decrease the number of different Election Days officials manage by 12%.

Conclusion

Job satisfaction among local election officials has dropped 20 percentage points since the 2020 election, with increasing workloads cited as one of the main drivers of this decline. By reducing the number of separate elections, election consolidation can cut costs, improve efficiency, and reduce demands on the election workforce—all while making the voting process more convenient for the public. 

Read our Methodology