Election security statistics at a glance
Election security spending is easiest to understand as a funding-and-expenditure story. Since 2018, the Election Assistance Commission has awarded $955 million in HAVA Election Security Funds to 56 grantees, including 50 states, Washington D.C., and five territories (EAC ES Program Status). That single figure frames the scale of the program, but the state-level numbers show how uneven the pace of spending can be once funds are distributed.
Fast facts
- Total awarded since 2018: $955 million (EAC ES Program Status)
- Total grantees: 56 (EAC ES Program Status)
- Scope: 50 states, Washington D.C., and five territories (EAC ES Program Status)
- Highest listed state award in this dataset: California, $87,527,280 (EAC ES Program Status)
- Lowest listed state award in this dataset: American Samoa, $1,800,000 (EAC ES Program Status)
- Highest listed spending rate in this dataset: 100% expended in Florida and Georgia (EAC ES Program Status)
- Lowest listed spending rate in this dataset: 45% expended in Colorado (EAC ES Program Status)
Why this dataset matters
The keyword “election security statistics” can sound abstract, but the figures here show concrete public administration choices: how much money was allocated, how much interest was earned, how much was spent, and how far each jurisdiction has progressed. The most useful way to read the data is to compare funding against expenditures, then look at the expended share to see which jurisdictions are closest to fully using the money already awarded.
Table of contents
- Big picture funding totals
- State and territory comparisons
- Spending pace and expended share
- What the interest figures suggest
- Notable high and low points
- Reading the numbers carefully
Big picture funding totals
The strongest headline in the dataset is the overall scale of the program. $955 million in HAVA Election Security Funds have been awarded since 2018, and the program covers 56 grantees (EAC ES Program Status). That average relationship between program size and number of recipients helps explain why the state-level values vary so widely: some jurisdictions are working with tens of millions of dollars, while others are operating on amounts closer to the low millions.
A second useful macro point is that the dataset does not just show awards. It also includes interest earned, total expenditures, and a spending percentage. That gives a more complete picture than a simple funding total because it shows whether money is still sitting in accounts, being spent steadily, or already fully deployed.
Key takeaways
- The program is broad, but the money is not evenly distributed across jurisdictions (EAC ES Program Status).
- Awards, interest, expenditures, and expended percentages together create a more actionable view than awards alone.
- The dataset is especially useful for comparing how quickly different places move from award to spending.
State and territory comparisons
The data includes a wide spread of jurisdictions. Some receive large awards and have already spent most or all of them, while others have smaller awards or more room left to spend. The comparison below uses the states and territories explicitly listed in the statistics field.
| Jurisdiction | Election security funds | Interest earned | Total expenditures | Expended |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | $16,223,778.00 | $685,336.00 | $10,739,653.00 | 66% |
| Alaska | $9,000,000.00 | $470,719.26 | $5,716,176.99 | 64% |
| American Samoa | $1,800,000.00 | $1,985.39 | $1,665,257.22 | 93% |
| Arizona | $19,570,974.00 | $689,049.85 | $15,672,089.22 | 80% |
| Arkansas | $12,503,000.00 | $404,532.07 | $9,398,490.21 | 71% |
| California | $87,527,280.00 | $4,098,072.80 | $48,826,598.55 | 56% |
| Colorado | $16,821,719.00 | $1,571,695.51 | $7,546,280.42 | 45% |
| Connecticut | $13,876,298.00 | $251,035.29 | $13,273,751.55 | 96% |
| Delaware | $9,036,503.00 | $31,203.11 | $6,923,979.98 | 77% |
| District of Columbia | $9,000,000.00 | $261,160.64 | $9,000,000 | 81% |
| Florida | $49,137,797.00 | $1,445,682.45 | $35,600,113.92 | 100% |
| Georgia | $49,137,797.00 | $1,300,210.60 | $49,137,797.00 | 100% |
| Guam | $1,800,000.00 | $10,118.15 | $1,301,650.32 | 68% |
A few patterns stand out immediately. California is the largest listed recipient in this slice of the dataset at $87,527,280.00, which is far above every other jurisdiction shown here (EAC ES Program Status). Florida and Georgia are tied on award size at $49,137,797.00 each, but their spending stories differ in a subtle way: Florida shows $35,600,113.92 in total expenditures, while Georgia shows $49,137,797.00, meaning Georgia has fully expended the listed award amount in the dataset while Florida is also marked 100% expended (EAC ES Program Status).
High award, high progress, and room left to spend
Some of the most interesting rows combine meaningful award sizes with high spending percentages. Connecticut is a strong example: it received $13,876,298.00, reported $13,273,751.55 in expenditures, and is 96% expended (EAC ES Program Status). American Samoa is even closer to complete in percentage terms, with 93% expended on a smaller award of $1,800,000.00 (EAC ES Program Status).
At the other end of the pace spectrum, Colorado stands out with 45% expended despite receiving $16,821,719.00 and earning $1,571,695.51 in interest (EAC ES Program Status). California is also notable because it combines the largest listed award with only 56% expended, leaving a large amount still to be deployed relative to the award size.
Spending pace and expended share
If you want to understand election security statistics quickly, the expended percentage is one of the most useful columns. It does not tell you everything, but it shows whether funds are nearly exhausted or still moving through the pipeline. In this dataset, the spread is wide enough to make meaningful comparisons.
