I. In Focus This Week
The Survey of the Performance of American Elections, 2014 edition
Survey helps paint overall picture of voting as experienced by voters
The experience of voters is one of those things that hide in plain sight.
Despite the fact that more than 100 million voters take part in presidential elections, and around 80 million voters take part in midterm congressional elections, very little is actually known about the experiences voters have when they go to cast a ballot.
Do their machines work? Do they wait in long lines? Are they met by competent poll workers?
Voters tell each other stories about these things, and sometimes reporters write news accounts about them, but until 2008 no one had ever attempted to ask voters about their experience on Election Day in any comprehensive, systematic way.
Thus was born the Survey of the Performance of American Elections (SPAE), the first (and thus far only) comprehensive national public opinion study of voting from the perspective of the voter.
In 2014, with the financial assistance of the Pew Charitable Trusts (which has generously funded the SPAE since its inception), we have been able to study in detail the voting experience at midterm. This report touches on some highlights.
But first, a little more background.
The SPAE was begun in 2008, supported by Pew’s Make Voting Work Initiative and the JEHT Foundation, to answer a long list of questions about voting in American that the 2000 Florida recount controversy had raised. These questions ranged from the sensational — do we live in a banana republic, with officials unable to conduct competent elections? — to the scientific — precisely how many votes get lost because of broken machines, inaccurate registration lists, and long lines?
The basic survey is administered to 200 registered voters in each state plus the District of Columbia. This allows us to make reliable comparisons between states on the questions we explore; when we aggregate the answers together, we have responses from 10,200 registered voters to consider.
The study was designed with the ability to compare across states in mind. The overall size of the sample was chosen because some of the issues its addresses are so infrequent, such as the breakdown of voting machines, that we need 10,200 respondents just to get reliable estimates nationwide.
The survey instrument itself contains scores of questions about voting. It starts with the question of whether the respondent voted. If he didn’t, we ask why not. If the respondent did vote, the questionnaire asks basic questions about the experience, depending on whether the vote was cast in-person (on Election Day or early) or by mail. For instance, in-person voters are asked about the ease of finding the polling place, problems with registration, length of time waiting to vote, and the performance of poll workers. Mail voters are asked about how hard it was to request a ballot, whether the instructions on the ballot were easy to follow, and how the ballot was returned (By mail or at a drop-box? Personally, or by someone else?) In addition to basic performance questions, the survey asks about attitudes toward elections and voting. How confident are voters their votes were counted as cast? How confident are all respondents that votes nationwide were counted as cast? How common is voter impersonation fraud in the community? Should Election Day be a holiday?
Finally, the survey collects basic demographic information about respondents, and we know the state and ZIP Codes in which they live. Thus, we can study the relationship between the context of the voter and the voter’s experience.
Since its inception, the SPAE has helped paint an overall positive picture of voting, as experienced by voters.
Very few have problems finding their polling place; 88 percent in 2014 said it was “very easy” to find the polling place. Just 2 percent said they encountered registration problems when they went to vote, with another 2 percent saying they encountered voting equipment problems. Overall, 85 percent of in-person voters said their polling place was run “very well.”
Absentee voters also had good experiences overall. Just 2 percent reported encountering problems receiving their mail ballot, 1.5 percent encountered problems marking the ballot, and 86 percent said they found the instructions easy to follow.
Among both in-person and absentee voters in 2014, more than 70 percent stated they were very confident their votes were counted as cast.
Of course, problems that are encountered by a small percentage of voters may have been encountered by a large number of voters.
For instance, if roughly 60 million voters cast ballots in-person in 2014, the 2 percent who said they had registration problems amounts to 1.2 million voters nationwide — the same number that had problems finding the polling place in the first place.
As well, although the percentages of voters who encounter any given problem are small, the percentage who encounter at least one problem is not so small. For instance, if we consider all the ways an in-person voter could have reported a problem in the SPAE (difficulty finding a polling place, registering, or using the voting equipment, plus encountering a poorly run polling place or a poorly performing poll worker), 7.5 percent of in-person voters in 2014 had at least one problem, or 3.8 million people.
Using the demographic information included in the SPAE, we can see who tend to have more problems. The results are informative: the young, first-time voters, recent movers, and people with physical disabilities are much more likely to report encountering a problem than older, more experienced voters who do not have physical disabilities.
