Order Code RS20898
Updated November 30, 2001April 17, 2002
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
Kevin J. Coleman
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Eric A. Fischer
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The remarkable circumstances of the 2000 Presidential election are quite unlikely
to be repeated, but Florida’s role in determining the outcome may be remembered as a
turning point with respect to the nation’s election system. Previously obscure details of
voting and vote counting have become the focus of public attention, and various state
and national commissions have issued reports or recommendations on changing the
voting process. Some states have already made plans or have already begun to replace voting
equipment and
adopt other improvements before the 2002 election cycle, while others
are considering
similar changes.
As Congress considers legislation to reform the voting process, a number of issues
have emerged as part of the debate: the reliability of different types of voting
technologies; voting problems and irregularities in the 2000 election; problems for
military and overseas voters; the electoral college; and early media projections of election
results. For additional information on these issues, see the CRS Electronic Briefing
Book on Election Reform. For a discussion of campaign finance reform issues, see the
CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Campaign Finance Reform. This report will be
strengths and weaknesses of different types of
voting systems; voting and registration problems and irregularities; problems for military
and overseas voters; and the federal role in election administration. The House and
Senate have passed different versions of election reform legislation (H.R. 3295), and
differences will need to be resolved in conference. For additional information, see the
CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Election Reform. For a discussion of campaign
finance reform issues, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Campaign Finance
Reform. This report will be updated periodically to reflect new developments.
Voting Systems
After election day 2000, the media focused attention on specific problems with
punchcard voting. Since then, however, broader questions have arisen about error rates,
costs, counting standards, accessibility, and other issues, as election officials consider
upgrading current
systems. Elections in the United States are administered at the state and
local level, and
the federal government currently does not set mandatory standards for
voting systems, nor does it
provide funding to state and local jurisdictions for the administration of elections. While
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
administration of elections; however, both versions of H.R. 3295 would change that.
While initial reactions to concerns raised by the November 2000 election tended to focus on
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
on technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, some consensus emerged subsequently
subsequently that the issues, and the solutions needed, are more complex. Those solutions
are likely to
involve trade-offs among diverse goals.
Kinds of Systems. Currently, five different technologies are in use — paper
ballots, lever machines, punchcards, optical scan, and electronic systems — and most
states use more than one kind. Each has advantages and disadvantages with respect to
error rates, cost, speed, recounts, accessibility to disabled persons, and other
characteristics. Differences in actual performance in elections are difficult to measure
accurately, and they depend on many factors other than the technology, such as the
familiarity of voters with the equipment, the complexity and design of the ballot, local
standards and practices, the condition of the equipment, and the level of competence of
pollworkers.
States also have different requirements for voting systems — for example, whether
the full ballot must be displayed on one page, whether votes are tabulated in the precincts
or at a central location, whether straight-ticket voting is provided, and how accessibility
requirements are to be met. Moreover, election jurisdictions within states differ in how
they configure and use the systems to meet local needs. As a result, no clear consensus
has yet emerged among election administrators and other experts on what systems are
best. Many believe that a diversity of systems promotes innovation and inhibits systematic
fraud, and is therefore preferable. Others believe that a uniform voting system, at least
within each state, can be sufficiently secure, and would be more efficient and more likely
to ensure that all voters have equal opportunity to cast their votes. (For detailed
discussion, see CRS Report RL30773, Voting Technologies in the United States:
Overview and Issues for Congress.)
Federal Funding. A central issue for Congress is what role the federal government
should play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems,
particularly with respect to funding and standards. Estimates of funding needs for
equipment replacement have varied, depending on goals, from about $0.5–$5 billion. That
does not include administrative costs, voter education programs, training of pollworkers,
and so forth. Some have proposed federal discretionary or formula grants for upgrading
current systems, or have suggested that the federal government should contribute to
defraying the cost to local governments of holding federal elections. Others believe that
improvements in other aspects of election administration and in voter education would be
more effective than upgrading technology. Still others state that an integrated, systemic
response is needed that involves all aspects of election administration. Some observers
also believe that significantly higher investment in research is needed to develop better
voting systems, while others state that current knowledge and levels of investment are
sufficient.
