Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Changes from December 21, 2020 to July 8, 2022

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding ~~December 21, 2020~~July 8, 2022
for States and Localities
Karen L. Shanton
States, territories, and localities have primary responsibility for administering elections in the States, territories, and localities have primary responsibility for administering elections in the
Analyst in American Analyst in American
United States, but Congress has tools it can use to support or shape their efforts United States, but Congress has tools it can use to support or shape their efforts if it chooses to do if it chooses to do
National Government National Government
so. One of those tools is funding. Congress can use its power to provide—and set conditions so. One of those tools is funding. Congress can use its power to provide—and set conditions

on—funding to encourage or help states and localities to adopt, reject, implement, or maintain on—funding to encourage or help states and localities to adopt, reject, implement, or maintain
election administration policies and practices. election administration policies and practices.

Congress has used or proposed using funding to engage with election administration issues in various ways, including by Congress has used or proposed using funding to engage with election administration issues in various ways, including by
directing federal agencies to use some of their funding to support state directing federal agencies to use some of their funding to support state ~~an d~~and local election administration work and by local election administration work and by
considering conditioning eligibility for certain federal funds on adopting or rejecting election administration policies. Perhaps considering conditioning eligibility for certain federal funds on adopting or rejecting election administration policies. Perhaps
the most direct way in which Congress has used funding is by establishing and funding state and local grant programs the most direct way in which Congress has used funding is by establishing and funding state and local grant programs
specifically for election administration-related purposes. specifically for election administration-related purposes.
Congress first authorized major election administration-related grant programs for states and localities in response to issues Congress first authorized major election administration-related grant programs for states and localities in response to issues
with the conduct of the 2000 elections. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) set new with the conduct of the 2000 elections. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) set new
requirements for the administration of federal elections and created the election administration-focused U.S. Election requirements for the administration of federal elections and created the election administration-focused U.S. Election
Assistance Commission (EAC). It also authorized election administration-related grant programs. Assistance Commission (EAC). It also authorized election administration-related grant programs.
The main grant programs Congress authorized in HAVA were three programs to make funds available to the 50 states, the The main grant programs Congress authorized in HAVA were three programs to make funds available to the 50 states, the
District of Columbia (DC), American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands for (1) making District of Columbia (DC), American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands for (1) making certain general general
improvements to improvements to ~~the~~election administration administration ~~of federal elections~~, (2) replacing lever and punch card voting systems, and (3) meeting , (2) replacing lever and punch card voting systems, and (3) meeting
the new requirements established by the act. HAVA also authorized grant programs to meet some of the other needs the new requirements established by the act. HAVA also authorized grant programs to meet some of the other needs
Congress identified in the aftermath of the 2000 elections: improving electoral access for individuals with disabilities, Congress identified in the aftermath of the 2000 elections: improving electoral access for individuals with disabilities,
conducting election technology research, encouraging youth voter participation, and facilitating poll worker recruitment. conducting election technology research, encouraging youth voter participation, and facilitating poll worker recruitment.
Only a few election administration- Only a few election administration-~~related~~specific grant programs—aimed at reimbursing certain voting system replacement costs grant programs—aimed at reimbursing certain voting system replacement costs
that were not covered by HAVA’s lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program, enhancing the collection that were not covered by HAVA’s lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program, enhancing the collection
of election data, and improving electoral access for military and overseas voters—have been authorized for states and of election data, and improving electoral access for military and overseas voters—have been authorized for states and
localities since HAVA. Most of the funding Congress has made available to states and localities for election administration-localities since HAVA. Most of the funding Congress has made available to states and localities for election administration-
related purposes has, instead, been appropriated under grant programs authorized by that act. related purposes has, instead, been appropriated under grant programs authorized by that act.
Since HAVA was enacted in 2002, Congress has appropriated funding regularly for one or both of the act’s disability access Since HAVA was enacted in 2002, Congress has appropriated funding regularly for one or both of the act’s disability access
grant programs and more intermittently for other elections-related purposes. The latter funding includes, most recently, grant programs and more intermittently for other elections-related purposes. The latter funding includes, most recently,
funding for FY2018funding for FY2018, FY2020, and FY2022. The first of those recent rounds of HAVA funding—provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141)—followed reports of attempted interference in the 2016 elections. Ongoing security concerns and other challenges for election administration, such as the onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, prompted inclusion of further funding for HAVA grants in the FY2020 and FY2022 ~~and FY2020. Attempted interference in elections emerged as a significant issue in the 2016 election~~
~~cycle, and the 2020 cycle saw the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress responded to those two developments—and~~
~~the challenges each introduced for election administration—by including funding for HAVA grants in the FY2018 and~~
~~FY2020~~ regular appropriations acts (P.L. regular appropriations acts (P.L. ~~115-141~~116-93 and P.L. and P.L. ~~116-93~~117-103) and in supplemental appropriations for FY2020 (P.L. ) and in supplemental appropriations for FY2020 (P.L.
116-136)116-136)~~, respectively~~. .
Congress has also considered authorizing or funding other elections-related grant programs for states and localities since the Congress has also considered authorizing or funding other elections-related grant programs for states and localities since the
2016 elections. In 2016 elections. In ~~2020~~the 117th Congress, for example, the House passed , for example, the House passed ~~a version of the Heroes~~two bills—the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act (H.R. Act (H.R. ~~6800; passed 208-199) that would~~
~~make funding available for elections contingency planning, preparation, and resilience and an FY2021 consolidated~~
~~appropriations bill (H.R. 7617; passed 217-197) that included funding for replacing direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting~~
~~machines and other elections-related purposes. Various bills in the 116th Congress, including the Heroes Act, would authorize~~
~~new grant programs to help states or localities address election interference or the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)~~
~~pandemic or implement other election administration policies or practices, such as ranked choice voting~~5746, passed 220-203) and a version of the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1, passed 220-210)—that would authorize multiple elections grant programs, including for recruiting and training poll workers, implementing absentee ballot tracking programs, improving the accessibility of elections to individuals with disabilities, and complying with new voter registration and voting system requirements that would be established by the bills. .
The increased prominence of state and local elections grant programs since the 2016 election cycle might suggest questions The increased prominence of state and local elections grant programs since the 2016 election cycle might suggest questions
about what, if any, role such programs about what, if any, role such programs ~~might~~could play in future federal election administration policy. Choices about how grant play in future federal election administration policy. Choices about how grant
programs are structured can help determine how effective they are at achieving their intended purposes and what, if any, programs are structured can help determine how effective they are at achieving their intended purposes and what, if any,
unintended consequences they might have. Information about the options available for structuring grant programs might, unintended consequences they might have. Information about the options available for structuring grant programs might,
therefore, be of interest both to Members who are considering proposing a continuing role for such programs in federal therefore, be of interest both to Members who are considering proposing a continuing role for such programs in federal
elections policy and to Members who are weighing whether to support, oppose, or amend such proposals. elections policy and to Members who are weighing whether to support, oppose, or amend such proposals.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

link to page link to page 4647 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 43 42

