Fairvote

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541635649
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Silver Spring, MD, USA
Phone
3012704616
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Voter Education, Registration

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,247,612
Expenses
$6,405,004
Assets
$6,064,176
Liabilities
$950,427

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MEREDITH SUMPTER (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • LAN NGUYEN (FORMER COO AND INTERIM CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MEREDITH SUMPTER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $225,520 total reported compensation
  • ASHLEY HOUGHTON (VP OF POLICY & PROGRAM): $210,159 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN CANNON (DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY): $185,268 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Fairvote is a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections for all. It researches and advances voting reforms that make democracy more functional and representative for every american. Since 1992, it has a proven record as a nonpartisan innovator in elections at the local, state, and national level through strategic research, communications, and collaboration.

What it reported doing in 2024

2024 fairvote (c3) accomplishmentsfairvote has continued to meet the needs of the growing electoral reform movement. In 2024, fv: provided research, education, and media support for four states with rcv ballot campaigns, four municipal rcv ballot measures, and hundreds of thousands of voters using rcv.published research reports and analyses on the need for electoral reform, including the monopoly politics project that predicted the results of all 2024 us house races with 98% accuracy - two years in advance. This demonstrates how much partisanship is a defining factor in election outcomes, instead of local issues, candidate quality or how campaigns are run.monitored elections that implemented rcv in 12 cities across six states. One of the 12 cities, portland or, implemented rcv for the first time.published research reports and analyses covering civil campaigns, better representation, and high voter engagement in Alaska, san francisco, New York city, arlington, va, portland, or, and other cities using rcv around the country.engaged with media to grow the number of rcv editorial board endorsements, demonstrate the value of rcv in party primaries and the fair representation act, and maintain positive news coverage of rcv. Convened four roundtables around rcv movement infrastructure and participated in one partner's roundtable focused on proportional representation. The convenings are to strengthen coordination and alignment among movement partners, build trust, and support state and local initiatives throughout the reform cycle. The roundtables focused on national rcv/election reform, legal, research, and election administration. Maintained organizational excellence through effective board governance, leadership development, sound financial management, strong fundraising, and continued investment in monitoring, evaluation, and learning.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.2%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 67.7%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.6%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.2% of revenue deployed · 67.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $226K · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $299K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.