This is not a shocking finding to those who follow election administration, but it helps to further refine the types of factors that give rise to challenges in meeting the needs of voters. It is also important to note the factors that are not associated (in a statistical sense) with having problems in 2014 — sex, race, income, and education.
In 2012, the big question was how long people waited in line to vote. Because of its design, the SPAE was instrumental in providing hard evidence about this hot election administration issue in the days immediately following the 2012 presidential election. Not only could the SPAE identify the states with the longest lines, it established the important fact that most people, in fact, did not stand in any appreciable lines at all — but if they did stand in a line, it could be quite a long one. The 2012 survey was also instrumental in establishing that lines were much longer in early voting than on Election Day, in inner cities than in rural areas, and among blacks compared to whites.
The 2014 SPAE finds that lines were much less prevalent in the most recent midterm election. Compared to the average wait time in 2012 of 14 minutes, in 2014 the average nationwide wait time was 4 minutes. The states with the longest wait times in 2012 were not the states with the longest wait times in 2014. Furthermore, the big disparities that were seen in 2012 along urban/rural, racial, and voting mode dimensions closed significantly.
Because long lines are caused by congestion, and midterm elections have significantly lower turnout than presidential elections, it is not surprising that average wait times were cut by 2/3 in 2014 compared to 2012. On the other hand, the fact that the disparities close significantly was a bit of a surprise.
The SPAE is an evolving instrument. In 2014, some new questions were added to help gain greater insights into how mail and absentee voters returned their ballots, and how voting fit into the voter’s day. I was interested to discover, for instance, than one-fifth of absentee/mail voters actually returned their ballots personally, rather than relying on the mails. In the three states that are now exclusively vote-by-mail, these percentages ranged from 39 percent in Washington to 57 percent in Oregon (with Colorado in the middle at 44 percent).
I also found one new fact about early voters especially interesting. We asked in-person voters how going to the polls fit into the routine of their day. Did they vote on the way to work or school? On the way home? In the middle of the day?
In fact, 60 percent of early voters responded that they “did not have work or school the day I voted.” This is in contrast with 49 percent of Election Day voters.
Why this is interesting to me is that I have long heard that early voting is especially useful for people to accommodate into their busy schedules. While people who are not working or going to school no doubt have many reasons to be busy, it doesn’t seem to be the same type of time constraint on average as someone who is working a full-time job. In any event, knowledge about the other things voters are doing with their time (or not) before and after they vote can be very helpful to local election officials in figuring out when to offer early voting hours and where to locate early voting sites.
One final special feature of the 2014 SPAE was a parallel study, in which we interviewed 1,000 registered voters in 10 states — Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.
The questionnaire of the parallel study was identical to the 50-state study just described. Space constrains me from saying much about this “over sample study.” Its main goal was to experiment with being able to say more about the experience of voters at the local level, within states with a variety of electoral practices and challenges. We have yet to scratch the surface in learning what this special study as to say.
Like any major survey research effort, a project like this could not have happened without the hard work of a team of scholars and researchers. On the design side, the original survey instrument was developed in collaboration with scholars associated with the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project — Michael Alvarez, Stephen Ansolabehere, Adam Berinsky, Thad Hall, Gabriel Lenz, in addition to myself.
The survey has been flawlessly administered by YouGov (formerly Polimetrix), whose Sam Luks has been a champion of the project from the start.
And, of course, the good people at Pew, both current (Michael Caudell-Feagan, Sean Greene, and Zach Markovits) and past (Doug Chapin) have provided financial support, encouragement, and advice. (Pew, of course, while generous in support of the project, is not responsible for the analysis that comes from it.)
Finally the SPAE data are available for download by anyone who wishes to conduct analysis using the dataset. The 2014 SPAE, along with all previous versions, is hosted at the Harvard Dataverse.
The data are there for the election administration community to use. Please use it.
II. Election News This Week
- After experiencing long lines during the 2014 election cycle the Floyd County, Indiana Election Board has finally been able to talk the county council into purchasing nearly 100 new voting machines for the county’s vote centers. The council had balked at the price tag, more than half a million dollars, but ultimately unanimously voted to make the purchase. The promise of additional voting machines on the way, the election board will not focus on finding additional sites for the vote centers.
