Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, were major funders and grants to the Center for Technology and Civic Life. To help election officials across the country expand mail-in voting operations, set up curbside voting programs, and purchase tabulation equipment in 2020. masks and other supplies.
Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Chan and the center said the funding increase was necessary because costs for local officials soared as an unprecedented number of voters shifted to voting by mail during the pandemic. A spokesperson for the couple later said the funding was a one-time effort and they had no plans to fund another campaign.
Republicans have balked at the deal and have called for similar subsidies not to be used in future elections. They denounced the donations as a “Zuckerback” aimed at helping Democrats, as urban areas with liberal voters received the most subsidies. The center denied the allegations and said it funded every legitimate grant application it received and gave money to election officials in Republican, Democratic and swing election jurisdictions.
Since the 2020 election, 27 other states have banned or limited such subsidies, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures. In the battleground state of Wisconsin, which is likely to have a significant impact on the outcome of the presidential election, Republicans controlling the Legislature are seeking assistance after Gov. Tony Evers (D) vetoed an initial attempt to cancel the election. He asked voters to amend the state constitution to prohibit gold. Private funding for elections.
Tuesday’s vote came shortly after the Milwaukee Board of Elections received a $787,000 grant from the nonprofit Cities Forward. The commission’s executive director, Claire Woodall Vogg, said the state and federal governments were not spending enough to facilitate elections, so they welcomed the funding. Most of the funds have been allocated, she said. He intended to spend the entire amount before the constitutional amendment takes effect, which would certify the state’s vote totals in the coming weeks.
The funds are being used for a variety of expenses, including surveillance cameras and two electric pallet jacks to move election equipment.
“I have absolutely no hesitation in applying.” [for] And we are receiving funding,” she said Tuesday. “We have big budget constraints.”
The Center for Tech and Civic Life announced it funded 2,500 election agencies across the country in 2020. In Wisconsin, local communities received more than $10 million of her share. The bulk of that money, nearly $9 million, went to Milwaukee and the state’s four largest cities, which have large Democratic populations.
The constitutional amendment has received little attention overall, the top race for both parties has already been decided, and turnout in Tuesday’s Wisconsin primary was low. However, Republicans supported the measure and Democrats opposed it.
“Wisconsin elections should not be run by unaccountable out-of-state organizations using private funds,” the amendment’s sponsor, state Sen. Eric Winberger (R), said in an online video. Ta. “They should be run by local, non-partisan officials and paid for by the community.”
State Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler called the constitutional amendment an attempt to “interfere with election administration and give local governments fewer resources to keep polling places open,” and urged people to vote against the bill. Ta.
Ryan Tracy, 28, said after voting Tuesday at a Madison library that he supports banning private funding because he believes the government should pay for elections on its own.
“You want to think that at least the government is accountable,” he said. “When you start engaging third-party contractors, the chain of responsibility becomes even more blurred. And personally, I don’t want to leave the election process in the hands of someone like Mark Zuckerberg.”
Wisconsinites voted on two constitutional amendments. One prohibits private subsidies, and the other stipulates that election duties must be performed only by “election officials designated by law.”
The second measure was aimed at blocking local governments from obtaining help from a consultant who advised Green Bay’s Board of Elections in 2020. Critics argue that the ban is vague and could impede the ability of election officials to hire contractors to print or provide ballots. machine.
Udall Vogg said he doesn’t think the changes to who can help with elections will have a major impact on the city’s election operations. But she said it could be difficult to fix malfunctioning voting machines on Election Day because city workers may have to repair them. Rather than leaving that task to an experienced voting machine vendor,
Joe Muilenburg, 41, voted against the bill regarding who can perform election duties because he was concerned it would make it difficult to staff polling places. He voted in favor of banning private funding because “it seems more fair,” but acknowledged that such donations could save taxpayers money.
“That could be a good thing, but it could be a slippery slope,” he said of private funding.
