Recently, election administration has been an important part of the national and global conversation about the results of elections. The important issue of election administration spending has not been examined extensively, and the influence of politics on election administration spending levels has not been examined in the United States. While theories of voter turnout and policy preference suggest that politics should influence election administration spending levels in the counties that administer elections, to our knowledge, there has been no evidence produced to support a partisan election administration expenditure effect. This research finds that Republican county commissions in North Carolina spend significantly less on election administration once the county electorate is a sufficient Republican majority. The article presents a novel model and method for estimating election administration spending and calls for additional research to examine the outcomes of these significant differences in spending on election administration.

A public agency's capacity to implement policy and achieve valued public outcomes has been a long‐running area of research in public administration. Many articles provide theory and empirics regarding the capacity to implement policy, but relatively few examine multiple types of agency capacity within the same analysis. This article develops a model based on the election administration literature in political science and public administration to examine the effects of managerial capacity, financial capacity, and technology on the election management outcome of the residual vote rate in North Carolina election jurisdictions. The results indicate that higher levels of management capacity and technology significantly reduce problems with voting as measured by the residual vote rate. Financial capacity shows a negative association with the residual vote rate but is not significant. The article concludes by discussing how studying election administration provides an important and uniquely good administrative context for developing administrative theory.

Training programs for research personnel are discussed as a key resource that must be part of an effective animal care and use program. Because of the legal responsibility to ensure that research staff are qualified to use animals, many institutions have justified the necessity for a training coordinator and/or trainers for their animal care and use programs. Effective training programs for research personnel must meet the needs of the client base (research scientists and staff) so that they are relevant, practical, and timely. To meet these objectives, it is useful to involve the scientific staff in the analysis of their learning needs. To meet a performance standard necessary for quality research, a large percentage of the institutional staff must participate in the training program. Often it is the principal investigators who set the tone for their staff members regarding the importance of receiving training. Garnering support from this client base will create a culture that encourages training and engenders a positive attitude about humane animal care and use. One effective approach is to incorporate nonanimal models as alternatives to live animals to teach humane handling techniques and methods, thereby contributing to refinement, reduction, and replacement (the 3Rs). Also discussed are the necessity of timely feedback from clients, documentation of personnel training for regulatory purposes, and the collection of training metrics, which assists in providing justification for the granting of additional fiscal support for the program. Finally, the compliance procedures and opportunities for essential refresher training are discussed and related to high performance standards, humane animal use, and quality research, all of which contribute to the 3Rs.

Recent research indicates the need to understand the role financial resources play in election administration. A key question is, when considering “financial resources,” how much does economic hardship affect the differences between the budgeted amount and the actual amount spent?. The limited research that has examined this question comes from the United Kingdom; it shows that there are significant differences between the two measures and they vary systematically based upon fiscal environmental conditions. This research examines whether the fiscal environment influences election administration budgets, spending, and the resulting budget variance in local US jurisdictions. Using county election administration spending data from four states, this research indicates election administration budgets, spending, and variances are related to the fiscal environment. Not only does this work have implications for measurement of election cost, but this work is key to understanding the financial situation election administration faces given pandemic-related economic woes.

No abstract