- According to the Hartford Courant, an attorney retained by the Hartford City Council issued a written opinion that the city does have the power to remove elected officials — specifically the city’s three registrars.
- Coordinated by the Dubuque, Iowa chapter of the NACCP, a group of ex-felons has started a petition protesting the state’s policy on how ex-felons regain their voting rights. “If we’re going to be rehabilitating people in prison instead of just punishing them, then why are we still treated as a second class citizen when we get out?” Justin McCarthy, one of the people spearheading the effort told Iowa Public Radio.
- As part of Black History Month, the Brevard County, Florida supervisor of elections office announced a pretty cool find. While sifting through old paperwork, Supervisor of Elections Lori Scott came across the voter registration documents for Harry and Harriette T. Moore, considered to be Florida’s most influential civil rights pioneers.
- Being a poll worker is often a thankless job and in Hamilton County, Tennessee it just got a bit more thankless. Election Commissioner Kelvin Scott proposed that the county provide food to poll workers on election day since it is provided to elections staff, but fellow commissioners opposed the idea citing the costs of feeding nearly 750 people.
- Personnel News: Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown is now Oregon Governor Kate Brown. Robert Taylor has taken over as Oregon’s acting secretary of state. This week, Carlos Cascos was unanimously confirmed by the Texas Senate to serve at the Lone Star State’s newest secretary of state. Sandra Taylor, Craighead County, Arkansas elections coordinator has resigned. Ann Jones has resigned from the Hall County, Georgia elections board. Union County, Iowa Auditor Sandy Hysell has been named to state’s auditor’s advisory group. Rosanna Bencoach has been officially sworn-in as Charlottesville, Virginia’s new registrar. Drew Higgins has announced his resignation from the Miami County, Ohio board of elections.
III. Legislative Updates
Federal Legislation: Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Arizona) has introduced legislation that would allow states to establish voter registration requirements that extend beyond the federal standard. According to The Hill, in his introduction, Salmon argued that states should be allowed to require people to provide documents proving their citizenship.
Arizona: A bill that would move the state’s primary up by three weeks has been approved by a House committee and now moves to the full House. The initial proposal would have moved the primary to May, but the legislation was amended to keep the primary in August, but move it to the beginning of the month.
Arkansas: Legislation has been introduced to move the state’s primary to the first Tuesday in March that would align the state with other southern states for the touted “SEC Primary.”
Colorado: A House committee rejected two bills this week that would have required a photo ID for election-day registration. One bill would have put the proposal before the voters and the other bill would have left it up to the Legislature.
Iowa: A Senate subcommittee has approved legislation that would shift the deadline for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Under the proposal, absentee ballots must be received through the postal service at the auditor’s office by the close of business the day after Election Day to be counted.
Kentucky: The Kentucky House has once again approved legislation that would restore the voting rights to some ex-felons. The bill now must be approved by at least 60 percent of the Senate as well as voters because it’s a constitutional amendment.
Michigan: Legislation that would have allowed Michigan voters to cast an absentee ballot without an excuse died in the Senate.
Not to be outdone by their SEC counterparts, Michigan’s Senate has approved legislation moving the state’s primary to March 15 that sets up the potential for a “Big Ten” primary.
Minnesota: Legislation has been introduced that would extend the same voting rights to members of the National Guard as granted to active duty service members. According to KSTP, there’s currently a difference in absentee voting rights between National Guard members who are called to service by a governor and members called to service by the president. National Guard members called up for federal service can receive their ballot in some circumstances by email and do not need a witness for their absentee ballot.
Missouri: The House gave initial approval to two photo ID-related bills this week. The first bill would ask voters to amend the state’s constitution to allow the state to require photo ID and the second bill would allow for the implementation of photo ID.
Nebraska: Following a contentious debate that included a two-day filibuster, the Legislature voted to table proposed photo ID legislation for the remainder of the 2015 session.
Nevada: Nine Republican Senators have introduced Senate Bill 169 that would require voters to show a photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Under the legislations, voters would be required to show a state, federal or tribal-issued ID that contains a “recognizable photograph.”