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Introduction
States1 and localities have primary responsibility for administering elections in the United States, States1 and localities have primary responsibility for administering elections in the United States,
but Congress has tools it can use to support or shape their efforts if it chooses to do so. One of but Congress has tools it can use to support or shape their efforts if it chooses to do so. One of
those tools is funding. Congress can use its power to provide—and set conditions on—funding to those tools is funding. Congress can use its power to provide—and set conditions on—funding to
encourage or help states and localities to adopt, reject, implement, or maintain election encourage or help states and localities to adopt, reject, implement, or maintain election
administration policies or practices. administration policies or practices.
Congress has used or proposed using funding to engage with election administration issues in Congress has used or proposed using funding to engage with election administration issues in a
~~number of~~various ways. It has directed federal agencies to use some of their funding to support state and ways. It has directed federal agencies to use some of their funding to support state and
local elections work,2 for example, and authorized more general grant programs that have been local elections work,2 for example, and authorized more general grant programs that have been
used to fund elections-related projects.3 Members have also introduced used to fund elections-related projects.3 Members have also introduced ~~bil s~~bills that would condition that would condition
~~eligibility~~ eligibility for certain federal funds on adopting or rejecting election administration policies.4 for certain federal funds on adopting or rejecting election administration policies.4
Perhaps the most direct way in which Congress has used funding is by establishing and funding Perhaps the most direct way in which Congress has used funding is by establishing and funding
state and local grant programs state and local grant programs ~~specifical y~~specifically for election administration-related purposes.5 This for election administration-related purposes.5 This
report focuses on those types of grant programs.6 It starts with an overview of the election report focuses on those types of grant programs.6 It starts with an overview of the election

~~1 As used~~ 1 As used in this report, “states” is generally intended to refer to the 50 states, the U.S. territories, and the District of in this report, “states” is generally intended to refer to the 50 states, the U.S. territories, and the District of
ColumbiaColumbia (DC). Where the narrower usage(DC). Where the narrower usage of the term is intended, the report uses the phrase “the 50 states.” of the term is intended, the report uses the phrase “the 50 states.” ~~T he~~The report report
also introduces the term “also introduces the term “ HAVA states” to refer to the jurisdictions includedHAVA states” to refer to the jurisdictions included in the Help America Vote Act of 2002’s in the Help America Vote Act of 2002’s
(HAVA’s)(HAVA’s) definition of “state”: the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam,definition of “state”: the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.Puerto Rico, and the U.S. ~~Virgin~~ Virgin Islands.Islands.
~~2 T he~~ 2 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is generally charged with supporting state and local election U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is generally charged with supporting state and local election
administration efforts, for example, and certain appropriations to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s administration efforts, for example, and certain appropriations to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have been designatedhave been designated for providing states and localities with for providing states and localities with
election security support. For more on the EAC and on CISA’selection security support. For more on the EAC and on CISA’s election security work, respectively, see CRSelection security work, respectively, see CRS Report Report
R45770, R45770, The U.S. Election Assistance ~~Com m ission~~ Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton; , by Karen L. Shanton;
and CRSand CRS In FocusIn Focus IF11445, IF11445, The Election Infrastructure Subsector: ~~Developm ent~~Development and Challenges, by Brian E. , by Brian E.
Humphreys and Karen L. Shanton. For more on the role of federal agenciesHumphreys and Karen L. Shanton. For more on the role of federal agencies in election administration in general, see in election administration in general, see
CRSCRS Report R45302, Report R45302, Federal Role in U.S. ~~Cam paigns~~Campaigns and Elections: An Overview,, by R. Samby R. Sam ~~Garrett~~ Garrett. .
3 Some non-elections-specific grant programs that have awarded grants for elections-related projects include the 3 Some non-elections-specific grant programs that have awarded grants for elections-related projects include the
FederalFederal Emergency Management Agency’s PublicEmergency Management Agency’s Public Assistance Program and homeland security preparedness grant Assistance Program and homeland security preparedness grant
~~programs, the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Education~~programs, the National Science , the National Science
Foundation’s RapidFoundation’s Rapid Response Research program, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s System Response Research program, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s System
Security Integration Security Integration ~~T hrough~~Through Hardware and Firmware Hardware and Firmware program. For more on some of those grant programs, see CRS program. For more on some of those grant programs, see CRS
Report R41981, Report R41981, Congressional ~~Prim er~~Primer on Responding to and Recovering from ~~Major Disasters and Em ergencies~~ Major Disasters and Emergencies, by Bruce ~~, by~~
~~Bruce~~ R. Lindsay and Elizabeth M. Webster; and CRSR. Lindsay and Elizabeth M. Webster; and CRS Report R44669, Report R44669, ~~Departm ent of Hom eland~~Department of Homeland Security
Preparedness Grants: A ~~Sum m ary~~Summary and Issues, by Shawn, by Shawn Reese. Reese.
4 4 ~~T he~~The uses of funding uses of funding ~~described~~ described in this paragraph—including proposals to condition eligibility for federal fundingin this paragraph—including proposals to condition eligibility for federal funding on on
adopting or rejecting election administration policies, such as adopting or rejecting election administration policies, such as ~~the 116 th Congress’s Democracy Restoration Act of 2019~~
~~(H.R. 196/S. 1068) and Election Fraud Prevention Act (H.R. 6882~~certain provisions of the 117th Congress’s Citizen Legislature Anti-Corruption Reform of Elections (CLEAN Elections) Act (H.R. 100) and Democracy Restoration Act of 2021 (S. 481)—are outside the scope of this report. )—are outside the scope of this report.
5 Some of the 5 Some of the ~~funding programs~~funds HAVA HAVA authorized for states and localities are referred to in the act as authorized for states and localities are referred to in the act as ~~payment~~
~~programs and some are described as grant programs~~payments, and others are described as grants. A question arose, after HAVA. A question arose, after HAVA ~~was~~ was enacted, about whether some enacted, about whether some
of the act’s of the act’s ~~payment programs meet~~ payments meet the federal criteria for the federal criteria for ~~grant programs. T he~~grants. The U.S. Government Accountability U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO), which wasOffice (GAO), which was asked by the EAC’s general counsel to issueasked by the EAC’s general counsel to issue a decision on the question, determined that they a decision on the question, determined that they
do. Given the GAOdo. Given the GAO decision—anddecision—and with the exception of HAVA’s requirements payments, which are generally referred with the exception of HAVA’s requirements payments, which are generally referred
to in elections contexts as such—this report refers to funding and fundingto in elections contexts as such—this report refers to funding and funding programs as grant fundingprograms as grant funding and grant and grant
programs. GAO,programs. GAO, Election Assistance ~~Com m ission—Paym ents~~ Commission—Payments to States under the Help ~~Am erica Vote~~ America Vote Act of 2002, ,
decision, May 9, 2017, at https://www.gao.gov/products/b-328615. decision, May 9, 2017, at https://www.gao.gov/products/b-328615.
6 6 ~~T he~~The report covers grant programs for state and local election officials as well report covers grant programs for state and local election officials as well as as (1) grant programs for nongrant programs for non -elections--elections-
specific government entitiesspecific government entities ~~like~~, such as public institutions of higher education public institutions of higher education, and and (2) grant programs that are available to grant programs that are available to
nongovernmental entitiesnongovernmental entities ~~like~~, such as private research institutions private research institutions, in addition to state and local governments. It does not in addition to state and local governments. It does not
addressaddress cooperative agreements or contracts, grant programs that would make fundingcooperative agreements or contracts, grant programs that would make funding ~~available~~ available for redistricting or for redistricting or
publicpublic financing for political campaigns, or appropriations for elections that do not include federal candidates, suchfinancing for political campaigns, or appropriations for elections that do not include federal candidates, such as as
the funding Congressthe funding Congress has provided for plebiscites on Puerto Rico’s political status. For more on some of those issues, has provided for plebiscites on Puerto Rico’s political status. For more on some of those issues,
see CRS Insight IN11053, Redistricting Commissions for Congressional Districts, by Sarah J. Eckman; CRS Report Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1 1

