The administration of elections in the United States is highly decentralized. Elections are primarily administered by thousands of state and local systems rather than a single, unified national system. Understanding how those state and local systems work may be relevant to Congress for at least two reasons. First, the way state and local election systems work can affect how well federal action on election administration serves its intended purposes. Second, Congress can require or encourage changes to the way state and local election systems work. Congress has a number of tools for influencing election administration policy. The use of these tools can—either intentionally or unintentionally—affect the workings of the state and local systems that administer federal elections. Finally, the way federal elections are administered varies between and within states. It also involves conducting elections in accordance with those decisions and paying for the activities and resources required to conduct them. The level of locality primarily responsible for conducting elections is typically the county, but there are some exceptions. Structures of State and Local Election Implementation Systems

The structures of the state and local systems that conduct federal elections vary both between and within states. Common variations include differences related to the
leadership of the election system; relationship between local election officials and the state; and population size and density of the jurisdiction served by the system. Leadership

The state and local election systems that conduct federal elections may be led by an individual, such as the state secretary of state or a town or county clerk; a group, such as a state elections commission or a county board of elections; or a combination of individuals or groups, such as a state secretary of state and state board of elections, or a city clerk and city registrar of voters. The selection method—and the leaders themselves—may be partisan, bipartisan, or nonpartisan. States also have varying types and degrees of influence over local election officials. Choices about other structural features, such as the method used to select the leadership of local election systems, can shape this aspect of the state-local relationship. Those differences between jurisdictions may be reflected in the internal structures of the election systems that serve them. Larger jurisdictions, which typically have more personnel, may have much of the specialized expertise they need in-house. Selected Effects of State and Local Duties and Structures on Federal Action

This section provides examples of ways in which the distribution of election administration duties at the state and local levels and the structures of state and local election systems can affect the implementation of federal election administration law. As with funding, the effectiveness of federal information sharing may depend in part on how timely it is.
The administration of elections in the United States is highly decentralized. Elections are primarily administered by thousands of state and local systems rather than a single, unified national system.
States and localities share responsibility for most election administration duties. Exactly how responsibilities are assigned at the state and local levels varies both between and within states, but there are some general patterns in the distribution of duties. States typically have primary responsibility for making decisions about the rules of elections (policymaking). Localities typically have primary responsibility for conducting elections in accordance with those rules (implementation). Localities, with varying contributions from states, typically also have primary responsibility for paying for the activities and resources required to conduct elections (funding).
The structures of the state and local systems that conduct elections also vary between and within states. Common variations include differences related to the leadership of the system, the relationship between local election officials and the state, and the population size and density of the jurisdiction the system serves. The leadership of a state or local election system may be elected or appointed, and both the leaders and the methods used to select them may be partisan, bipartisan, or nonpartisan. State officials may have more or less direct influence over local election officials, and the extent of their influence may be affected by other structural features of the state's election systems, such as the methods used to select local officials. Finally, larger election jurisdictions have different administrative advantages and challenges than smaller ones, and more urban jurisdictions have different advantages and challenges than more rural ones. These differences between jurisdictions may be reflected in structural features of the election systems that serve them, such as how the systems allocate resources and where they find specialized expertise.
Understanding the duties and structures of state and local election systems may be relevant to Congress for at least two reasons. First, the way state and local election systems work can affect how well federal action on election administration serves its intended purposes. The effectiveness of federal action depends in part on how it is implemented. How it is implemented can depend, in turn, on how the state and local election systems that implement it work. Second, Congress can make or incentivize changes to the way state and local election systems work. Congress has a number of policy tools it can use to affect the administration of federal elections. The use of these tools can—either intentionally or unintentionally—affect the state and local election systems that administer federal elections.