At a glance
- Fully expended: Florida and Georgia at 100% (EAC ES Program Status)
- Nearly complete: Connecticut at 96% and American Samoa at 93% (EAC ES Program Status)
- Middle of the pack: Arizona at 80%, Delaware at 77%, Arkansas at 71% (EAC ES Program Status)
- Lower progress: Alaska at 64%, Alabama at 66%, Guam at 68% (EAC ES Program Status)
- Lowest listed progress: Colorado at 45% (EAC ES Program Status)
A simple way to read those percentages is to think in bands. Anything at or above 90% suggests the jurisdiction is very close to spending everything in the listed award bucket. The 70% to 80% range suggests significant progress, but not completion. Anything below 60% indicates that a meaningful share remains unspent or unreported within the dataset snapshot.
Funding and expenditure balance
The relationship between award amounts and expenditures also matters. Georgia is the cleanest high-level example because its $49,137,797.00 in expenditures matches its $49,137,797.00 award, which is why it appears at 100% expended (EAC ES Program Status). Florida is also marked 100% expended, but its reported expenditures are $35,600,113.92, which means the percentage field is the key part of the dataset to use when interpreting status rather than trying to infer completion from raw expenditure totals alone.
That is an important reading habit for any election security statistics dataset. The column meanings matter, and the expended percentage is the clearest summary measure available here.
What the interest figures suggest
Interest earned is one of the least obvious but most informative fields in the dataset. It shows that some jurisdictions are not only receiving and spending funds, but also generating additional dollars while the money is held. Those interest amounts vary dramatically.
A few examples show the range:
- California: $4,098,072.80 in interest earned (EAC ES Program Status)
- Colorado: $1,571,695.51 in interest earned (EAC ES Program Status)
- Florida: $1,445,682.45 in interest earned (EAC ES Program Status)
- Georgia: $1,300,210.60 in interest earned (EAC ES Program Status)
- Alabama: $685,336.00 in interest earned (EAC ES Program Status)
- Arizona: $689,049.85 in interest earned (EAC ES Program Status)
- Delaware: $31,203.11 in interest earned (EAC ES Program Status)
- American Samoa: $1,985.39 in interest earned (EAC ES Program Status)
The spread is large enough that it changes how you read the funding totals. California’s interest alone is substantial, which suggests that the time window between receipt and expenditure can matter a great deal in public grant administration. At the low end, American Samoa’s $1,985.39 in interest is tiny relative to the larger mainland figures, which fits its smaller award and expenditure base in the dataset (EAC ES Program Status).
A compact comparison of selected jurisdictions
| Jurisdiction | Award | Interest | Expenditures | Expended |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | $87,527,280.00 | $4,098,072.80 | $48,826,598.55 | 56% |
| Florida | $49,137,797.00 | $1,445,682.45 | $35,600,113.92 | 100% |
| Georgia | $49,137,797.00 | $1,300,210.60 | $49,137,797.00 | 100% |
| Colorado | $16,821,719.00 | $1,571,695.51 | $7,546,280.42 | 45% |
| Connecticut | $13,876,298.00 | $251,035.29 | $13,273,751.55 | 96% |
This comparison shows that high awards do not automatically mean high expended percentages. California and Colorado both hold large dollar amounts, but their completion rates differ sharply. Florida and Georgia share the same award, yet both are fully expended according to the dataset. Connecticut’s numbers show a more balanced relationship between award size and usage, with the spending nearly caught up to the original allocation.
Notable high and low points
Several individual rows are worth calling out because they illustrate different stages of program execution.
Big number
- $87,527,280.00 for California is the largest listed award in this dataset slice (EAC ES Program Status).
Most complete spending
- Florida and Georgia are both at 100% expended (EAC ES Program Status).
Closest to complete among the smaller jurisdictions shown
- American Samoa is at 93% expended on $1,800,000.00 (EAC ES Program Status).
- Connecticut is at 96% expended on $13,876,298.00 (EAC ES Program Status).
Lowest percentage
- Colorado is at 45% expended despite $16,821,719.00 in funding and $1,571,695.51 in interest earned (EAC ES Program Status).
Largest difference between award and expenditures in the listed rows
- California has $87,527,280.00 awarded versus $48,826,598.55 in reported expenditures, which leaves a very large remaining balance relative to the other entries shown here (EAC ES Program Status).
Reading the numbers carefully
This dataset is useful precisely because it resists oversimplification. If you only look at total awards, you miss the pace of spending. If you only look at expenditures, you miss how much money had been allocated in the first place. If you only look at percentages, you miss the absolute scale of the budgets involved.
That is why election security statistics work best when you read them as a set. The combination of awards, interest, expenditures, and expended percentages shows how each jurisdiction is moving through the funding lifecycle.
A practical reading approach is:
- Start with the award size to understand scale (EAC ES Program Status).
- Check interest earned to see whether time in the account generated additional resources.
- Compare expenditures against the award to see how much has been used.
- Use the expended percentage to summarize progress in one line.
The result is a clearer picture of program implementation than any one figure could provide on its own. Even within this relatively small slice of jurisdictions, the contrasts are strong enough to make the data feel operational rather than abstract.
If you are comparing election administration performance across jurisdictions, the most useful insight is not just who received the most money. It is who has moved that money into action, who is still carrying substantial balances, and how the interest and expenditure figures align with the original award.