link to page 7 link to page 7 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

administration-related grant programs Congress has authorized for states and localities to date and administration-related grant programs Congress has authorized for states and localities to date and
the funding it has appropriated for them. It then introduces some issues that may be of interest to the funding it has appropriated for them. It then introduces some issues that may be of interest to
Members who are considering whether or how to authorize new election administration-related Members who are considering whether or how to authorize new election administration-related
grant programs for states or localities or appropriate further funding for existing programs. grant programs for states or localities or appropriate further funding for existing programs. ~~This~~
That latter part of the report describes some of the reasons Members might support or oppose authorizing or part of the report describes some of the reasons Members might support or oppose authorizing or
funding elections grant programs—such as differing views about the proper role of the federal funding elections grant programs—such as differing views about the proper role of the federal
government in funding election administration—and some of the options available to Members government in funding election administration—and some of the options available to Members
who choose to propose new elections grant programs or funding. who choose to propose new elections grant programs or funding.
Overview of Grant Programs
Congress first authorized major election administration-related grant programs for states and Congress first authorized major election administration-related grant programs for states and
localities in response to issues with the conduct of the 2000 elections. The highest-profile localities in response to issues with the conduct of the 2000 elections. The highest-profile
problems in 2000 were in Florida, where issues with the vote count delayed the resolution of the problems in 2000 were in Florida, where issues with the vote count delayed the resolution of the
presidential election for weeks. However, subsequent hearings and investigations found that presidential election for weeks. However, subsequent hearings and investigations found that
election administration issues were widespread and that, given variations in state and local election administration issues were widespread and that, given variations in state and local
election administration policies and procedures, they varied across jurisdictions. Elections experts election administration policies and procedures, they varied across jurisdictions. Elections experts
reported that voter registration problems prevented many otherwise eligible voters from casting reported that voter registration problems prevented many otherwise eligible voters from casting
~~bal ots~~ballots, for example, and that the lever and punch card voting systems used by some jurisdictions , for example, and that the lever and punch card voting systems used by some jurisdictions
failed to record votes at disproportionately high rates.7 failed to record votes at disproportionately high rates.7
Congress responded to the issues with the administration of the 2000 elections—in the Help Congress responded to the issues with the administration of the 2000 elections—in the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA;America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145)—by setting new requirements for 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145)—by setting new requirements for
the administration of federal elections and creating the election administration-focused U.S. the administration of federal elections and creating the election administration-focused U.S.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC).8 It also responded by authorizing election Election Assistance Commission (EAC).8 It also responded by authorizing election
administration-related grant programs. administration-related grant programs.
The main grant programs Congress authorized in HAVA The main grant programs Congress authorized in HAVA were three programs to make funds were three programs to make funds
availableavailable to the 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, to the 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands (referred to hereinafter as the “HAVAand the U.S. Virgin Islands (referred to hereinafter as the “HAVA states”) for (1) making states”) for (1) making certain general general
improvements to improvements to ~~the~~election administration administration ~~of federal elections~~, (2) replacing lever and punch card voting , (2) replacing lever and punch card voting
systems, and (3) meeting the new requirements established by the act (for details of the formulas systems, and (3) meeting the new requirements established by the act (for details of the formulas
for for ~~al ocating~~allocating funding under these programs, se funding under these programs, see Table 1). HAVA. HAVA also authorized grant programs also authorized grant programs
to meet some of the other needs Congress identified in the aftermath of the 2000 elections: to meet some of the other needs Congress identified in the aftermath of the 2000 elections:
improving electoral access for individuals with disabilities, conducting election technology improving electoral access for individuals with disabilities, conducting election technology
research, encouraging youth voter participation, and facilitating poll worker recruitment.research, encouraging youth voter participation, and facilitating poll worker recruitment.

~~see CRS Insight IN11053, Redistricting Com m issions for Congressional Districts, by Sarah J. Eckman; CRS Report~~
RL33814, RL33814, Public Financing of Congressional ~~Cam paigns~~Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam, by R. Sam ~~Garrett~~ Garrett; and CRS; and CRS Report Report
R44721, R44721, Political Status of Puerto Rico: Brief Background and Recent ~~Developm ents~~Developments for Congress, by R. Sam, by R. Sam ~~Garrett .~~
~~7 See,~~ Garrett. 7 See, for example, U.S. Congress,for example, U.S. Congress, ~~House~~ Committee on House Administration, Committee on House Administration, Federal Election Reform , hearing, , hearing,
107th Cong., 1st sess., May 10, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003); U.S. Congress,107th Cong., 1st sess., May 10, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003); U.S. Congress, Senate Senate ~~Commit tee~~Committee on Rules and on Rules and
Administration, Administration, Election Reform ~~: Volum e~~: Volume 1, hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess.,, hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-1036 March 14, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-1036
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2003); R. Michael Alvarez et al., (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003); R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, Caltech/MIT, Caltech/MIT Voting Voting
~~T echnology~~Technology Project, July 2001, at Project, July 2001, at https://vote.caltech.edu/reports/1; https://vote.caltech.edu/reports/1; ~~T he~~The National Commission on Federal Election National Commission on Federal Election
Reform, Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process,, ~~August~~ August 2001, at https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp-2001, at https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/NCFER_2001.pdf; and GAO,content/uploads/2012/10/NCFER_2001.pdf; and GAO, Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the
Nation, GAO-02-3, October 2001, at https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d023.pdf. , GAO-02-3, October 2001, at https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d023.pdf.
8 For more on the election administration requirements established by HAVA8 For more on the election administration requirements established by HAVA and on the EAC, respectively, see CRS and on the EAC, respectively, see CRS
Report Report ~~RS20898~~R46949, , The Help ~~Am erica Vote Act and Election Adm inistration: Overview and Selected Issues for the 2016~~
~~Election, by Arthur L. Burris and Eric A. Fischer; and CRS~~ America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA): Overview and Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy, by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS Report R45770, Report R45770, The U.S. Election Assistance ~~Com m ission:~~
~~Overview~~ Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton. , by Karen L. Shanton.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2 2

