Elections Reform: Overview and Issues

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

Since the November 2000 Presidential election, previously obscure details of voting and vote
counting have become the focus of ongoing public attention and legislative action at the state and
federal levels. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in October 2002,
and states have made many changes to election laws and procedures before and since. HAVA
created a new federal agency, set requirements for several aspects of election administration, and
provided federal funding. However, it did not supplant state and local control over election ^th
administration. Issues in the 109 Congress included state compliance with HAVA requirements,
voter identification and citizenship requirements for voting, funding, and paper audit trails for ^th
electronic voting systems. A similar set of issues has been considered in the 110 Congress. For
FY2008, funding was provided by a consolidated appropriations act, which included $16.5
million for the Election Assistance Commission and $115 million for election reform grants to
states, along with smaller amounts for other programs. The continuing resolution for FY2009
contained similar amounts. Several election-reform bills have been introduced, but none have
been enacted.

Voting Systems and Election Administration..................................................................................1
Voting Systems..........................................................................................................................1
Electronic Voting Machine Controversy.............................................................................1
Federal Funding........................................................................................................................2
Election Assistance Commission..............................................................................................2
Standards and Requirements.....................................................................................................2
Voter Identification....................................................................................................................2
Funding Under the Help America Vote Act.....................................................................................3
Appropriations........................................................................................................................... 3
State Implementation of the Help America Vote Act.......................................................................5
Table 1.Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Funding...........................................................................5
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................6

While initial reactions after the 2000 election had tended to focus on technological fixes such as
eliminating punchcards, a consensus emerged subsequently that the issues, and the solutions
needed, were more complex and often involved trade-offs among diverse goals. HAVA reflects
those developments—it funded replacement of punchcard and lever systems but also broader
improvements in election administration.
Currently, most jurisdictions use optical scan, direct recording electronic (DRE) systems, or both.
There is no consensus on whether any one technology is best, although use of optical scan and
DRE systems has been increasing for several years. States have different practices and
requirements. HAVA does not require any particular voting system, but it sets requirements that
influence what systems election officials choose. Systems used in federal elections must provide
for error correction by voters, manual auditing, accessibility, alternative languages, and error-rate
standards. Systems must also maintain voter privacy and ballot confidentiality, and states must
adopt uniform standards for what constitutes a vote on each system.
HAVA’s requirement for accessible voting systems (at least one per polling place) and other
factors drove some states to adopt DREs, but controversy exists about the security of those
systems. Some experts and advocates believe that the problem is serious enough to require that all
voting systems produce paper ballots that can be verified by voters and that will serve as the
official record of the votes for any recount. Others believe that other safeguards can make DREs
sufficiently safe from tampering, that use of printed paper ballots would create too many
problems, and that the controversy risks drawing attention away from the demonstrated utility of
DREs in addressing problems of access to and usability of voting systems. HAVA requires a paper
audit trail for the voting system, but not paper ballots. However, many states have instituted
paper-ballot-trail requirements.
Several bills introduced in recent Congresses would address this issue (see CRS Report RL33894, ^th
Election Reform: Issues and Legislative Proposals in the 109 Congress, and CRS Report ^th
RL32526, Electronic Voting Systems (DREs): Legislation in the 108 Congress). Most would
require a specific design standard for paper ballots rather than setting a performance standard that
can be met in different ways, which was the approach taken by HAVA with respect to voting
system requirements. Proponents of paper ballots argue that a legislated design standard is the
only way to ensure that voting systems exhibit the desired level of verifiability and security.
Opponents argue that such a design standard freezes technology and stifles innovation, thereby
precluding the development and implementation of technologies with superior levels of
verifiability and security than is possible with current technology. See CRS Report RL33190, The
Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machine (DRE) Controversy: FAQs and Misperceptions.