New York: Councilman Ben Kallos has introduced legislation that would allow New York City voters to track their absentee ballots online through a secure website provided by the board of elections.
North Dakota: A House committee has given a “do-pass” recommendation of a bill that would require the Legislature to study the voter registration laws in other states to determine if and how North Dakota should finally implement formal voter registration. .
Ohio: Legislation has been introduced in both the Senate and the House that would allow Ohioans to register online to vote. Online registration was previously approved in 2011, but later repealed.
Oregon: The Budget Committee has approved legislation that would require voters to be automatically registered to vote when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses. The bill now moves to the full House.
Utah: HB220 was approved by the House this week and now heads to the Senate. The bill clarifies when absentee ballots may be accepted. HB220 clarifies if the ballots are post-stamped by local post offices before Election Day, they are eligible to be counted, even if they don’t receive the postmark from the Salt Lake City Post Office until after Election Day.
Virginia: The Senate Privileges and Elections Committee has approved legislation that will require votes who are voting by mail to provide a copy of their photo ID when applying for their absentee ballot.
Wisconsin: Under legislation awaiting Gov. Scott Walker’s signature, auditors would be given access to the state election board’s investigative records.
Wyoming: Senate File 52, which has already been approved by the Senate, has cleared its first hurdle in the House this week when it was approved by House Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee. If approved—it has three more rounds of voting to clear—the legislation would make Wyoming a vote center state.
IV. Legal Updates
Alabama: The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Alabama’s mandate for runoff elections 42 days after an inconclusive primary pre-empts the rights of military and overseas voters. According to Courthouse News Service, even though Alabama’s law ran counter to the federal MOVE Act, which requires a 45-day period to receive and return ballots, the state argued that another provision within the MOVE Act stresses “sufficient time” to return ballots that each state should be able to determine what constitutes sufficient. “When we look to the text of § 20302(a)(9), we find that it directs states only to ‘establish a written plan’ in preparation for runoff elections, and makes no claim that it abrogates the mandatory forty-five day transmission timeline,” U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus wrote. “In light of the plain language of this substantive command — and Congress’s clear intent to prioritize the empowerment of military voters through clear and accessible absentee voting procedures — we conclude that § 20302(a)(9) does not alter our interpretation.”
New York: District Court Judge Jack Weinstein has given Governor Andrew Cuomo until February 20 to either set a date for a special election to replace former Congressman Michael Grimm or, according to Capital, provide the court with a justification for the delay. Cuomo had fought against the special election citing costs and logistics.
Pennsylvania: This week, in a unanimous ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an appeal by a group of voters that asked the court to bar the use of some types of electronic voting machines. According to The Patriot News, in the 35-page ruling issued this week, Justice Correale F. Stevens rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the DREs cannot guarantee an accurate count of each vote. “As all voting systems are imperfect and not immune from tampering, the Election Code cannot be read to impose a requirement that cannot be achieved,” Stevens found.
Washington: Citing the disenfranchisement of Latinos under Yakima’s current council elections system, a federal judge the city to conduct future elections using seven geographic districts — including two majority Latino districts. According to the Yakima Herald, under the ruling, all seven city council positions would be placed on the ballot this year and candidates would be elected by voters solely from within their district.
V. Opinions This Week
Connecticut: Open primaries
Georgia: Early voting
Indiana: Voting system
Kentucky: Online voter registration
Maine: Instant runoff voting
Michigan: Voting legislation
Minnesota: Ex-felon voting rights
Nevada: Voter ID
New Mexico: Secretary of state
Washington: Primary date
West Virginia: Voter ID
Wisconsin: Voter ID
VI. Upcoming Events
Please email upcoming events — conferences, symposiums, seminars, webinars, etc. to firstname.lastname@example.org.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Public Meeting — commissioners will meet to select a chair and vice-chair and to discuss the following items: accrediting of a new voting system testing laboratory, and updates to the testing and certification program manuals and the voluntary voting system guidelines (VVSG). Commissioners will also discuss and consider EAC roles and responsibilities. The meeting will be webcast live and an on-demand archived version will be posted within 24-hours. When: Tuesday, February 24 (this meeting is rescheduled from February 18). Where: EAC offices, Silver Spring, Maryland and online. For more information, click here.