link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 16 8 link to page 16
Table 1. Selected Details of HAVA’s Three Main Grant Programs
~~Guaranteed Minimum~~
~~Match~~
~~Grant Program~~
~~Deadline~~
~~Grant Awards~~
~~Requirement~~
~~Formula for Allocating Grant Awardsa~~
~~Minimum + (Aggregate amount made x Recipient’s voting-age~~
~~payment available for grant awards population (VAP)b~~
~~General improvements~~
~~grant program~~
—
~~For both grant programs~~
—
~~amount c under this section - Total—————————~~
~~combined:~~
~~of al minimum payment Total VAP of al eligible~~
50 states and DC: $5 mil ion
~~amounts) recipientsb~~
Eligible territories: $1 mil ion
~~Lever and punch card~~
~~November 2004~~
~~Number of precincts that used lever or punch card voting x $4,000~~
~~voting system replacement~~
~~regular federal~~
—
~~grant program~~
~~general electiond~~
~~systems in the November 2000 regular federal general election~~
50 states and DC: 0.5% of
~~the total appropriated for~~
~~Total appropriated for the x Recipient’s VAPb~~
~~Requirements payments~~
~~the program for the year~~
~~program for the year————————-—————~~
~~program~~
—
~~5%e~~
Eligible territories: 0.1% of
~~the total appropriated for~~
~~Total VAP of al eligible recipientsc~~
~~the program for the year~~
Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code.
Notes: The information in this table is as described in the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Some funds appropriated under the general improvements grant
~~program have been subject to different conditions. For more on those conditions, see the “General Improvements Grant Program” section of this report and Table 5.~~
~~a. HAVA directs the agencies charged with administering these grant programs to make pro rata reductions to these al ocations as necessary to meet the guaranteed~~
~~minimums described in the “Guaranteed Minimum Grant Awards” column of this table (52 U.S.C. §§20903, 21002).~~
~~b. The voting-age population (VAP) figures to be used in these calculations are the VAPs as reported in the most recent decennial census (52 U.S.C. §§20901, 21002).~~
~~c. The minimum payment amounts to be used in this calculation are based on the aggregate amount of funding made available for th e general improvements grant~~
~~program: 0.5% of the aggregate amount for each of the 50 states and DC and 0.1% for each eligible territory (52 U.S.C. §20901).~~
~~d. Recipients of lever and punch card voting system replacement funding had to either replace al of their lever and punch card voting systems by this deadline, obtain a~~
~~waiver to defer the deadline, or return some of the federal funds they received (52 U.S.C. §20902). Returned funds were to be redistributed by the U.S. Election~~
~~Assistance Commission (EAC) as requirements payments (52 U.S.C. §20904).~~
~~e. HAVA specifies that recipients must appropriate “funds for carrying out the activities for which the requirements payment is made in an amount equal to 5 percent~~
~~of the total amount to be spent for such activities (taking into account the requirements payment and the amount spent by the [recipient]).” According to the EAC,~~
~~this match requirement has been waived for some eligible territories. EAC, State Governments’ Use of Help America Vote Act Funds 2007, July 2008, pp. 22-23, at~~
~~https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/EAC_R eport_to_Congress_on_State_Expenditures_of_HAVA_Funds_2007.pdf; and EAC,~~ ~~Election Assistance~~
~~Commission FY2008/2009/2010/2011 Requirements Payment Schedule~~, Grant Program Deadline Guaranteed Minimum Match Formula for Allocating Grant Awardsa Grant Awards Requirement For this and the below (Aggregate amount made Recipient’s voting-age grant program combined: population (VAP)c General improvements Minimum available for grant awards 50 states and DC: $5 mil ion grant program — — payment + under this section - Total of x ÷ Eligible territories: $1 mil ion amountb all minimum payment Total VAP of all amounts) eligible recipientsc For this and the above Lever and punch card November 2004 grant program combined: Number of precincts that used lever or voting system replacement regular federal 50 states and DC: $5 mil ion — punch card voting systems in the November x $4,000 grant program general electiond 2000 regular federal general election Eligible territories: $1 mil ion 50 states and DC: 0.5% of the total appropriated for Recipient’s VAPc Requirements payments the program for the year Total appropriated for the program for the ÷ program — 5%e Eligible territories: 0.1% of year x Total VAP of all the total appropriated for eligible recipientsc the program for the year Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code. Notes: The information in this table is as described in the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Some funds appropriated under the general improvements grant program have been subject to different conditions. For more on those conditions, see the “General Improvements Grant Program” section of this report and Table 5. a. HAVA directs the agencies charged with administering these grant programs to make pro rata reductions to these allocations as necessary to meet the guaranteed minimums described in the “Guaranteed Minimum Grant Awards” column of this table (52 U.S.C. §§20903, 21002). b. The minimum payment amounts to be used in this calculation are based on the aggregate amount of funding made available for the general improvements grant program: 0.5% of the aggregate amount for each of the 50 states and DC and 0.1% for each eligible territory (52 U.S.C. §20901). c. The voting-age population (VAP) figures to be used in these calculations are the VAPs as reported in the most recent decennial census (52 U.S.C. §§20901, 21002). d. Recipients of lever and punch card voting system replacement funding had to either replace all of their lever and punch card voting systems by this deadline, obtain a waiver to defer the deadline, or return some of the federal funds they received (52 U.S.C. §20902). Returned funds were to be redistributed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) as requirements payments (52 U.S.C. §20904). e. HAVA specifies that recipients must appropriate “funds for carrying out the activities for which the requirements payment is made in an amount equal to 5 percent of the total amount to be spent for such activities (taking into account the requirements payment and the amount spent by the [recipient]).” According to the EAC, this match requirement has been waived for some eligible territories. EAC, State Governments’ Use of Help America Vote Act Funds 2007, July 2008, pp. 22-23, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/EAC_Report_to_Congress_on_State_Expenditures_of_HAVA_Funds_2007.pdf; and EAC, Election Assistance Commission FY2008/2009/2010/2011 Requirements Payment Schedule, at https://web.archive.org/web/20191227211147/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/4699.PDF.at https://web.archive.org/web/20191227211147/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/4699.PDF.
CRS-3 CRS-3