A central issue has been the role of the federal government in addressing concerns about voting
systems, particularly with respect to funding and standards. HAVA authorized $3.86 billion in
funding for programs to replace equipment, improve election administration, improve
accessibility, recruit pollworkers, and perform research and pilot studies. (See “Funding Under
the Help America Vote Act” below.)
Before HAVA, federal activities relating to election administration were performed by the Office
of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Other than the
voluntary voting system standards, OEA performed clearinghouse functions and some
administrative activities under the National Voter Registration Act (P.L. 103-31). HAVA replaced
the OEA with the Election Assistance Commission (EAC, http://www.eac.gov), an independent,
bipartisan federal agency. The act also established two boards, with broad-based state and local
membership, and a technical committee, to address aspects of voting system standards and
certification. The statute also provides for technical support and participation by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, see http://vote.nist.gov/). The EAC carries out grant
programs, provides for testing and certification of voting systems, studies election issues, and
issues voluntary guidelines for voting systems and guidance for the requirements in the act. The
EAC has no rule-making authority (except for limited authority under the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993, the “motor-voter” law) and does not enforce HAVA requirements. The
act established two enforcement processes: the U.S. Attorney General may bring civil action with
respect to HAVA requirements, and states, as a condition for receipt of funds, were required to
establish administrative grievance procedures to handle complaints from individuals.
In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-based voting systems. Most
states have now adopted those standards, which were updated in 2002. HAVA codifies the
development and regular updating of those standards, which it calls voluntary guidelines. The
EAC issued draft guidelines for public comment in June 2005. The final version took effect in
December 2007. A new, completely rewritten draft version was released for public review in
October 2007. See CRS Report RS21156, Federal Voting Systems Standards and Guidelines:
Congressional Deliberations; and CRS Report RL33146, Federal Voluntary Voting System
Guidelines: Summary and Analysis of Issues. HAVA also establishes federal requirements for
voting systems, registration, provisional ballots, and other aspects of election administration. It
leaves the methods of implementation to the states but requires the EAC to issue voluntary
guidance. See CRS Report RL32685, Election Reform: The Help America Vote Act and Issues for
Congress.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) requires that certain voters who had
registered by mail present a form of identification from a list specified in the act. States vary
greatly in what identification they require voters to present, ranging from nothing beyond the
federal requirement to photographic identification for all voters. A number of states enacted laws

in recent years to require photo ID to vote, which resulted in a series of state court challenges and ^th
rulings. In the 109 Congress, the House passed legislation to require photo identification and
proof of citizenship when voting in federal elections, but no further action followed. The U.S.
Supreme Court has upheld an Indiana statute requiring photo identification for voting. See CRS
Report RS22882, The Constitutionality of Requiring Photo Identification for Voting: An Analysis
of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

HAVA established several grant programs (see table below for authorized and appropriated
amounts):
• Election Administration Improvements. Provided expedited, one-time formula
payments for general election administration improvements to states that applied,
with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for this and the
replacement program (see next paragraph). Administered by General Services
Administration (GSA). (Sec. 101.)
• Replacement of Punchcard and Lever Machine Systems. Provided expedited,
one-time formula payments to replace punchcard systems and lever machines in
qualifying states, with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for this
and the improvements program, summarized above. Administered by GSA. (Sec.

102.)

• Payments to Meet Election Requirements. Provides annual formula payments to
states to meet the act’s requirements. Requires a 5% match and submission of a
state plan. Administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) created
in the act. (Sec. 251-258.)
• Payments to Assure Accessibility. Provides payments to states to make polling
places accessible to persons with disabilities. Requires application. Administered
by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (Sec. 265-265.)
• Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems. Provides payments to state
protection and advocacy systems to ensure electoral participation by persons with
disabilities. Requires application. Administered by HHS. (Sec. 291-292.)
• Grants for Research and Pilot Programs. Provides grants for research to improve
voting technology (Sec. 271-273) and for pilot programs to test new voting
technology (Sec. 281-283). Requires application. Administered by EAC.
• Student Programs. Establishes three programs, one to recruit college students as
pollworkers (Sec. 501-503), one to recruit high school students (Sec. 601), and
one to provide grants for the National Student and Parent Mock Election (Sec.

295-296).

The FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2, H.Rept. 108-10, P.L. 108-7), signed into
law on February 20, 2003, contained $1.5 billion for election reform programs authorized by
HAVA, including $650 million combined for the election administration improvement and voting

system replacement payments to be administered by GSA (with no specific allocation designated
for either program and a maximum of $500,000 for administrative costs). GSA disbursed all of
these funds to states in June 2003. All states and territories received payments for election
administration improvements, based on a formula using each state’s voting-age population, and
payments to replace punch card and lever voting systems were made to all states that applied.
Also included was $830 million for requirements grants (with a maximum of 0.1% to be paid to
any territory), and $20 million for other programs—$13 million for accessibility grants, $2
million for protection and advocacy programs, $1.5 million each for the college and high school
programs, and $2 million for the EAC. P.L. 108-7 also included $15 million for one-time
payments to certain states that had obtained optical scan or electronic voting systems prior to the
November 2000 election.
The President’s budget request for FY2004 included $500 million, one-half the amount
authorized, to fund EAC requirements grants and administration. No funds were specifically
requested for the other programs described above. The final omnibus appropriations bill, H.R.
2673, signed into law on January 23, 2004 (P.L. 108-199), contained just over $1.5 billion for
election reform, including $1.0 billion for requirements payments, $500 million for election
reform programs, $10 million for accessibility grants, $5 million for protection and advocacy
systems, and $1.2 million for the EAC.
For FY2005, the President’s budget request included $65 million for election reform, of which
$40 million was additional funding for requirements grants and $10 million was for EAC
administrative expenses. The request also included $5 million for protection and advocacy
programs and $10 million for accessibility grants. The omnibus appropriations bill for FY2005,
H.R. 4818 was signed into law on December 8, 2004, and included $14 million for the EAC, of
which $2.8 million was to be transferred to NIST, and $15 million for disability voting access,
with $5 million of that amount to apply to protection and advocacy systems. Also included was
$200,000 for the student parent mock election program and $200,000 for the Help America Vote
College Program.
The President’s FY2006 budget request included $17.6 million for the EAC (of which $2.8
million is for NIST), as well as $5 million for protection and advocacy programs and $9.9 million
for accessibility grants administered by HHS. The final appropriation (P.L. 109-115) contained
$14.2 million, including $2.8 million for NIST, with $13.5 and $8.6 million, respectively, for the
HHS programs, and $250,000 “encouraged” to be spent on the Help America Vote College
Program.
The FY2007 request included $16.9 million for the EAC ($5 million for NIST), $4.83 million for
protection and advocacy programs, and $10.89 million for accessibility grants administered by ^th
HHS. The 109 Congress adjourned without enacting an appropriations measure, providing
instead temporary funding until February 15, 2007, via a continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 102).
Continued funding through September 30 for FY2007 was subsequently provided via another
continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 20, which was signed by the President on February 15 (P.L. 110-
5). It provided $16.24 million for the EAC, of which $4.95 million was for NIST, $4.83 million
for protection and advocacy programs, and $10.89 million for disability access.
The FY2008 request included $15.5 million for the EAC ($3.25 million for NIST), and $4.83
million for protection and advocacy programs and $10.89 million for accessibility grants
administered by HHS. From the start of FY2008 until December 31, 2007, continued funding for
the EAC was provided by a series of continuing resolutions. Ultimately, FY2008 funding was

provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008, enacted on December 16, 2007 (P.L.
100-161). It provided $16.53 million for the EAC, of which $3.25 million is for NIST, and
$200,000 is for the high school mock election program. It also provided $115 million for
requirements payments, $10 million for data collection grants to selected states, $4.83 million for
protection and advocacy programs, and $12.37 million for disability access.
The FY2009 request included $16.68 million for the EAC (with $4 million for NIST), as well as
$5.26 million for protection and advocacy programs and $12.15 million for accessibility grants
administered by HHS. The FY2009 appropriations were provided in a continuing resolution (P.L.

110-329), which provided the same funding levels as FY2008.

