Comparing Election Spending Across Peer Counties
This page compares Shelby County Election Commission spending to selected peer jurisdictions so the public can ask whether spending is proportional to voters served, election calendar, staffing model, legal requirements, voting equipment, security, facilities, early voting, and operational needs.
Shelby's gross proposed Election Commission spending is higher per registered voter than Davidson, Harris, Jefferson/Louisville proxy, and Maricopa Elections-only. The correct next question is not whether the number is “bad.” The correct question is whether the difference is explained.
The question is proportionality, not blame.
Election administration has real fixed costs: equipment, software, facilities, security, temporary labor, early voting, election-day operations, ballot processing, legal compliance, and voter registration support. Those costs can vary by state law and local operating model.
A peer benchmark helps identify the questions that should be answered in a budget hearing: what is recurring, what is cycle-driven, what is legally mandated, and what is unique to Shelby County's operating structure.
Shelby anchor figures
Side-by-side benchmark
| Jurisdiction | Election spending basis | Registered voters | Spending per registered voter | Staffing / FTE | Voting equipment vendor | Equipment type | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shelby County, TN FY2027 Proposed Budget | County Election Commission budget unit within Other Elected Officials $11,546,664 | 541,076 | $21.34 | Pending official staffing / FTE table | Election Systems & Software (ES&S) | BMD + scanners | Anchor county Base figure is gross Election Commission spending before the revenue / reimbursement offset. Net total shown by the source is $9,140,430. |
Davidson County / Nashville, TN FY2027 Budget | Metropolitan Government Election Commission department $4,268,500 | 442,852 | $9.64 | 37 positions / 32 FTEs | Election Systems & Software (ES&S) | BMD + scanners | Comparable, with denominator footnote Budget source reports the Election Commission department. Revenue is shown separately as $18,100. |
Jefferson County / Louisville, KY FY2025-2026 Approved Budget | Jefferson County Clerk / Board of Elections within Louisville Metro Other Elected Officials $8,115,700 | 585,088 | $13.87 | Pending election-specific staffing count | Election Systems & Software (ES&S) | BMD + scanners | Caveated proxy Louisville Metro does not cleanly isolate election-only spending in the extracted table. This uses the Jefferson County Clerk total as a caveated proxy unless a cleaner election-center budget is found. |
Harris County, TX FY2026 Adopted Budget | Harris County Elections Operations department $34,342,236 | 2,568,463 | $13.37 | Pending / not apparent in extracted pages | Hart InterCivic | BMD + scanners | Budget ready; denominator needs refresh Election Operations total is used as the base comparison. The voter denominator is the weakest denominator in the current dataset and should be refreshed. |
Maricopa County, AZ FY2027 Tentative Budget | Maricopa County D210 Elections; Recorder has separate election-cycle spending $36,962,692 | 2,566,257 | $14.40 | Pending / not provided in budget summary | Dominion Voting Systems | BMD + precinct/central scan | Comparable, with split-office footnote Base uses D210 Elections. Alternate total adds D360 Recorder because election responsibilities appear split across offices. |
A simple denominator check
The per-voter figure is not a complete cost study. It is a screening measure. A higher or lower number should trigger questions about election cycle timing, state law, equipment, facilities, staffing model, security requirements, early voting structure, and whether responsibilities are split across offices.
Denominator: Tennessee June 1, 2025 ending active voters; total active plus inactive voters shown separately as 588,711.
Denominator: Tennessee June 1, 2025 ending active voters; total active plus inactive voters shown separately as 460,986.
Denominator: Kentucky State Board of Elections April 2026 county registered-voter total.
Denominator: Texas Secretary of State Harris County historical registration figure, 2022 row. A current official denominator should replace this before final publication.
Denominator: Arizona Secretary of State April 1, 2026 active registered voters for Maricopa County.
Alternate election-related total: $76,526,276 or $29.82 per voter when Maricopa Elections and Recorder are combined.
Known staffing data
Staffing is not yet clean enough for a full peer ratio. Missing does not mean zero. It means the published source did not provide a comparable staffing or FTE table in the extracted material.