link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 7 link to page 12 link to page 16 link to page 12 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 12 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 7 link to page 12 link to page 16 link to page 12 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 12 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Only a few election administration- Only a few election administration-~~related~~specific grant programs—aimed at reimbursing certain voting grant programs—aimed at reimbursing certain voting
system replacement costs that were not covered by HAVA’s lever and punch card voting system system replacement costs that were not covered by HAVA’s lever and punch card voting system
replacement grant program, enhancing the collection of election data, and improving electoral replacement grant program, enhancing the collection of election data, and improving electoral
access for military and overseas voters—have been authorized for states and localities since access for military and overseas voters—have been authorized for states and localities since
HAVA.HAVA. Most of the funding Congress has made availableMost of the funding Congress has made available to states and localities for election to states and localities for election
administration-related purposes has, instead, been appropriated under grant programs authorized administration-related purposes has, instead, been appropriated under grant programs authorized
by that act (by that act (seesee Table 2 andand Table 3 for appropriations for each grant program by fiscal year). for appropriations for each grant program by fiscal year).
Since HAVA Since HAVA was enacted in 2002, Congress has appropriated funding regularly for one or both of was enacted in 2002, Congress has appropriated funding regularly for one or both of
the act’s disability access grant programs and more intermittently for other elections-related the act’s disability access grant programs and more intermittently for other elections-related
purposes. The latter funding includes, most recently, funding for FY2018purposes. The latter funding includes, most recently, funding for FY2018, FY2020, and FY2022. The first of those recent rounds of HAVA funding—provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141)—followed reports of attempted interference in the 2016 elections. Ongoing security concerns and other challenges for election administration, such as ~~and FY2020. Attempted~~
~~interference in elections emerged as a significant issue in the 2016 election cycle, and the 2020~~
~~cycle saw~~ the onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic the onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic~~. Congress responded~~
~~to those two developments—and the chal enges each introduced for election administration—by~~
~~including~~, prompted inclusion of further funding for funding for ~~HAVA~~ HAVA grants in the grants in the ~~FY2018 and FY2020~~FY2020 and FY2022 regular appropriations acts (P.L. regular appropriations acts (P.L.
~~115-141~~116-93 and P.L. and P.L. ~~116-93~~117-103) and in supplemental appropriations for FY2020 (P.L. 116-136)) and in supplemental appropriations for FY2020 (P.L. 116-136),
~~respectively~~. .
The following subsections provide broad overviews of the election administration-related grant The following subsections provide broad overviews of the election administration-related grant
programs Congress has authorized for states and localities to date. For more detailed information programs Congress has authorized for states and localities to date. For more detailed information
about the grant programs, about the grant programs, seesee Table 1, Table 4, a and Table 5.
General Improvements Grant Program
The issues with the administration of the 2000 elections varied by jurisdiction. Poll worker The issues with the administration of the 2000 elections varied by jurisdiction. Poll worker
shortages were a particular issue in some localities, for example, while unreliableshortages were a particular issue in some localities, for example, while unreliable voting voting
machines caused many of the problems in others.9 Congress authorized this machines caused many of the problems in others.9 Congress authorized this general
improvements grant program to help each HAVA to help each HAVA state make the improvements to its state make the improvements to its ~~federal~~
~~election~~ election administration processes that it considered most pressing.10 HAVA prohibited use of the administration processes that it considered most pressing.10 HAVA prohibited use of the
grant funds for legal judgments and most litigation-relatedgrant funds for legal judgments and most litigation-related ~~costs—and included a list of specific~~
~~examples of permissible uses of funds—~~ costs, but otherwise made the funding available for general but otherwise made the funding available for general
improvements to the administration of federal elections improvements to the administration of federal elections and other specified purposes (se(see Table 4 for the list of for the list of ~~specific~~
permissible uses set out in HAVApermissible uses set out in HAVA and other details of this grant program). and other details of this grant program).
Congress appropriated funding for this grant program the first fiscal year after HAVA Congress appropriated funding for this grant program the first fiscal year after HAVA was enacted was enacted
(FY2003; (FY2003; seesee Table 2, Table 3, andand Table 4 for details of authorized and appropriated funding for for details of authorized and appropriated funding for
this and other elections grant programs). It has also provided further funding in more recent yearsthis and other elections grant programs). It has also provided further funding in more recent years.
~~Following reports of attempted interference in the 2016 elections, Congress included $380~~
~~mil ion~~ , in response to developments such as attempted interference in elections and the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress included $380 million for funding authorized by these provisions of HAVA in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018~~, and~~; $425 $425 ~~mil ion~~million in the Consolidated in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2020Appropriations Act, 2020~~, for funding authorized by these provisions of HAVA. Congress~~
~~provided another $400 mil ion for such funding in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the~~
; $400 million in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act; and $75 million in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. 9 See, ~~(CARES) Act.~~

~~9 See,~~ for example, GAO, for example, GAO, Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation ; and R. Michael ; and R. Michael
Alvarez et al., Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be. .
10 10 ~~T he~~The committee report for the House-passed version of HAVA committee report for the House-passed version of HAVA ~~said~~ said that a similar general purpose grant program it that a similar general purpose grant program it
wouldwould have authorized wouldhave authorized would “give states the opportunity to direct fund payments to the areas where the resources are “give states the opportunity to direct fund payments to the areas where the resources are
most needed. Jurisdictionsmost needed. Jurisdictions that want to modernize their voting equipment can use election fund payments for that that want to modernize their voting equipment can use election fund payments for that
purpose. Others may have more pressingpurpose. Others may have more pressing needs for modernized statewide voter registration systems, or better needs for modernized statewide voter registration systems, or better
equipment and training of voters and poll workers.” U.S.equipment and training of voters and poll workers.” U.S. Congress, Congress, ~~House~~ Committee on House Administration, Committee on House Administration, Help
~~Am erica~~America Vote Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 3295, 107th Cong., 1st sess., December 10, 2001, H.Rept. 107-329 , report to accompany H.R. 3295, 107th Cong., 1st sess., December 10, 2001, H.Rept. 107-329
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 34. (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 34.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
4 4

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10
Table 2. Appropriations for Election Administration-Related Grant Programs for States and Localities, FY2003-FY2011
($, rounded in millions)
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
General General ~~improvements~~ improvements grant program grant program
and 650.0a

650.0a
~~Lever~~ Lever and punch card voting system replacementand punch card voting system replacement grant ~~grant~~

program program
Voting system replacement Voting system replacement ~~reimbursement~~ reimbursement grant program grant program
15.0

Requirements Requirements payments program payments program
830.0
1500..0b

115.0
100.0
70.0
c
Pol ing place accessibility Pol ing place accessibility grant program grant program
13.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
d
12.4
12.2
12.2
d
Protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant program Protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant program
2.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
d
5.4
5.3
5.3
d
Voting technology improvements Voting technology improvements ~~research~~ research grant program grant program

5.0
3.0

Voting technology pilot program Voting technology pilot program grant program grant program

1.0
2.0

Mock elections Mock elections grant program grant program

0.2
0.2

0.2
0.3
0.3

Help America Help America Vote Col egeVote Col ege ~~Progra~~me Programe
1.5
0.8
0.2
f