With the publication of state plans in the Federal Register on March 24, 2004, states and
territories were eligible to receive $2.3 billion in federal requirements payments, following a 45-
day public comment period and filing of a certification with the EAC. The $2.32 billion included
funds appropriated in FY2003 and FY2004 which could not be allocated until establishment of
the EAC and publication of the state plans. The EAC distributed all of that funding to states by
December 2005; no additional funding for requirements payments was appropriated until
FY2008.
Table 1.Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Funding
^{($ mill}^ions)
^Appr^opriations^HAVA
^{Budget Item}^Auth.^a
²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷²⁰⁰⁸²⁰⁰⁹^Total

^{Payments to Stat}^es
^Election³²⁵
^{Administration}
^Improveme^nt⁶⁵⁰^b⁶⁵⁰
^Punch^card/Lever³²⁵
^Machine
^Replacement
^HAVA^3,00^{0 830}^1,49⁸¹¹⁵¹¹⁵^2,55⁸
^Requirement^s
^{One-Time Payment}^c¹⁵¹⁵
^{Total Payments}^3,65⁰^1,49⁵^1,49⁸^{115 115}^3,22³

^{Election Assistance Com}^{mission (EA}^C)
^General^d^30.0^2.0^2.0^10.7^11.3^11.3^23.1^g^23.1^g^83.5
^NIST^2.8^2.8^5.0^3.3^3.3^17.2
^{College Program}^5.0^e^1.5^0.8^0.2^0.0^f^2.5
^{High School}^5.0^e^1.5^0.8^2.3

^Program

^Appr^opriations^HAVA
^{Budget Item}^Auth.^a
²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷²⁰⁰⁸²⁰⁰⁹^Total
^{Mock Election}^0.2^e^0.2^0.2^0.2^0.2^0.8
^Research^20.0
^Pil^ot^Programs^10.0
^{Total EAC}^70.2^5.0^3.7^13.9^14.1^16.2^26.5^26.5¹⁰⁶

^{Health and Human Services (HHS)}
^{Accessibility}^{100 13.0}^10.0^9.9^10.9^{10.9 12.4}^12.4^79.5
^{Protection and}⁴⁰^e^2.0^5.0^5.0^4.8^{4.8 5.4}^5.4^32.4
^Advocacy
^Total^HHS^{140 15.0}^15.0^14.9^15.7^{15.7 17.8}^17.8¹¹²

^{Total HAVA}^3,86⁰^1,51⁵^1,51⁷²⁹³⁰³²¹⁵⁹¹⁵⁹^3,44¹
^Source:^{CRS, from HAVA and r}^{elevant ap}^{propriations acts.}
^Notes:^Al^{l figures are in millions of curre}^{nt (nominal) dollars of bu}^{dget authority as a}^{uthorized or approp}^riated
^{and are rou}^{nded whe}^{re nec}^essar^{y. Figures for FY20}^{05 a}^{nd FY20}⁰⁶^{include res}^cissions.
^a.^{Authorization amounts in}^HAVA.
^b.^Approp^{riated amount did not sp}^{ecify the distribution of}^fu^{nds bet}^{ween the}^{two budget items.}
^c.^{For payments}^{to states that}^had^{obtained optical scan or DRE vot}^{ing systems}^{prior to the}^Novemb^{er 2}⁰⁰⁰
^election.
^d.^{Figures in this row a}^{re f}^{unds re}^m^{aining in EAC line items afte}^{r am}^{ounts for othe}^{r s}^{pecific items (su}^{ch as}
^{NIST) are su}^btracted.
^e.^{Listed amounts}^{plus s}^{ums n}^ecess^{ary for s}^ubse^que^{nt yea}^{rs be}^yond^{the initial authorization period.}
^f.^{Congress ap}^prop^{riated no fu}^{nds f}^{or this in FY20}⁰⁶^{but “}^encou^rage^{d” the EAC to s}^{pend $}²⁵^0,0^{00 o}ⁿ^it.
^g.^{This includes $1}^{0 million for gran}^{ts of $2}^milli^{on each to 5 s}^{tates t}^o^{improve the collection of electi}^{on data.}
^K^e^vi^{n J}^.^Co^l^e^m^aⁿ ^{Eric A}^.^Fⁱ^s^c^h^e^r
^An^al^y^s^{t i}ⁿ^Elections^Senⁱ^{or Specialis}^{t i}ⁿ^Scieⁿ^{ce a}ⁿ^{d T}^echⁿ^o^logy
^k^c^ol^e^m^aⁿ^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7-}⁷⁸⁷⁸^efⁱ^s^c^h^er@^c^r^s^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7-}⁷⁰⁷¹