Policy & Elections Technology: A Legislative Perspective— NCSL is hosting a national meeting to bring together legislators, legislative staff, election officials, voting technology and computer security experts, legal experts, advocates, federal agency staff and other interested parties to discuss the future of elections technology. Sessions will cover voting technology 101; a report on NCSL’s Elections Technology Project; recommendations from the Presidential Commission on Election Administration; the impact of legislation on voting system design; alternative voting methods and implications for technology; testing and certifying voting systems; the use of technology for post-election audits, recounts and resolving disputes; and what is pushing change in the way ballots are cast. Where: Santa Fe, New Mexico When: June 3 – 5. Contact: Katy Owens Hubler, email@example.com, 303-856-1656. For more information and to register, click here.
IACREOT Annual Conference — The International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Elections Officials and Treasurers will hold its annual conference in Vail, Colorado this year in June and July. Planning is still in the early stages, but be sure to mark your calendar. Where: Vail, Colorado. When: June 27-July 2. For more information and to register, click here.
NASS 2015 Summer Conference — The National Association of Secretaries of State Annual Summer Conference is set for July this year. Planning is still in the early stages, but be sure to mark your calendar. Where: Portland, Maine. When: July 9-12. For more information and to register, click here.
NACo Annual Conference and Exposition— The 80th Annual Conference and Exposition of the National Association of Counties will be in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), North Carolina. Registration opens February 9th. Where: Charlotte, North Carolina. When: July 10-13. For more information and to register, click here.
NCSL Legislative Summit 2015 — The National Conference of State Legislators will hold their 2015 Legislative Summit in August. Planning is still in the early stages, but be sure to mark your calendar. Where: Seattle. When: August 3-6. For more information when it becomes available and to register, click here.
Election Center 31st Annual Conference— The National Association of State Election Directors will hold its 31st Annual Conference in Houston in August. Planning is still in the early stages, but be sure to mark your calendars now. Where: Houston, Texas. When: August 18-22. For more information and to register, click here.
NACRC Annual Conference— The Annual Conference of the National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks is set for Houston in August. Planning is still in the early stages, but be sure to mark your calendar. Where: Houston, Texas. When: August 21-25. For more information and to register, click here.
VII. Job Postings This Week
electionlineWeekly publishes election administration job postings each week as a free service to our readers. To have your job listed in the newsletter, please send a copy of the job description, including a web link to firstname.lastname@example.org. Job postings must be received by 5pm on Wednesday in order to appear in the Thursday newsletter. Listings will run for three weeks or till the deadline listed in the posting.
Communications Director, FairVote, Takoma Park, Maryland — position will entail translating FairVote’s rigorous and detailed research into compelling messages and identifying and executing effective strategies for communicating our reform proposals. The Communications Director will be responsible for strategic communications with our supporters, our coalition partners and the media. Overseeing a team of dedicated staff, the Communications Director will ensure that all written and online materials fit within our communications strategy and are held to high standards. Initial responsibilities will focus on fulfilling the requirements of recent grants involving communications and electoral system reform. Our ideal candidate will be ready to join FairVote for the long haul and play a central role in projects designed to achieve our core electoral reform goals over the coming decade. We expect to hear from applicants who are happy in their current work, but ready to embrace this unique opportunity to transform American democracy. Salary: Salary will be commensurate with experience and is expected to start at a minimum of $85,000. We also provide benefits for health care, commuting and retirement. Deadline: Open until filled. For the complete job listing and to apply, click here.
Elections Administrator, Grays Harbor County, Washington — the Election Administrator is responsible for all aspects of elections, voter registration, and supervision of other election workers for federal, state, and local elections occurring within Grays Harbor County. Salary: $3,761-$4,560. Deadline: Open until filled. Application: For the complete job listing and to apply click here. For questions or additional information, contact Vern Spatz, auditor.