0.8
0.8
0.8

Election data Election data ~~col ection~~collection grant program grant program

10.0

Source: CRS, based on review of appropriations measures. CRS, based on review of appropriations measures.
Notes: Figures do not account for rescissions Figures do not account for rescissions or sequestration reductions.or sequestration reductions. Amounts in Amounts in bold are fromare from the text of the corresponding appropriations act, and amounts in the text of the corresponding appropriations act, and amounts in
italics are from the accompanying report language. Congress also included $400 mil ion are from the accompanying report language. Congress also included $400 mil ion for election administrationfor election administration ~~reform~~ reform in P.L. 107-206, but the funding was not in P.L. 107-206, but the funding was not
utilized. The UOCAVA electionutilized. The UOCAVA election technology pilot program grant program is not included in this table because funding for that program appears to have cometechnology pilot program grant program is not included in this table because funding for that program appears to have come from from
general researchgeneral research funding provided to the U.S. Department of Defensefunding provided to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) rather than appropriations that (DOD) rather than appropriations that ~~specifical y reference~~ specifically reference the pilot program grant program. the pilot program grant program.
DOD reported awarding $25.4 mil ionDOD reported awarding $25.4 mil ion for the grants in 2011 and 2012 and $10.5 mil ionfor the grants in 2011 and 2012 and $10.5 mil ion in 2013. DOD Office of Inspector General,in 2013. DOD Office of Inspector General, Assessment of Electronic Absentee
System for Elections (EASE) Grants, June 30, 2015, p. 4, at https://media.defense.gov/2015/Jun/30/2001713517/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2015-135.pdf; and Federal Voting Assistance , June 30, 2015, p. 4, at https://media.defense.gov/2015/Jun/30/2001713517/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2015-135.pdf; and Federal Voting Assistance
Program,Program, “Grant Programs,” at https://www.fvap.gov/eo/grants. “Grant Programs,” at https://www.fvap.gov/eo/grants.
a. The FY2003 appropriations resolutiona. The FY2003 appropriations resolution (P.L. 108-7) did not specify a distribution of appropriations between these two grant programs.(P.L. 108-7) did not specify a distribution of appropriations between these two grant programs. It indicated that some of the It indicated that some of the
funding—not to exceed $500,000—was to be available to the U.S. General funding—not to exceed $500,000—was to be available to the U.S. General ~~Services Administration~~ Services Administration (GSA) for expenses associated with administering(GSA) for expenses associated with administering the funds. the funds.
b. Report language accompanying the FY2004 appropriations act (H.Rept. 108-401; P.L. 108-199) indicated that $750,000 of this funding was for the Help America b. Report language accompanying the FY2004 appropriations act (H.Rept. 108-401; P.L. 108-199) indicated that $750,000 of this funding was for the Help America
Vote Foundation, $750,000 was for the Help America Vote Foundation, $750,000 was for the Help America Vote Col egeVote Col ege Program, and $200,000 was for the National Student Parent Mock ElectionProgram, and $200,000 was for the National Student Parent Mock Election . .
c. HAVA required states that had not replaced c. HAVA required states that had not replaced al all of their lever and punch card voting systemsof their lever and punch card voting systems by the relevant deadline to return some of the funds they received by the relevant deadline to return some of the funds they received
under under ~~this~~the lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program and directed the U.S. Election Assistance Commission grant program and directed the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to redistribute(EAC) to redistribute the returned funds as the returned funds as ~~req uirements~~ requirements payments. The EAC made payments. The EAC made
~~some~~ some funding for requirementsfunding for requirements payments available for FY2011 from returned funds. EAC, payments available for FY2011 from returned funds. EAC, Memorandum ~~Re: 2011 Requirements Payments Disbursements~~~~, May 13, 2014,~~
~~at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/Instructions_for_R equesting_FY_2011_Requirements_Payments_Memo.2014.pdf.~~
Re: 2011 CRS-5 CRS-5

link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page ~~8 link to page 16~~ 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 8 link to page 16 Requirements Payments Disbursements, May 13, 2014, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/Instructions_for_Requesting_FY_2011_Requirements_Payments_Memo.2014.pdf.
d. Appropriations for FY2007 and FY2011 for the HAVA grant programs administered d. Appropriations for FY2007 and FY2011 for the HAVA grant programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human by the U.S. Department of Health and Human ~~Serv ices~~ Services (HHS) were included in (HHS) were included in
general budget authority for the Administration general budget authority for the Administration for Children and Families’for Children and Families’ Children and FamiliesChildren and Families ~~Services~~ Services programs.programs. Information about the funding HHS reported Information about the funding HHS reported
awarding for grants for those fiscal years is available in congressionalawarding for grants for those fiscal years is available in congressional budget justifications frombudget justifications from the Administrationthe Administration for Children and Families.for Children and Families. ~~Administration~~ Administration for for
Children and Families,Children and Families, Archived Congressional Budget Justifications FY 2012-2004, June 29, 2012, at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/archive/olab/resource/archived-, June 29, 2012, at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/archive/olab/resource/archived-
congressional-budget-justifications-fy-2012-2004. congressional-budget-justifications-fy-2012-2004.
e. The amounts listed here are for the Help America e. The amounts listed here are for the Help America Vote Col egeVote Col ege Program as a whole.Program as a whole. Grant-making is one of a number of activities,Grant-making is one of a number of activities, including developing materials including developing materials
and sponsoring seminars and sponsoring seminars and workshops, that HAVAand workshops, that HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct as part of the program (52 U.S.C.authorizes the EAC to conduct as part of the program (52 U.S.C. §21122). §21122).
f. f.
The joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2006 appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-307; P.L. 109-115) stated that the conferees The joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2006 appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-307; P.L. 109-115) stated that the conferees encouraged the EAC to encouraged the EAC to
apply $250,000 of the funding it receivedapply $250,000 of the funding it received for Salariesfor Salaries and Expenses to the Help Americaand Expenses to the Help America Vote Col egeVote Col ege Program. Program.

Table 3. Appropriations for Election Administration-Related Grant Programs for States and Localities, FY2012-~~FY2020~~FY2022
($, rounded in millions)
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
~~General improvements grant progra~~maFY21 FY22 General improvements grant programa

380.0

825..0b
75.0 Pol ing place accessibilityPol ing place accessibility grant program grant program

