Fund this mandate

Back in 2014 Democrats on Beacon Hill were pleased as punch that they had succeeded in introducing early voting to Massachusetts. But now that early voting is actually a thing, some of those same reps and senators don’t seem so eager to cover the costs they’ve imposed on cities and towns.

It’s been just about a year since state Auditor Suzanne Bump concluded that parts of the early voting law amount to an unfunded state mandate. Now, at the Legislature’s direction, the auditor’s office has officially surveyed municipal officials on costs incurred to comply with the mandate in 2016, the first year it was in effect, and certified a figure of just over $1 million.

The total cost of implementing early voting was higher — but that’s in part because some communities, including Boston, exceeded the minimum requirements. They’re on their own for covering those additional costs.

But if Beacon Hill is going to mandate that cities and towns offer a certain number of extra voting days, with minimum staffing levels — then it sure as heck ought to be willing to offset the cost of that mandate.

As the State House News Service reports, the House passed a supplemental appropriation of $485,000 to cover a portion of the costs incurred in 2016 but the Senate rejected that effort.

Bump last week urged Gov. Charlie Baker and House and Senate leaders to approve a supplemental appropriation to reimburse cities and towns for those 2016 costs. She also cited the need for a new system to fund the costs in future elections. News flash: There’s one barely 10 months away.

It’s not as if reps and senators didn’t think about this issue back in 2014, when they were so eager to get their election reform bill through. At the time they debated a funding mechanism for early voting — ultimately settling on, naturally, a “task force” to study the cost issue.

But navel-gazing task forces don’t cover overtime for poll workers. Beacon Hill has an obligation to cities and towns, and it needs to meet that obligation.