Several nonprofit groups that work to register voters are privately sounding the alarm about their funds, warning donors that they’ll need to begin scaling back their programs just because the country enters the homestretch of the midterm elections.
It’s a critical time. Today is National Voter Registration Day, and deadlines to register are fast approaching. In 4 states — Minnesota, South Dakota, Virginia and Wyoming — early voting begins at the top of this week.
More established groups which have worked on voter registration for years have anticipated the cutbacks, knowing the normal rhythms of lower-stakes midterm elections, and have planned accordingly. But other, newer organizations that sprung up amid a flood of donor interest in the course of the 2020 election cycle have struggled to adapt to the changing circumstances.
“To the extent that any organizations working on voter registration anywhere within the country are having issues getting fully funded for this cycle, I find that extremely concerning,” said Bruce Cohen, a Democratic donor and activist. “I’d ask other potential donors — if not now, when?”
The most important targets of complaints amongst voter registration groups are the Democracy Fund, a foundation bankrolled by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founding father of eBay; and the Open Society Foundations, the worldwide philanthropy organization founded by the billionaire investor George Soros.
Donor advisers said in interviews that the Democracy Fund and O.S.F. created the expectation that hundreds of thousands of dollars could be forthcoming for democracy-related programs in 2022, only to disappoint most of the would-be recipients months later.
In accordance with an email shared with The Latest York Times, branches of the 2 groups invited potential donors to the introduction of “the Roadmap for American Democracy” in June.
“We are going to must mobilize greater than a billion dollars to uphold the integrity of our election process and ensure diverse, equitable participation,” the e-mail read.
The Open Society Foundations goes through a tumultuous transition period. As Soros has entered his 90s, he has handed over authority to his son Alex. Last 12 months, my colleague Nicholas Kulish reported that the group had abruptly scaled back its giving worldwide as a part of a “restructuring plan.”
Press officers for O.S.F. denied that the organization had made guarantees it had not kept.
“Our thought was that we were talking to donors over an extended time frame,” said Laleh Ispahani, a co-director of the Open Society Foundations’ U.S.-focused programs who has worked to enlist other donors. “We were at all times clear that you just’re not saving democracy in a single election. That could be a longer-term project.”
The State of the 2022 Midterm Elections
With the primaries over, each parties are shifting their focus to the final election on Nov. 8.
She said O.S.F. had already invested $40 million to $75 million in 2022 for programs related to democracy and voting rights. “We are going to never retreat from this space,” she said. “That is our bread and butter.”
A representative for the Democracy Fund didn’t reply to a request for comment.
“O.S.F. got here through for us in an enormous way,” said Nse Ufot, the chief executive of the Latest Georgia Project, which was instrumental in registering tens of hundreds of voters of color before Democrats’ victories in 2020 and early 2021.
But, she added: “What we’re seeing is an overall dip in fund-raising” to the broader coalition of groups that helped her group turn Georgia right into a blue state through grass-roots community organizing and voter registration. “Folks who think Georgia is competitive don’t understand what made Georgia competitive.”
One reason for the funding difficulties is the hangover from 2020, when foundations and personal donors poured hundreds of thousands into democracy-related projects, including voter registration. The Senate elections in Georgia in early 2021, together with Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential results, poured jet fuel on those efforts.
“Donors got energized by the threat to democracy,” said a one who advises wealthy people on their political contributions and who insisted on anonymity. The person described a sense of exhaustion among the many donor class: “People left all of it on the sector.”
At times, those efforts have blurred the road between neutral, nonprofit work and partisan advantage. An evaluation by Ken Vogel and Shane Goldmacher of The Latest York Times, as an illustration, found that “15 of probably the most politically energetic nonprofit organizations that generally align with the Democratic Party spent greater than $1.5 billion in 2020.”
On the time, they reported, Democrats were “warning major donors not to offer in to the financial complacency that usually afflicts the party in power.”
What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the knowledge? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable prior to now? Can we corroborate the knowledge? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a final resort. The reporter and not less than one editor know the identity of the source.