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c c Protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant program Protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant program
5.2
5.2
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c c Source: CRS, based on review of appropriations measures. CRS, based on review of appropriations measures.
Notes: Figures do not account for rescissions Figures do not account for rescissions or sequestration reductions. The UOCAVAor sequestration reductions. The UOCAVA election technology pilot program grant program is not included in this table election technology pilot program grant program is not included in this table
because funding for that program appears to have come frombecause funding for that program appears to have come from general research funding provided to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) rather than appropriations general research funding provided to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) rather than appropriations
that that ~~specifical y reference~~ specifically reference the pilot program grant program.the pilot program grant program. DOD reported awarding $25.4 mil ionDOD reported awarding $25.4 mil ion for the grants in 2011 and 2012 and $10.5 mil ionfor the grants in 2011 and 2012 and $10.5 mil ion in 2013. DOD in 2013. DOD
Office of Inspector General,Office of Inspector General, Assessment of Electronic Absentee System for Elections (EASE) Grants, June 30, 2015, p. 4, at https://media.defense.gov/2015/Jun/30/2001713517/-, June 30, 2015, p. 4, at https://media.defense.gov/2015/Jun/30/2001713517/-
1/-1/1/DODIG-2015-135.pdf; and Federal Voting Assistance1/-1/1/DODIG-2015-135.pdf; and Federal Voting Assistance Program, “Grant Programs,”Program, “Grant Programs,” at https://www.fvap.gov/eo/grants. at https://www.fvap.gov/eo/grants.
a. The $380 mil iona. The $380 mil ion appropriated under this program for FY2018 was provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (appropriated under this program for FY2018 was provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141), and $425 mil ionP.L. 115-141), and $425 mil ion of the of the
$825 mil ion $825 mil ion appropriated for FY2020 was provided by the Consolidated Appropriationsappropriated for FY2020 was provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-93). Explanatory statements accompanying those two P.L. 116-93). Explanatory statements accompanying those two
appropriations acts listedappropriations acts listed some electionsome election security-specific purposes for which the funds may be used. security-specific purposes for which the funds may be used.
b. This figure includes $425 mil ion b. This figure includes $425 mil ion ~~from~~ from the Consolidated Appropriationsthe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and $400 mil ionAct, 2020, and $400 mil ion ~~from~~ from the CARES Act (the CARES Act ( P.L. 116-136). The CARES Act restricted P.L. 116-136). The CARES Act restricted
use of its HAVA funds to preventing, preparing for, and responding to coronavirus, use of its HAVA funds to preventing, preparing for, and responding to coronavirus, ~~domestical y and international y, in the 2 020~~domestically and internationally, in the 2020 federal election cycle. federal election cycle. For For
information about other differences between the general improvementsinformation about other differences between the general improvements grant program as authorized by HAVA and the FY2018, grant program as authorized by HAVA and the FY2018, ~~FY20 20~~FY2020, FY2022, and CARES Act funds, see , and CARES Act funds, see
the the “General Improvements Grant Program” ~~section~~ section of this report an of this report and Table 5.
c. Starting with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), appropriations for new funding for HAVA grant programs administered c. Starting with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), appropriations for new funding for HAVA grant programs administered by the U.S. by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been included in general budget authority for the Administration(HHS) have been included in general budget authority for the Administration for Community Living’sfor Community Living’s Aging and Disability Aging and Disability
ServicesServices programs.programs. The appropriations acts reference both the pol ing place accessibilityThe appropriations acts reference both the pol ing place accessibility grant program and the P&A systemgrant program and the P&A system grant program,grant program, but, according to HHS, but, according to HHS,
only the P&A system grant program has been funded during that period. The specific totals HHS has reported awarding for P&A systemonly the P&A system grant program has been funded during that period. The specific totals HHS has reported awarding for P&A system grants each year are grants each year are
available from the Administrationavailable from the Administration for Community Living at https://acl.gov/about-acl/help-america-vote-act-hava.for Community Living at https://acl.gov/about-acl/help-america-vote-act-hava.
CRS-6 CRS-6

link to page 16 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 16 link to page 7 link to page 7 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

The appropriations acts that provided those more recent funds included substantive provisions The appropriations acts that provided those more recent funds included substantive provisions
that modified or supplemented some of the parameters of the grant program, such as by addingthat modified or supplemented some of the parameters of the grant program, such as by adding a
match match ~~requirement~~requirements. Explanatory statements accompanying the . Explanatory statements accompanying the ~~two~~FY2018 and FY2020 regular appropriations acts regular appropriations acts
also provided more information about Congress’s intentions for the funding. For details of also provided more information about Congress’s intentions for the funding. For details of
differences between the general improvements grant program as authorized by differences between the general improvements grant program as authorized by ~~HAVA~~ HAVA and the and the
FY2018, FY2020, FY2018, FY2020, FY2022, and CARES Act funds, and CARES Act funds, seesee Table 5.
Voting System Replacement Grant Programs
The punch card voting systems some jurisdictions used in 2000 contributed to the problems with The punch card voting systems some jurisdictions used in 2000 contributed to the problems with
the Florida vote count. Voters were supposed to indicate their preferences on punch card voting the Florida vote count. Voters were supposed to indicate their preferences on punch card voting
machines by punching out pieces of card—known as “chads”—next to their selections, but issues machines by punching out pieces of card—known as “chads”—next to their selections, but issues
with incompletely punched chads made it difficult to discern some voters’ intentions.11 Problems with incompletely punched chads made it difficult to discern some voters’ intentions.11 Problems
with the lever voting machines some jurisdictions used in 2000, such as the potential for jammed with the lever voting machines some jurisdictions used in 2000, such as the potential for jammed
levers and the lack of a paper trail that might be used to recover votes cast on a jammed machine, levers and the lack of a paper trail that might be used to recover votes cast on a jammed machine,
were also reported in election postmortems.12 Congress authorized HAVA’s were also reported in election postmortems.12 Congress authorized HAVA’s lever and punch card
voting system replacement grant program to help HAVA to help HAVA states replace both types of system. states replace both types of system.
Some states that used lever Some states that used lever ~~and~~or punch card voting systems identified the issues with those punch card voting systems identified the issues with those
systems early and started replacing them before the November 2000 elections. The earliest of systems early and started replacing them before the November 2000 elections. The earliest of
those adopters were not eligible for HAVA’sthose adopters were not eligible for HAVA’s lever and punch card voting system replacement lever and punch card voting system replacement
grant program because they were no longer using lever or punch card systems by November 2000 grant program because they were no longer using lever or punch card systems by November 2000
and awards under the program were based on the number of precincts that used such systems in and awards under the program were based on the number of precincts that used such systems in
the November 2000 general election (sethe November 2000 general election (see Table 1 for more on the formula used to for more on the formula used to ~~al ocate~~allocate these these
funds). To avoid discouraging states from taking early action to improve their election systemsfunds). To avoid discouraging states from taking early action to improve their election systems in the future, ,
Congress authorized and funded a Congress authorized and funded a voting system replacement reimbursement grant program in the in the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7).13 Grants awarded under that program, Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7).13 Grants awarded under that program,
which were capped at $4,000 per precinct and $15 which were capped at $4,000 per precinct and $15 ~~mil ion~~million for the program as a whole, were for the program as a whole, were
designed to reimburse HAVAdesigned to reimburse HAVA states for costs they incurred in obtaining certain types of voting states for costs they incurred in obtaining certain types of voting
equipment prior to the November 2000 general election. equipment prior to the November 2000 general election.
Requirements Payments Program
Meeting the election administration requirements established by HAVAMeeting the election administration requirements established by HAVA involved a significant involved a significant
financial investment for many HAVAfinancial investment for many HAVA states, and Congress authorized a states, and Congress authorized a requirements payments
program primarily to help cover those costs.14 Recipients could also use requirements payments primarily to help cover those costs.14 Recipients could also use requirements payments
for more general election administration improvements if they either had already met the HAVA for more general election administration improvements if they either had already met the HAVA
requirements or limited their spending on such improvements to the minimum amount they were requirements or limited their spending on such improvements to the minimum amount they were
guaranteed for requirements payments for a given fiscal year (seguaranteed for requirements payments for a given fiscal year (see Table 1 for more on guaranteed for more on guaranteed
minimums). As with HAVA’sminimums). As with HAVA’s general improvements grant program, recipients of requirements general improvements grant program, recipients of requirements
payments were prohibited from applying them to legal judgments or most litigation-related costs.payments were prohibited from applying them to legal judgments or most litigation-related costs.

