Order Code RS20898
Updated April 17October 10, 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 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 strengths and weaknesses of different types of
voting systems; voting and registration problems and irregularities; problems for military
military and overseas voters; and the federal role in election administration. The House and
Senate have
and Senate 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 issueshave been resolved in conference (H.Rept. 107-730). For additional
information, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Campaign Finance
Election 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
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
administration of elections; however, both versions of H.R. 3295 would change that.
administration of elections; however, H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2002,
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
would change that. While initial reactions to concerns raised by the November 2000
election tended to focus
on technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, some
consensus emerged
subsequently that the issues, and the solutions needed, are more complex. Those solutions
are
complex, and the legislation reflects those developments. However, any 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. H.R. 3295 funds replacement of punchcard and lever systems.
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
there is no consensus
on whether any particular system is 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.)H.R. 3295 does not require any particular voting system,
except electronic systems for accessibility for disabled persons.
Federal Funding. A central issue for Congress is what role the federal government
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
for equipment replacement have varied, depending on goals, from about $0.5–$5 billion. That
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 sufficient. H.R. 3295 authorizes $3.9 billion in
funding for programs to replace equipment, improve election administration, improe
accessibility, recruit pollworkers, and perform research and pilot studies.
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 and other
CRS-3
matters such as voter registration and election management. For example, standards might
CRS-3
might require that a voting system prevent or reduce overvotes or provide common procedures
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. Both versions of H.R.
3295 establish standards but differ in what those standards address and how they are
appliedH.R. 3295
establishes requirements for voting systems, registration, provisional ballots, and other
aspects of election administration, but leaves the methods of implementation to the states.
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 infrom 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. 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 ex-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. Allegations of voter intimidation and voting irregularities prompted several
investigations, including hearings in Florida by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, with
with a report issued in June 2001 (see [http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm]). In
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]). H.R. 3295 requires each state with
voter registration to have a single, accurate, statewide registration system, and contains
identification provisions for first-time voters.
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 the law leaves such details to the states, postmark requirements for returning
ballots vary (but see the Senate version of H.R. 3295)..
CRS-4
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, the Defense Department Inspector General investigated issues with
CRS-4
military and overseas citizens’ ballots and issued a report (No. D-2001-145) in June 2001
(see [http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/01report.htm]). Both versions of H.R. 3295
would address H.R. 3295 addresses
problems with voting by those covered by the existing federal law (see CRS
Report 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
is the fourth President to win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote, the others being
being Presidents J. Q. Adams (1824), Hayes (1876), and Harrison (1888). Vice President Gore
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
during the past century and a half; controversy
electoral votes (271 versus 266). Controversy in the 2000 election renewed calls to
abolish or modify itthe electoral college (see CRS ReportReports RL30804, The Electoral
College: An Overview and
Analysis of Reform Proposals; for an analysis of 107th Congress legislation, see CRS
Reportand RL30844, The Electoral
College: Reform Proposals in the 107th Congress). H.R. 3295 does not address this issue.
Uniform Poll Closing. There was renewed interest in uniform poll closing
because of early and inaccurate media projections on election night 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. H.R. 3295 requires a study on this issue.
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 large-scale absentee voting, early voting, same day voter
registration, and election day holidays, and Internet voting.
Absentee Voting. Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot for specific
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
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
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 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
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
state employees some time off to vote, and 26 states also provide for private sector employees
employees to take time off to vote. Bills to make election day a federal holiday have been introduced
in past and the current CongressH.R. 3295 includes a study on this issue.
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
access for all potential voters. It is unlikely to be widely adopted until such problems are resolved
resolved (see CRS Report RS20639, Internet Voting: Issues and Legislation). H.R. 3295
includes a study on this issue.
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 groups 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
[http://www.vote.caltech.edu]; 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.
More H.R. 3295 contains provisions relating to all of those recommendations. 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]).
election reform
needs. Reform legislation was considered in all 50 states in 2001 on a wide range of election
election reform issues (see [http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/elections.cfm]).
At least
six states (California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, and Minnesota) enacted
enacted legislation to assist in upgrading or replacing current voting systems.
The General Accounting Office has also released several reports on different
aspects of election reform (for an overview, see Elections: A Framework for 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 or 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 HouseThe House version of H.R. 3295 passed (362–63) on December 12, 2001. It would
establish a program
included a new agency and programs to buy out or improve punch card voting systems, a funding program
to
and 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. It 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
election systems. The Senate version passed (99–1) on April 11, 2002. It was
basedBased on a
bipartisan substitute (S.Amdt. 2688) to S. 565. The Senate version would
establish, it included 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 conferencea new agency, and requirements for voting systems, registration, and other aspects
of the voting process. Both bills also addressed uniformed and overseas voting and
established programs to recruit students as pollworkers. The conference version (H.Rept.
107-730) creates a new federal agency based largely on the House bill provisions, sets
requirements similar to those in the Senate bill, and provides formula funds for equipment
replacement, improvement of election administration, and meeting the requirements, and
grants for improving accessibility and research and pilot programs. It also addresses
issues relating to uniformed and overseas voters and establishes programs to recruit
students as pollworkers. It passed the House October 10 (357–48).
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 , and the conference version $3.9
billion with a 5% match for grants to meet requirements. 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), the House Treasury/Postal
appropriations bill (H.R. 5120) provides $200 million, and the Senate Commerce/
Justice/State bill (S. 2778) provides $400 million . (For more information on legislation,
see the CRS Electronic Briefing
Book on Election Reform).