Adobe Stock
Adobe Stock
In 2020, Joe Biden secured 43% of 146,498 votes, compared to the 35% votes earned by Hillary Clinton in 2016. Grants to voting officials, funded almost entirely by Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, weren’t offered in 2016.
In Maryland, Democrat turnout rose 29.1% in areas which received the funding, while increasing 26.9% in areas which did not.
The Republican Party earned 2.4% less votes in Maryland districts assisted by the CTCL, compared to 7.7% in jurisdictions without similar funding.
Support for Trump increased in Harford 5% in 2020.
There were 23,748 more votes cast in Harford in the 2020 election than in 2016.
Harford was one of 21 Maryland areas where voting officials received money from the progressive Centre for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). A $350 million donation from Facebook founder Zuckerberg and his wife provided funding for the grants.
Grants from the organization, ranging from $5,000 to $19 million, were given to voting officials in exchange for specific conditions being followed. This included strategically targeting voters, creating ballots and developing what are known as “cure letters” to correct ballots at risk of being thrown out for discrepancies in signatures.
The influx of private money on such a large scale was criticized throughout the contentious 2020 election.
The CTCL was sued by Louisiana’s Attorney General in October 2021 “to prevent the injection of unregulated private money...and protect the integrity of elections in the State.” The lawsuit wasn’t allowed to proceed by a State judge.
Criticism of the CTCL also stemmed from favoring “predominantly Democratic counties” and even gave them a headstart to apply for funding, according to emails obtained through Right-to-Know requests.
“Mark Zuckerberg is providing nearly as much money to this year’s election administration as the federal government,” Phil Kline with the Amistad Project said in a late October 2020 press release.
The US government, in the run-up to the 2020 election, was criticized for underfunding the electoral process at a critical time.
| Area | Received CTCL Funding? | % Change in Republican Support | % Change in Democratic Support |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allegany | Yes | 4.1 | 5.9 |
| Anne Arundel | Yes | 5.9 | 8.2 |
| City of Baltimore | Yes | -28.8 | 31.1 |
| Baltimore | Yes | -3 | 6.4 |
| Calvert | Yes | 5.3 | 7.6 |
| Caroline | Yes | 2.5 | 4.2 |
| Carroll | Yes | 5.2 | 8 |
| Cecil | Yes | 3.3 | 5.5 |
| Charles | Yes | 4.8 | 6.1 |
| Dorchester | Yes | 1.5 | 2.6 |
| Frederick | Yes | 5.5 | 8.3 |
| Garrett | Yes | 2.1 | 3.6 |
| Harford | Yes | 5.3 | 7.4 |
| Howard | Yes | 4.2 | 6.8 |
| Kent | Yes | 1.9 | 4 |
| Montgomery | Yes | 1.3 | 3 |
| Prince George's | Yes | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Queen Anne's | Yes | 3.7 | 5.9 |
| Talbot | Yes | 5.3 | 7.2 |
| Washington | Yes | 4.8 | 6.8 |
| Wicomico | Yes | 4 | 5.8 |
| Somerset | Yes | 1 | 2.2 |
| St. Mary's | Yes | 4.2 | 6.7 |
| Worcester | Yes | 3.8 | 5.3 |
| Somerset County | No | 2.6 | 0.6 |
| St. Mary's County | No | 2.1 | 6.4 |
| Worcester County | No | 2.3 | 5.1 |
Alerts Sign-up