The Joint Subcommittee to Study the Consolidation and Scheduling of General Elections held its final meetings of 2025 on August 20 and September 2, with meetings dedicated to considering the budgetary implications and administrative effects, respectively, of consolidating Virginia’s elections into the federal cycle by holding elections in even-numbered years. As directed by 2025 legislation, the Joint Subcommittee is conducting a two-year study; the legislation directing the study charges the group with examining the effects on voter turnout and campaign costs, implications for campaign finance rules, and potential cost savings, among other elements, and requires recommendations to include specific proposals for how such consolidation would be accomplished, such as extending or shortening the terms of certain offices to coincide with a different election cycle, and any statutory and Constitutional changes that may be necessary. Meetings for 2025 and 2026 must be completed by the end of November each year, and an executive summary must be submitted each year before the beginning of the next General Assembly session. Chesterfield County Supervisor Jessica Schneider serves on the Joint Subcommittee.
August 20 meeting
VACo Executive Director Dean Lynch was invited to speak to the Joint Subcommittee on August 20 to discuss fiscal implications of consolidation from the perspective of county governments. He highlighted the significant funding contribution made by counties to administering elections and VACo’s advocacy for the state to be a stronger partner in this critical governmental function. The state’s main ongoing contribution to election costs at the local level is partial reimbursement for the costs of compensation for general registrars and electoral board members, while counties fund additional staffing costs, as well as election-specific expenses, such as securing early voting locations and election day polling places, ballot printing and postage costs, and stipends for officers of election. (The state also reimburses localities for the costs of holding the Presidential primary, and has provided ad hoc support in recent years, such as funding a statewide redistricting mailer, providing some funding for prepaid absentee ballot postage, and passing through federal funding from COVID relief legislation.) Should elections be held every other year, counties would expect to see some savings in costs for election-specific expenses.
Mr. Lynch conveyed that VACo staff had sought some feedback on the concept from VACo’s Finance and Elections Steering Committee, as well as from the Board of Directors, and that views varied, with some members in favor of exploring options to enhance turnout and reduce voter and volunteer fatigue, and other members concerned about the potential for local issues to be overshadowed by races at the top of the ticket. Mr. Lynch also noted the importance of bond referenda to counties, which was an issue previously discussed by the Joint Subcommittee, and encouraged members to leave this authority intact.
Commissioner of Elections Susan Beals reported to the Joint Subcommittee that the Department of Elections could expect to realize modest savings from consolidating the election schedule, since most of the office’s costs are associated with ongoing responsibilities such as list maintenance, maintenance of the voter registration system, and campaign finance regulation. Staff to the General Assembly’s “money committees” explained the current intersection of the state’s biennial budget process with the election schedule; under the current system, the outgoing governor proposes a budget in December after the gubernatorial election, which the new Governor inherits. If the election cycle were changed, the legislature could consider revising the budget cycle to retain the current structure, but changes to the budget cycle would not be required.
Eric Olsen, Director of Elections and General Registrar for Prince William County, spoke on behalf of the Voter Registrars Association of Virginia, and explained that there is some variability in local costs for election administration, depending on the size of the locality and other factors, such as the number of early voting sites and levels of absentee voting by mail. Fixed costs (such as staff salaries and benefits, office expenses, and IT infrastructure) would be largely unaffected by election consolidation; since these costs represent a larger proportion of spending for smaller localities, those localities would realize smaller savings from consolidating elections. Mr. Olsen suggested that savings resulting from conducting fewer elections could be reinvested into improving other functions of election administration, such as voter education, and some responsibilities could be shifted to non-election years. Cost savings may be partially offset by some increases in special elections and certain election costs (such as multi-page ballots in consolidated election years); state resources could mitigate these potential increases. Mr. Olsen highlighted concerns expressed by registrars that localities might reduce funding for local offices if there were fewer elections to administer, a concern echoed by John Nunnally, President of the Virginia Electoral Board Association.
September 2 meeting
Conversations on September 2 focused on the administrative effects of consolidation of elections. Both Commissioner Beals and Mr. Olsen noted that consolidation would provide additional time to implement changes in legislation and conduct other responsibilities, which now must be accomplished in the midst of various election-related duties. Commissioner Beals and Mr. Olsen pointed to some additional complexities associated with multi-page ballots (which can increase postage costs for by-mail ballots and increase wait times at polling places, and require additional outreach to encourage voters to fill out each page), and noted that fewer elections mean fewer encounters with voters, as elections often provide a reminder for voters to update addresses and other information. Although more frequent elections can strain officers of election, they also help officers of election stay in practice.
Mr. Olsen offered several suggestions for the Joint Subcommittee’s consideration, including reiterating the Association’s support for a requirement for election offices to have a least two full-time employees as a way to safeguard institutional knowledge. He also suggested that the legislature could consider potential alternatives to full consolidation into even-numbered years, such as moving state elections to even years but leaving local elections in odd-numbered years, or moving state elections to even-numbered years and consolidating local elections (acknowledging that such a move would cause concerns for localities with staggered terms for their governing bodies). He also suggested an alternative funding model in which localities would fund baseline administrative costs for elections and the state would reimburse localities for the costs of administering the newly-consolidated elections.
The Joint Subcommittee will continue its work next year and submit its final report in advance of the 2027 General Assembly session.
VACo Contact: Katie Boyle