Timing and Election Administration Costs
Proponents and opponents of consolidated elections both highlight election costs. Opponents worry that moving election dates will require additional funds that will put an extra tax on communities. Proponents believe that aligning local elections with federal contests will actually save communities significant funds by reducing the costs of election administration. Those two perspectives are neatly illustrated in St. Petersburg Florida where prior to the city’s move to on-cycle elections the Assistant City Attorney told city council members that changes to election timing would cost the city over $1 million (Parker 2022). After the city held its first on-cycle election in November of 2024, supporters of the move brought to light savings of $1.3 million for that November contest (Parker 2025).
As one recent article on election costs noted, “No one has ever conducted a meticulous, CPA-proof before-and-after study on how much money election consolidation would save” (Durning 2023). The reasons for the lack of study are clear. Due to the federal nature of this country, elections are administered in complex and different ways in different parts of the country. Election administration budgets are opaque, rarely broken down by community or per election, and many are lumped in with other larger parts of the county clerk offices.
Nevertheless, the data that we do have indicate that the move to on-cycle elections would save communities a lot of money. The costs of running all of the nation’s local elections is $2-5 billion per year. Much of that could be saved by moving all local contests to the same dates as federal elections. What is slightly less clear is exactly how much money cities and districts would save – in part because of the limited study to date and in part because the rules around budgeting vary from place to place. In particular, in some states, cities pay the entire costs of administering stand alone local elections and none of the costs of on-cycle elections, whereas in other states cities are responsible regardless of the timing of elections.
One of the most rigorous estimates of election cost savings comes from an analysis of three Northwest states (Idaho, Montana, and Washington). That analysis indicated that moving all of those states local contests to even years would likely save the $30 million in every two-year election cycle. For just one city – Seattle – the per cycle savings would be $3.2 million. The estimates come from a comparison of the costs in a range of off-cycle and on-cycle contests in those and other states. For example, in Nevada, where election timing varies, off-cycle local elections in Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, and Boulder City cost $3-6 dollars per active registered voter to administer. That was 88 percent higher than the costs in on-cycle cities in the state over the same timer period (Durning 2023). Another study by the Greelining Institute (2013) found similar savings in California – 92 percent less per ballot in on-cycle cities. Concord, California projected an overall savings of 57 percent (Hajnal 2010). Legislative analysts in that state found that San Diego’s 2012 on-cycle election cost that city only 1 percent as much per voter as Los Angeles’ 2011 off-cycle contest cost.1 Likewise, even small cities in Arizona have reportedly saved hundreds of thousands of dollars per election by switching to on-cycle dates (Durning 2023). It is worth noting that a substantial share of these savings occur when jurisdictions move all of their offices to even years and can cancel entire elections.
While these findings are still preliminary and more study would help to identify the actual savings in each community considering the move, there seems no doubt that real savings will occur if elections are moved on-cycle. Holding fewer elections is cheaper than holding more elections. Indeed, no published research has found either an increase in costs or no change in costs when jurisdictions move on-cycle. As a result, the primary motivation behind the move to consolidated elections has often been cost savings.
The other important cost to consider when thinking about election timing reform is the costs to the voter. Moving to on-cycle elections greatly decreases the total costs to the individual voter. When local contests are held off-cycle on a different day than statewide contests, residents who want to vote in the local election need to learn the date of their local election, they often need to find their local election polling place, and they often need to make an additional trip to the polls just to vote on local contests. That is a lot of extra time and effort for the average citizen. That extra time and effort could mean foregone earnings or lost leisure time. All of those costs can be reduced by moving to on-cycle elections when residents need only check off a name further down the ballot in order to vote in local elections. Importantly, moving local contests to on-cycle dates does not increase the total number of items that voters have to figure out as some opponents have claimed. Rather, it just shifts the timing of that decision. On-cycle elections, thus, make local voting significantly less costly to voters. This savings of time and effort is one of the main reasons why so many Americans prefer on-cycle elections.
1 The Senate Rules Committee discussion of SB 415 noted that the city of San Diego spent 42 cents per voter for its November 2012 on-cycle election, while the city of Los Angeles spent $39.35 per voter for its 2011 off-cycle election.