Director of Policy and Research Tyler Reinagel shares insights on election administration, equipment models, and state-local funding structures
For more information, contact Tyler Reinagel, Director of Policy and Research | treinagel@csg.org
On September 18, 2025, CSG South Director of Policy and Research Tyler Reinagel presented to the Georgia House Blue Ribbon Study Committee on Election Procedures at Savannah Technical College. His testimony highlighted election administration structures across Southern states, funding mechanisms, and the comparative use of voting equipment.
Reinagel emphasized that Southern states employ centralized and decentralized election equipment acquisition and maintenance models. Centralized states, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and South Carolina, purchase and maintain voting machines at the state level, providing consistent equipment and technical support for local jurisdictions. In contrast, decentralized states, including Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, primarily place the responsibility for procurement, maintenance, and staffingon county governments, often supplemented by grants or partial reimbursement programs.
The presentation detailed key voting technologies, including optical scanners, ballot marking devices (BMDs), direct recording electronic (DRE) systems, hybrid voting systems, and electronic poll books. Reinagel noted trends toward paper-verified ballots, hybrid systems integrating ballot marking and tabulation, and accessibility features such as audio-tactile interfaces for voters with disabilities. Remote ballot marking systems were also discussed as a growing tool for voters who need to mark ballots outside traditional polling locations.
Reinagel shared state-specific examples of funding and legislative approaches: Louisiana’s Secretary of State manages centralized procurement and distribution to all parishes, while Kentucky provides limited per-precinct and per-registered voter reimbursements. Recent legislative activity across the South has focused on securing voting systems, establishing audit trails, and ensuring paper verification. Notable examples include Alabama HB101 (2025), Kentucky HB53 (2025), Tennessee SB2587 (2024), Texas SB2166 (2025), and West Virginia HB4438 (2022). Since 2020, nearly 500 bills addressing election equipment and procedures have been filed across Southern states, with more than 65 enacted or sent to governors.
Finally, Reinagel highlighted the variability in election costs across Georgia counties, noting that expenses for staff, equipment, and ballot processing differ significantly depending on county size and procurement practices. Examples included Cherokee County ($1.65M in FY2021) and Houston County ($2.57M in FY2021), underscoring the challenges local governments face in balancing election integrity, security, and cost efficiency.
For more information, view these resources below:
- Presentation slides from the CSG South testimony
- Full video of the Georgia House Blue Ribbon hearing, featuring testimony from Tyler Reinagel, CSG South’s director of policy and research.