Standards. One focus of current debate is whether a need exists for more
standardization. In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-based
voting systems (see [http://www.fec.gov/elections.html]). Most states have now adopted
those standards, which are currently being updated. Some have suggested that mandatory,
rather than voluntary, standards be adopted nationwide for voting systems. Such
standards might also be expanded to address factors such as ballot design, voter error, and
and other
matters such as voter registration and election management. For example, standards might
CRS-3
require that a voting system prevent
or reduce overvotes or provide common procedures
and standards for recounts. Others
have proposed that standards be broadened but remain
voluntary, or that the matter be left
to state and local jurisdictions.
CRS-3 Both versions of H.R.
3295 establish standards but differ in what those standards address and how they are
applied.
Congressional Authority. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority
to regulate congressional elections (see CRS Report RL30747, Congressional Authority
to Standardize National Election Procedures). The Voting Rights Act (see 42 USC §
1973; and CRS Report 95-896, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, As Amended: Its History
and Current Issues) prohibits discriminatory voting practices and, along with the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, also sets some requirements for
elections with respect to accessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a, 6, and ee). Congress could
also attach conditions to the receipt of any funding provided for voting systems or election
administration.
Other Issues in the 2000 Election
Reports of problems in Florida and elsewhere during the 2000 election raised
concerns about specific failures and the overall integrity of the election system: voting
problems and irregularities; problems with ballots from military and overseas voters; the
electoral college; and media projections of state outcomes before polls had closed.
Voting Problems and Irregularities. Allegations of voter intimidation and
voting irregularities prompted several investigations, including a series of hearings
conducted in Florida by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, with a final report issued
in June 2001 (see [http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/stdraft1/main.htm]). In March 2001,
Attorney General Ashcroft announced a Justice Department voting rights initiative that
includes increasing the number of federal monitors who oversee the voting process, hiring
a new senior counsel to supervise enforcement of federal laws and recommend changes,
and adding an additional eight lawyers to the voting rights staff (for more information, see
[http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2001/0307civilrightspressconf.htm]).
Some are concerned that the National Some are concerned that the National
Voter Registration Act (42 USC 1973gg et
seq.), the “Motor Voter” law, may have added
ineligible voters to the registration rolls.
For example, there were media reports that
hundreds of felons had voted in the November
2000 election, even though only a few
states automatically restore voting rights for exoffendersex-offenders. There were also reports that
some new motor voter registrants were unable to
cast ballots on election day because their
registrations could not be confirmed. And in
Florida, some eligible voters reportedly were
improperly purged from the voter rolls when
counties checked registration lists before the election. Some bills have been introduced
to amend or repeal the National Voter Registration Act
election. Allegations of voter intimidation and voting irregularities prompted several
investigations, including hearings in Florida by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, with
a report issued in June 2001 (see [http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm]). In
March 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft announced a Justice Department voting rights
initiative (the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division enforces federal voting
rights statutes; see [http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting]).
Military and Overseas Voters. Members of the military and U.S. citizens who
live abroad are eligible to vote absentee in federal elections under the provisions of the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 USC 1973ff-6). Controversy
in Florida concerning military and overseas ballots centered on two issues — the
requirement that ballots must be postmarked by election day and the deadline for counting
them (10 days after the election) — neither of which is currently addressed in federal law. Because
Because the law leaves such details to the states, postmark requirements for returning ballots vary
ballots vary (but see the Senate version of H.R. 3295).
The law is administered by the Secretary of Defense through the Federal Voting
Assistance Program office in the Department of Defense ([http://www.fvap.ncr.gov]).
After the election, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen directed the Defense
the Defense Department Inspector General to investigateinvestigated issues with
CRS-4
military and overseas citizens’
CRS-4
ballots and to recommend changes to the law; ballots and issued a report (Report No. D-2001-145) was
issued on June 22, 2001 in June 2001
(see [http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/01report.htm]). In
Congress, several bills Both versions of H.R. 3295
would address problems with voting by those covered by the
existing federal law (see CRS
Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act:
Background and Issues for the 107th Congress). The Defense Authorization Act for
FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) (S. 1438), also includes provisions concerning uniformed services
voters.
Electoral College. For the first time since 1888, the winner of the popular vote
in the election did not also win a majority of the electoral college vote. President Bush is
the fourth President to win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote, the others being
Presidents J. Q. Adams (1824), Hayes (1876), and Harrison (1888). Vice President Gore
won a plurality of 537,179 in the popular vote, but Governor Bush won 5 more electoral
votes (271 versus 266) [http://fecweb1.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm].
