How have state and local governments tracked expenses related to election‑law suits since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020, state and local governments faced an unprecedented wave of election litigation—dozens of post‑election suits nationally—while their formal systems for tracking the legal and administrative costs tied to those suits have remained uneven, often ad hoc, and largely buried in general election‑administration budgets rather than tracked as a distinct line‑item [1] [2] [3].
1. The litigation surge that forced accounting choices
The 2020 cycle produced scores of high‑profile election challenges—reports count roughly 62 post‑election lawsuits contesting processes and certifications across multiple states—creating new or intensified legal bills for secretaries of state, counties, and local boards that had to defend administration decisions or respond to discovery and court orders [1] [4].
2. Public trackers showed where cases landed, not what they cost
Nonprofit and legal trackers built after 2020—Ballotpedia, Democracy Docket, the American Bar Association’s election litigation resources and the Brennan Center’s litigation tracker—have cataloged cases, plaintiffs, and outcomes to make the legal map transparent, but those outlets do not systematically collect or report state and local expenditure or defense‑cost data tied to each suit [5] [6] [4] [7].
3. Budgets absorbed legal defense costs without standardized labels
State and local governments typically fund election litigation from general election‑administration appropriations or from agency legal budgets rather than a dedicated “election‑lawsuit” account; comprehensive reviews of 12 states and nearly 100 localities show wide variation in what is reimbursed, what is borne locally, and that many jurisdictions lack systematic, detailed election cost accounting—making it difficult to isolate lawsuit expenses [3] [2] [8].
4. Some states created special funds or reimbursement formulas, but not specifically for lawsuits
A handful of states have established named accounts or legislative appropriations to help localities with election administration expenses—Minnesota’s VOTER account and Michigan’s election administration support fund are examples of new vehicles for distributing money for operations—but these mechanisms were designed for operational costs such as early‑voting sites or technology, not explicitly to track or pay legal defense of election‑law suits [9] [2].
5. Private funding and federal grants changed the mix of revenue — and the politics of tracking
The pandemic-era influx of federal HAVA and CARES Act grants, plus private philanthropy in 2020, altered who paid for extraordinary election costs; in response, many states tightened rules about private donations to election offices and created limits on accepting nonpublic funds—moves that affect how money is reported and tracked, though again they do not create uniform reporting on litigation expenses [10] [11] [12].
6. Legal costs have been visible in some pockets (sanctions, settlements, appropriations), but with patchy transparency
Court filings, sanctions orders, and occasional state legislative emergency appropriations reveal some litigation‑related expenses—federal judges have sanctioned election‑related lawsuits and plaintiffs’ counsel in several instances, and legislatures have at times passed emergency funding to help jurisdictions respond—but these reveal events, not a comprehensive ledger of defense costs across jurisdictions [13] [1].
7. Gaps, consequences, and divergent perspectives
Advocates and researchers repeatedly warn that the lack of standardized, transparent cost accounting forces localities to absorb legal risk and can skew resource allocation away from core services; proponents of the status quo counter that legal expenditures are part of routine agency litigation budgets and should be tracked at the agency level rather than isolated by subject—but existing reviews conclude more systematic cost accounting is needed to understand the full fiscal impact of post‑2020 election litigation [8] [3] [2].
8. What reporting does not—yet—show (and why that matters)
Available sources map cases and document funding vehicles and policy changes but do not provide a comprehensive national dataset of state and local legal spending tied specifically to election‑law suits; therefore, while it is clear litigation increased demands on budgets and prompted some ad hoc appropriations and fund creation, precise totals and uniform tracking practices across states and localities remain undocumented in the reviewed reporting [5] [2] [3].