Election Specialist Lead, King County, Washington — Distribute work load among other employees, including short term temporary election workers; update or create training curriculum and conduct training for permanent and temporary staff; provide direction and monitor the quality and completion of work. May also provide input on the performance of co-workers and participate in employee selection process. Research and interpret election laws, policies, procedures, and guidelines as outlined in RCW 29A and WAC 434. Explain established policies, procedures, codes, and regulations to internal and/or external customers over the telephone, in writing and/or in person. Provide or coordinate additional training as needed to ensure all current or new policies and procedures are understood. Train and lead up to 45 staff responsible for answering incoming calls to main elections phone line. Answer inquiries or questions, resolve problems, and provide written, in-person, or over-the-phone customer service to staff, citizens, and stakeholders. Employee in this high-profile position may deal with sensitive and/or potentially volatile situations. Develop spreadsheets, word documents, and reports; review documents for proper formatting and accuracy. Demonstrated skill in operating a personal computer including but not limited to utilizing a broad scope of office data processing and email functions with proficiency in Excel, Word and MS Outlook or Exchange. Improve work processes, address quality control issues, and document procedures. Provide oversight and quality assurance for the state and local voter registration databases. Fulfill general duties that involve typing, filing, data entry, answering telephones, developing and preparing reports, forms, and documents utilizing a variety of computer programs as required. Salary: $21.51-$27.27 hourly. Deadline: February 20. Application: For the complete job listing and to apply, click here.
General Counsel, United States Election Assistance Commission, Silver Spring, Maryland — the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent, bipartisan federal agency created by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. The Commission provides national leadership to improve the administration of Federal elections, in accordance with HAVA. EAC’s primary responsibilities include establishing voluntary standards for voting equipment; certifying voting equipment and accrediting test laboratories; disbursing and overseeing HAVA funds; developing a uniform registration form for use across the U.S.; developing research-based insights for the improvement of election administration; and issuing best practices for election administration. We are currently seeking an experienced attorney to head the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). As the General Counsel, the incumbent provides real-time advice to the Commissioners and senior leadership on legal issues affecting EAC activities and operations. The successful candidate will serve as the chief legal advisor working to ensure compliance with HAVA, Federal, state and local laws and regulations that may affect the operations of the EAC. Competitive candidates will have experience and comprehensive knowledge of HAVA, National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), pertinent regulations, policies, procedures, precedents, and directives affecting election administration. Salary: $126,245 to $148,700. Deadline: February 27. For the complete job listing and to apply, click here.
Multimedia Officer, IFES, Washington, D.C. — support IFES’ Communications and Advocacy department through production of creative multimedia content. This individual will also maintain IFES’ social media presence. This is a mid-level role that reports directly to the Director of Communications and Advocacy. Responsibilities include: maintain photo database, produce multimedia content in various formats, manage video pre and post-production; support audio and visual needs at events; oversee annual photo contest; manage and maintain IFES’ social media presence; and manage editorial process of IFES’ monthly e-newsletter. Application: Applications will be accepted online only, through IFES’ website. To apply, visit our careers page. Then follow the instructions to upload your resume and cover letter (in a single document) and answer prescreening questions.
Outreach Director, FairVote, Takoma Park, Maryland — Overseeing a team of dedicated staff, the Outreach Director will be responsible for expanding and supporting our network of reform partners nationally and in states and cities. Nationally, we are building a reform coalition of elected officials, organizations, media outlets and influential individuals ready to support federal legislation to establish ranked choice voting for U.S. House and Senate elections and multi-winner House districts. We are working with allies in states and cities in support of advancing and implementing ranked choice voting (both in multi-winner and single-winner elections) and other fair representation voting systems, including as remedies in Voting Rights Act cases. We also provide support to those seeking to improve participation through ideas such as the National Popular Vote plan for president, 100% voter registration, and public interest voting equipment. The Outreach Director’s initial responsibilities will focus on supporting reform partners involved in state and local campaigns for ranked choice voting, launching our congressional reform plan for fair representation voting, ensuring our Policy Guide 2015 proposals reach their intended audiences, and providing guidance to colleagues working on our Promote Our Vote and Representation 2020 projects. Our ideal candidate will be ready to join FairVote for the long haul and play a central role in projects designed to achieve our core electoral reform goals over the coming decade. We expect to hear from applicants who are happy in their current work, but ready to embrace this unique opportunity to transform American democracy. Salary: Salary will be commensurate with experience and is expected to start at a minimum of $85,000. We also provide benefits for health care, commuting, retirement and moving. Deadline: Open until filled. For the complete job listing and to apply, click here.