Hundreds of proposals to reform the electoral college have been introduced in
Congress Congress
during the past century and a half, and; controversy in the 2000 election renewed
calls to
abolish or modify it (see CRS Report RL30804, The Electoral College: An
Overview and
Analysis of Reform Proposals; for an analysis of 107th Congress legislation,
see CRS
Report RL30844, The Electoral College: Reform Proposals in the 107th
Congress).
Uniform Poll Closing. There iswas renewed congressional interest in uniform poll
closing legislation closing
because of early and inaccurate media projections on election night. In
the 2000 election, the networks projected a Gore victory in Florida before the polls had
closed in the Florida panhandle, but subsequently withdrew the projection. Furthermore,
in the 2000 election.
Furthermore, proponents of uniform poll closing argue that projections of the winner in
key states may
depress voter turnout on the West Coast if it appears that the election is
or will be decided
before polls close in the West. Several uniform poll closing bills have
been introduced.
Alternative Methods for Registration and Voting
Because states, rather than the federal government, have administered elections since
the country was founded, laws and practices vary considerably with respect to the many
complex details of the voting process. Innovations in some states, which may now be
considered more broadly, include universallarge-scale absentee voting, early voting, same day voter
registration, declaring anand election day holidayholidays, and Internet voting.
Absentee Voting. Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot for specific
reasons only, such as illness or travel, that would prevent the voter from casting a ballot
in person on election day. But recent trends in some states, including California and
Washington, allow any voter to request an absentee ballot, sometimes called “no fault”
absentee voting. In Oregon, elections are conducted entirely by mail. All registered voters
automatically receive their ballots through the Postal Service, without needing to make a
ballot request, in contrast to absentee procedures in other states (see
[http://www.sos.state.or.us/executive/policy-initiatives/vbm/execvbm.htm]).
Early Voting. In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election day
through an early voting program. There are many varied approaches, and the number of
states using it is growing. According to the Elections Reform Task Force of the National
Conference of State Legislatures, at least 26 states now have some form of early voting (see
[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2001/electref0801.htm#_Toc522012607]).
CRS-5
Same Day Registration. Potential voters may register in person on election day
in six states: Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Election day registration accommodates those who wish to participate but failed to register
by the close of the registration period. In some jurisdictions, eligible voters must go to the
voter registrar’s office or board of elections to complete the form, while in others, they
may do so at the polling place.
Election Day Holiday. According to the FEC, 12 states designate election day as
a state holiday, although whether schools are closed and state employees are off varies (see
[http://www.fec.gov/pages/faqvdayeprocedures.htm]). An additional 20 states give state
employees some time off to vote, and 26 states also provide for private sector employees
to take time off to vote. Bills to make election day a federal holiday have been introduced
in Congress in the past, and several are pendingpast and the current Congress.
Internet Voting. Internet voting was used on a very limited basis during the 2000
election cycle. The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March 2000 primary using
both the Internet and traditional polling places. In the November 2000 election, the
Defense Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested and
submitted absentee ballots via the Internet. Although interest has grown, Internet voting
from remote locations raises concerns about voter identification, ballot secrecy, and access
for all potential voters. It is unlikely to be widely adopted until such problems are resolved
(see CRS Report RS20639, Internet Voting: Issues and Legislation).
National and State Initiatives
After the November 2000 election, both national and state task forces and other
initiatives were established to address voting issues. Recommendations for federal action
were issued by ad hoc commissionsgroups such as The National Commission on Federal Election
Reform ([http://www.reformelections.org]), chaired by former Presidents Ford and Carter;
professional associations of election officials such as the Election Center
([http://www.electioncenter.org]); academic groups such as the Caltech/MIT Voting
Project ( Project
[http://www.vote.caltech.edu]); and others. While emphases and proposals vary,
there appears to be; and others such as the Constitution Project’s Election
Reform Initiative [http://www.constitutionproject.org/eri/index.htm]. While emphases
and proposals vary, there was broad agreement among most or all on several
recommendations,
including
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
federal funding for technology upgrades,
use of formula grants for at least some purposes,
conditions for receiving federal funds,
improvements in the voting system standards;
expansion of data collection and dissemination,
enhancement of functions now performed by the Office of Election
Administration,
statewide, networked voter registration systems,
broader use of provisional ballots,
actions to facilitate voting by military and overseas citizens,
actions to ensure equal voting opportunity and accessibility,
improvements in voter education,
adoption by states of specific criteria for what is a valid vote, and
CRS-6
!
procedures to help ensure that statutory certification and other deadlines
are met.
