Order Code RS20898
Updated May 14September 4, 2007
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
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 voting, voter-registration systems, and other aspects of election
administration; and provided federal funding. However, it did not supplant state and
local control over election administration. Issues in the 109th Congress included state
compliance with HAVA requirements, voter identification and citizenship requirements
for voting, funding, and paper audit trails for electronic voting systems. In the 110th
Congress, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee has held a hearing on the
reliability of electronic voting machines on February 7, 2007. The House
Administration Committee has
held four hearings1 on the issue and ordered reported an
amended version of H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of
2007, on May 8. The bill which
would require the use of paper ballots and mandatory partial
recounts in federal elections.
Voting Systems and Election Administration
Elections in the United States are administered at the state and local level, and the
federal government had not historically set mandatory standards for voting systems, nor
had it provided funding to state and local jurisdictions for the administration of elections.
HAVA changed that. recounts in federal
elections. On June 26, the House passed H.R. 1281, which prohibits communication of
false election-related information with the intent to prevent another person from
exercising the right to vote. On June 28, the House passed H.R. 2829, which
appropriates $300 million in payments to states for meeting HAVA requirements.
Several other election-reform bills have been introduced, but none has received
committee or floor action.
Voting Systems and Election Administration
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
1
The hearings, by the Subcommittee on Elections, were held on March 15, 19, 20, and 23, 2007.
CRS-2
offs among diverse goals. HAVA reflects those developments — it funded replacement
of punchcard
and lever systems but also broader improvements in election administration.
Voting Systems. 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.
Electronic Voting Machine Controversy. 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 DREs also print paper
all voting systems
produce paper ballots that would be verified by the voter and hand-counted if the election results were
contested. Others believe that procedural and 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, Election Reform: Issues and Legislative Proposals in the 109th
Congress, and CRS Report RL32526, Electronic Voting Systems (DREs): Legislation in
the 108th Congress). Most, . Most,
including H.R. 811, 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, for further
discussion of this controversy.
Federal Funding. 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.)
Election Assistance Commission. 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
CRS-3
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
CRS-3
local membership, and a technical committee, to address aspects of voting system
standards and certification, and it 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 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. The EAC’s annual report to Congress
for FY2006 is available at [http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20AR2006.pdf]).
Standards and Requirements. In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntary
standards for computer-based voting systems, although not for voter registration 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 on June 27, 2005, and
adopted the final version December
13. They go into effect in December 2007. For more
information, seeSee 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.
Congressional Authority. Some observers expressed concern before HAVA over
Congress’s authority to require states to meet federal election standards. However, the
U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority to regulate congressional elections (see CRS
Report RL30747, Congressional Authority to Standardize National Election Procedures).
Prior examples of Congress’s use of that authority include, among other laws, the Voting
Rights Act (see 42 USCU.S.C. 1973; and CRS Report 95-896, The Voting Rights Act of 1965,
As Amended: Its History and Current Issues), and the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly
and Handicapped Act, (see 42 USCU.S.C. 1973aa-1a, 6, and ee). Congress can also attach
conditions to the receipt of any funding, such as for voting systems or election
administration. Such conditions are included in HAVA, for example, with respect to the
grievance procedures described above.
Alternative Methods for Voting
Absentee Voting. Many states now allow any voter to request an absentee ballot,
sometimes called “no fault” absentee voting, and the percentage of votes cast via absentee
ballot has increased over the past several elections. Oregon conducts its elections entirely
by mail. Some observers have expressed concerns that absentee voting is more vulnerable
to certain kinds of fraud than is balloting at the polling place, but the trend toward
increased absentee voting is expected to continue.
Early Voting. In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election day
through an early voting program. There are many approaches, and the number of states
CRS-4
using early voting is growing, with most states now having some form of it. Some
observers have criticized early voting as distorting to the electoral process and being open
to certain kinds of fraud and abuse. Proponents argue that early voting can increase
turnout and lessen the risk of certain kinds of distortions.
Internet Voting. The Arizona Democratic party conducted a primary in 2000 using
the Internet and traditional polling places and, in the November 2000 election, the Defense
Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested and submitted
ballots via the Internet. The program was to be repeated on a larger scale in 2004 but was
cancelled, largely because of security concerns. Because Internet voting raises concerns
about voter identification, ballot secrecy, risk of cyberattack, and access for all potential
voters, it is unlikely to be widely adopted until such problems are resolved. However,
some countries such as Switzerland have already adopted Internet voting on an
experimental basis. HAVA requires a study on this issue.
Funding Under the Help America Vote Act
HAVA established several grant programs (see table below for authorized 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 below. 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 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 (see below). (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).
CRS-5
Appropriations. 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
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 $15
million for one-time payments to certain states that had obtained
optical scan or electronic
voting systems prior to the November 2000 election.
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Funding
Program
Authorization ($ millions) per Fiscal Year
2003
Election Administration
Improvement
Punchcard/Lever Machine
Replacement
Election Requirements
Accessibility
Protection and Advocacy
Research
Pilot Programs
College Program
High School Program
Mock Election
EAC
Total
2004
2005
2006
Total
Actual
FY03-0607
Total
325.0
325.0
325.0
325.0
325.0
325.0
3,000.0
100.0
40.0+
20.0
10.0
5.0+
5.0+
0.2+
30.0
3,860.2+
2,328.3
54.98
21.7
1,400.0
50.0
10.0
20.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
10.0
2,160.2
1,000.0
25.0
10.0
600.0
25.0
10.0
a
a
a
10.0
1,045.0
a
a
a
10.0
645.0
10.0
a
a
a
10.0
2.4
2.2
0.4
48.03
3,107.9
a: sums necessary.
+: amount shown plus sums necessary for subsequent years.
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
CRS-6
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 (with
$2.8 million 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.
On February 9, the Senate approved S. 2166, which would have provided $50 million
to states to restore or replace voting equipment and materials damaged by Hurricanes
Katrina or Rita. The bill was referred to the House Administration Committee on February
14. A similar amendment, for $30 million, was attached by the Senate to H.R. 4939, the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, but it did not survive conference.
The President’s FY2007 budget request included $16.9 million for the EAC (with $5
million for NIST), $4.83 million for protection and advocacy programs, and $10.89
million for accessibility grants administered by HHS. The House-passed appropriations
billsverison of H.R.
5576 included $16.91 million for the EAC, with $4.9195 million for NIST (H.R. 5576) and
and $250,000
“urged” to be expended on the college program, and the administrationrequested amounts for HHS (H.R. 5647). The Senate Appropriations Committee approved
approved H.R. 5576 on July 20, 2006, and its accompanying report (S.Rept. 109-293)
included $17
million for the EAC; the report noted that the bill required that $4.9 million
from the EAC
appropriation be transferred to NIST. The House-reported version of H.R.
5647 included the administration-requested amounts for HHS. The 109th Congress
109th Congress adjourned without enacting
those bills, 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 President’s FY2008 budget request includes $15.5 million for the EAC (with
$3.25 million for NIST), as well as $4.83 million for protection and advocacy programs
and $10.89 million for accessibility grants administered by HHS. H.R. 2829 passed the
House on June 28, 2007, with the requested amounts for the EAC and NIST as well as
$300 million for requirements payments and $950,000 for school and college programs.
The Senate-reported version eliminates the requirements payments while increasing
funding for the EAC to $16.5 million, with $1.05 million for school and college programs.
State Implementation of the Help America Vote Act
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 includes 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 has been appropriated.
crsphpgw