Equipment context for cost comparison
| Jurisdiction | Voting method | Vendor | System | Equipment / components | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shelby County, TN | Paper-based system; voters may hand-mark a paper ballot or use a ballot-marking device. | Election Systems & Software (ES&S) | ES&S ExpressVote / DS200 paper-based voting equipment | ExpressVote ballot-marking devices; DS200 precinct scanners; related ES&S components. | Added; verify against current county inventory before final publication |
| Davidson County / Nashville, TN | Hybrid paper model using ExpressVote during early voting and paper ballots on Election Day, based on the procurement record located. | Election Systems & Software (ES&S) | ES&S ExpressVote / DS200 / DS450 | ExpressVote ballot-marking devices, DS200 precinct scanners, DS450 high-speed scanner, and ballot-on-demand equipment. | Added |
| Jefferson County / Louisville, KY | Voter-verifiable paper audit system. | Election Systems & Software (ES&S) | ES&S ExpressVote Universal Voting System / DS200 | ExpressVote universal voting system and DS200 precinct-based scanner/tabulator. | Added |
| Harris County, TX | Hart Verity paper-record voting system with ballot-marking and scanning components. | Hart InterCivic | Hart Verity 2.7 | Verity Duo, Verity Controller, Verity Scan, and Verity Central listed by the Texas Secretary of State. | Added |
| Maricopa County, AZ | Dominion Democracy Suite paper-based voting system with BMD, precinct scan, central count, and adjudication components. | Dominion Voting Systems | Dominion Democracy Suite 5.17.17.1 | ImageCast X BMD, ImageCast Precinct2, ImageCast Central, commercial printers/scanners, EMS adjudication. | Added |
This helps explain whether Shelby's cost base includes newer paper-based voting equipment, software licensing, support, storage, testing, and election setup costs.
The equipment model is relevant because Davidson's lower per-voter spending should be interpreted with its staffing, equipment, early-voting, and election-calendar context.
The budget comparison still needs a cleaner election-only cost line because the Louisville budget extract uses the County Clerk total as a proxy.
Harris has a very large equipment footprint in the state equipment list, so equipment scale should be treated as a possible cost driver rather than ignored.
Maricopa's equipment responsibilities should be read together with the split between Elections and Recorder spending.
Official source record
Election Commission budget lines, gross total, revenue offset, labor, and operations.
Registered-voter denominators for Shelby and Davidson.
Election Commission department total, revenue, positions, and FTEs.
Jefferson County Clerk budget proxy and detail context.
Jefferson County registered-voter denominator.
Election Operations adopted budget.
Historical registered-voter denominator.
Elections and Recorder tentative budget totals.
Maricopa County active registered-voter denominator.
Plain-English equipment definitions for ExpressVote, DS200, Hart Verity, Dominion ImageCast X, and Dominion ImageCast Precinct.
Shelby County ES&S equipment list, including ExpressVote BMD terminals and related equipment.
DS200, DS450, ExpressVote, and ballot-on-demand equipment list.
ES&S ExpressVote Universal Voting System and DS200 precinct scanner/tabulator.
Hart Verity 2.7 equipment components and quantities listed for Harris County.
Dominion Democracy Suite 5.17.17.1 equipment components for Maricopa County.
Questions the public can ask
These questions are framed to clarify the budget record. They do not assume misconduct or waste.
Focuses the hearing on explanation, not accusation.
Separates base operations from temporary cycle-driven spending.
Connects the budget request to the equipment and support model.
Makes staffing and service delivery comparable.
Prevents false comparisons when costs are split across departments.
Clarifies what can actually be changed during budget review.
Tests whether higher cost is explained by operational workload.
Turns the benchmark into a clear budget-hearing scenario.
Benchmark comparisons are only as good as the accounting boundaries. Some counties place election costs inside one election office; others split costs across clerk, recorder, technology, facilities, security, or central administrative departments. This page treats the comparison as a public accountability screen, not a final audit conclusion. The cleanest next update is to refresh Harris County's current registered-voter denominator and locate comparable staffing schedules for Shelby, Jefferson/Louisville, Harris, and Maricopa.