CRS-6
More than a dozen states established task forces or other efforts to examine
election reform needs (see [http://nass.stateofthevote.org/Issues/issues_elections.html]),
and some have produced recommendations. .
Reform legislation was considered in all 50
states in 2001 on a wide range of election
reform issues, with more than 1,600 bills introduced (see
(see [http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/elections.cfm]). At least
six states (California,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, and Minnesota) enacted
legislation to assist in
upgrading or replacing current voting systems.
The General Accounting Office has also released several reports this year on
different on different
aspects of election reform (for an overview, see Elections: A Framework for
Evaluating Evaluating
Reform Proposals, GAO-02-90, 15 October 2001). They include
recommendations on
assistance to military and overseas voters and on voting system
standards, and a
framework for evaluating election reform proposals.
Legislation in the 107th Congress
More than 80 bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress to make broadreaching changes to the electoral system or to enact more limited changes to specific
aspects of the process. Several would establish an election day holiday, modify the
existing law for voting by military personnel and overseas citizens, or change the National
Voter Registration Act. Of the proposals that would make major changes, some would
establish a commission to study the voting process and make recommendations for
changes. In a few cases, a new, permanent federal agency with ongoing responsibilities
would be established. Other proposals would establish a study commission or new agency
and provide grant money to states and local governments for new voting equipment or
other changes. A few bills would provide grants to the states but would not create a study
commission. Hearings on various aspects of election reform have been held by the
Administration, Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, and Science Committees in the
House, and by the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation;
Government Affairs; and Rules and Administration.
Three bills have been ordered reported. H.R. 2275 (Ehlers) would involve the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in establishing voluntary standards
and certification procedures to ensure the usability, accuracy, integrity, and security of
voting systems. H.R. 3295 (Ney) would establish a program to buy-out or improve the
performance of punch card voting systems, a funding program to improve the
administration of elections, a new agency called the Election Assistance Commission, and
programs to recruit students to work at the polls on election day. It would also involve
NIST in development of voluntary standards and certification of voting systems, set certain
minimum standards for state and local election systems, and address some issues relating
to uniformed and overseas voters. S. 565 (Dodd) would establish a commission to study
and make recommendations concerning voting reform, establish a grant program to replace
equipment and make improvements in election administration, and require states to meet
certain standards with respect to the voting process. (For further information on
legislation, see CRS Report RL30855, Election Reform Bills in the 107th Congress: A
Comparisonor more limited changes to the electoral system. Hearings were held by the
Administration, Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, and Science Committees in the
House, and by the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation;
Government Affairs; and Rules and Administration. The Defense Authorization Act for
FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) (S. 1438), includes provisions concerning uniformed services
voters and was signed into law in December 2001.
H.R. 3295 (Ney) passed the House (362–63) on December 12, 2001. It would
establish a program to buy out or improve punch card voting systems, a funding program
to improve the administration of elections, a new agency called the Election Assistance
Commission, and programs to recruit students to work at the polls on election day. It
would also set certain minimum standards for state and local election systems and address
some issues relating to uniformed and overseas voters.
The Senate version of H.R. 3295 was passed (99–1) on April 11, 2002. It was
based on a bipartisan substitute (S.Amdt. 2688) to S. 565. The Senate version would
establish grant programs to replace equipment and make improvements in election
administration and accessibility of polling places, establish a new agency called the
Election Administration Commission, and require states to meet certain standards with
respect to the voting process. It would also address some issues relating to uniformed and
overseas voters and establish programs to recruit students to work at the polls on election
day. Differences between the two versions will need to be resolved in conference.
President Bush's FY2003 budget request includes $1.2 billion over 3 years in 50%
matching grants to states for election improvements. The House version of H.R. 3295
provides $2.25 billion over 3 years, and the Senate version, $3.5 billion over 5 years. The
two bills call for matches ranging from 0-25%, depending on the program. The FY2003
House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 353) earmarks $400 million for matching grants to
state and local governments to improve voting technology and election administration
(H.Rept. 107-376). (For more information on legislation, see the CRS Electronic Briefing
Book on Election Reform).