It’s not fully clear whether the complacency they feared has now arrived, or whether only certain groups have been disproportionally affected. Several people closely involved with the Democratic Party’s voter-registration plans said they weren’t aware of a systemic crisis.
Among the many groups affected, people acquainted with their internal funds said, were the Voter Formation Project, which describes its mission as “increasing participation in local, state and national elections through digital communication, experimentation and knowledge sharing.” Tatenda Musapatike, the pinnacle of the Voter Formation Project, didn’t reply to an email looking for comment.
But another excuse for the budget shortfalls, people acquainted with the situation said, was the sour state of the economy, which has led to belt-tightening across corporate America and on this planet of institutional investors — including ones that commonly fund efforts like voter registration which are considered nonpartisan and politically secure.
The broader context
As On Politics reported in January, Republicans have begun to shut the gap with Democrats in voter registration in major battleground states, including Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
In Pennsylvania, as an illustration, the Democrats’ advantage in registrations shrank to 540,000 as of today, from 685,000 as of November 2020, in keeping with an evaluation by Politico.
In 2020, the pandemic disrupted the party’s two most important pathways for bringing in recent voters: sign-ups on the Department of Motor Vehicles and face-to-face field work. Democratic candidates and party committees cut sharply back on door-knocking campaigns, while Republicans largely maintained their in-person canvassing programs.
An evaluation shared with The Latest York Times by Catalist, a Democratic data firm, showed that in 2020, the Democrats’ traditional edge in voter registration shrank to nine percentage points across 29 states — down from a 19-point advantage over Republicans in 2008.
This 12 months, because the pandemic has waned, groups aligned with Democrats, including unions and the League of Conservation Voters, have revived their field programs. And a surge of anger on the left and amongst young people over the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion has led to an accompanying rise in recent registrations for Democrats.
But top Democrats have quietly discussed for months address what some officials see as a broader problem with the way in which the party handles voter registration.
Traditionally, Democrats have relied on a combination of official, partisan voter registration drives conducted by state parties and candidates in addition to outreach by nonprofit groups which are legally prohibited from targeting communities by their expected party affiliation.
As Republicans have made gains, nevertheless — most notably in Florida, where the G.O.P. now has a registration fringe of around 200,000 voters — senior Democrats have begun to query whether the party should bring more of those officially nonpartisan voter-registration campaigns in-house.
For the 2022 cycle, the Democratic National Committee is spending nearly $25 million on its “I Will Vote” initiative, which incorporates voter protection, legal challenges and voter registration in battleground states, focused on communities of color and college campuses. The voter registration component of this system began with an initial investment of nearly $5 million, but has since expanded.
The D.N.C. also began a blitz of publicity this week around National Voter Registration Day, featuring digital ads geared toward college students on Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The committee also plans to fly banners during college football games nudging students to register.
“That is the D.N.C.’s largest voter registration investment in a midterm cycle and marks a return to a side of party constructing that the D.N.C. has not engaged in for several cycles,” said Ammar Moussa, a spokesman for the committee.
What to read
A federal judge expressed skepticism about an attempt by Donald Trump’s lawyers to again skirt the difficulty of whether Trump had declassified a number of the highly sensitive records seized from his Florida home by the F.B.I., Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage report.
Newly released videos show allies of Trump and contractors who were working on his behalf handling sensitive voting equipment in a rural Georgia county weeks after the 2020 election, Danny Hakim, Richard Fausset and Nick Corasaniti report.
A sleeper race on this 12 months’s contests for Senate can also be one in all the sleepiest, Jonathan Weisman writes, as Ted Budd and Cheri Beasley face off in North Carolina, a state known for breaking Democrats’ hearts.
Where in America is it easiest and hardest to vote? The state at the underside of the rankings in a recent academic study called the Cost of Voting Index might surprise you. Nick Corasaniti and Allison McCann lay out the small print.
Nate Cohn, The Times’s top polling expert, asks a superbly reasonable query: Can we trust the polls?
Thanks for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The Latest York Times. — Blake
Read past editions of the newsletter here.
In the event you’re having fun with what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They will join here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.
Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to listen to from you. Email us at email@example.com.