11 Brooks Jackson, “Punch-Card Ballot Notorious for Inaccuracies,” 11 Brooks Jackson, “Punch-Card Ballot Notorious for Inaccuracies,” CNN,, November 15, 2000. November 15, 2000.
12 See,12 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be. .
13 For a sample expression of this concern, see Rep. Ernest Istook, “Help America Vote Act of 2001,” remarks in the 13 For a sample expression of this concern, see Rep. Ernest Istook, “Help America Vote Act of 2001,” remarks in the
House, House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 147, part 172 (December 12, 2001), p. H9293., daily edition, vol. 147, part 172 (December 12, 2001), p. H9293.
~~14 T he~~ 14 The report uses “requirements payments” when referring to this program because report uses “requirements payments” when referring to this program because that is the terminology in statute that is the terminology in statute
and in general use in elections contexts. As noted above, however, GAOand in general use in elections contexts. As noted above, however, GAO determined that awardsdetermined that awards under this program under this program
count as grants. GAO,count as grants. GAO, Election Assistance ~~Com m ission—Paym ents~~ Commission—Payments to States under the Help ~~Am erica Vote~~ America Vote Act of 2002 , ,
decision, May 9, 2017, at https://www.gao.gov/products/b-328615. decision, May 9, 2017, at https://www.gao.gov/products/b-328615.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
7 7

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14
Table 4. Election Administration-Related Grant Programs for States or Localities, as Authorized
Grant Program
Authorized Amountsa
Administering ~~Department~~ Department or Agency
Permissible Uses of Funds
UOCAVA election UOCAVA election
Such sums Such sums as necessary as necessary
U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Department of Defense (DOD(DOD)b
Conducting pilot programs Conducting pilot programs to test electionto test election technology technology
technology pilot program technology pilot program
for individuals covered for individuals covered by the Uniformedby the Uniformed and Overseas and Overseas
grant program grant program
Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA)
(52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. §20311) §20311)
General General ~~improvements~~ improvements grant grant
$325.0 mil ion $325.0 mil ion
U.S. Election Assistance Commission U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) ~~(EAC)c~~ Complying with the election administration Complying with the election administration
program program
~~requirements~~ U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)c requirements established by the Help Americaestablished by the Help America Vote Vote
(52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-§§20901, 20903-
Act of 2002 (HAVA) Act of 2002 (HAVA)
20906) 20906)
Improving the administration of federal elections Improving the administration of federal elections
Educating voters about voting procedures, rights, and Educating voters about voting procedures, rights, and
technology technology
Training electionTraining election officials, pol workers,officials, pol workers, and election and election
volunteers volunteers
Developing the state plan for use of requirements Developing the state plan for use of requirements
payments payments
Improving, acquiring, leasing, modifying, or replacing Improving, acquiring, leasing, modifying, or replacing
voting systemsvoting systems and technology and vote casting and and technology and vote casting and
counting methods counting methods
Improving the accessibilityImproving the accessibility and quantity of pol ing and quantity of pol ing
places, including providing access for individuals with places, including providing access for individuals with
disabilitiesdisabilities and assistance to Native Americans,and assistance to Native Americans, Alaska Alaska
Native citizens, and individuals with limitedNative citizens, and individuals with limited English English
proficiency proficiency
Setting up Setting up ~~tol~~ toll-free-free hotlines for voters to report hotlines for voters to report
possiblepossible voting fraud and rights violations,voting fraud and rights violations, get general get general
information about elections,information about elections, and access information and access information
about their voter registration status, pol ing place about their voter registration status, pol ing place
locations, and other relevant informatiolocations, and other relevant informationd
Lever Lever and punch card voting and punch card voting
$325.0 mil ion $325.0 mil ion
EACcEAC
Replacing lever Replacing lever or punch card voting systemsor punch card voting systems in in
system system replacement grant replacement grant
~~precincts that used lever or punch card voting systems~~
~~program~~
~~to administer the~~ GSAc precincts that used such systems to administer the program November 2000 regular federal November 2000 regular federal
general election (52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906) §§20902-20906)
~~general election~~
CRS-8 CRS-8

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14
Grant Program
Authorized Amountsa
Administering ~~Department~~ Department or Agency
Permissible Uses of Funds
Voting system replacement Voting system replacement
$15.0 mil ion $15.0 mil ion
~~U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)~~GSA
Being reimbursed Being reimbursed for costs incurred in obtaining optical for costs incurred in obtaining optical
reimbursement reimbursement grant grant
scan or electronic voting equipment scan or electronic voting equipment ~~used to administer~~
~~program~~
~~the most recent regular federal general election~~
~~(P.L. 108-7)~~
~~Election data col ection~~for administration program of federal elections prior to the November 2000 (P.L. 108-7) regular federal general election Election data collection grant grant
$10.0 mil ion $10.0 mil ion
EAC EAC
Improving the col ection of data related to the Improving the col ection of data related to the
program program
November November 2008 regular federal general2008 regular federal general election election
(52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. $20981 note) $20981 note)
Requirements Requirements payments payments
FY2003: $1.4 bil ion FY2003: $1.4 bil ion
~~EAC~~EACc
Complying with election administration Complying with election administration requirements requirements
program program
FY2004: $1.0 bil ion FY2004: $1.0 bil ion
established by HAVA or the Military and Overseas established by HAVA or the Military and Overseas
(52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008) §§21001-21008)
Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 200 Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009d,f
FY2005: $600.0 mil ion FY2005: $600.0 mil ion
FY2010 and subsequent fiscal FY2010 and subsequent fiscal
years: Such sums as necessaryears: Such sums as necessarye
Pol ing place accessibility Pol ing place accessibility
FY2003: $50.0 mil ion FY2003: $50.0 mil ion
U.S. Department of Health and Human U.S. Department of Health and Human
Making pol ing places accessible Making pol ing places accessible to individuals with to individuals with
grant program grant program
FY2004: $25.0 mil ion FY2004: $25.0 mil ion
Services Services (HHS(HHS)g
disabilities disabilities in a manner that providesin a manner that provides the same the same
(52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. §§21021-21025) §§21021-21025)
opportunity for access and participation as available to opportunity for access and participation as available to
FY2005: $25.0 mil ion FY2005: $25.0 mil ion
other voters other voters
Providing individuals with disabilitiesProviding individuals with disabilities with information with information
about the accessibilityabout the accessibility of pol ing places of pol ing places
Voting technology Voting technology
FY2003: $20.0 mil ion FY2003: $20.0 mil ion
EAC EAC
Conducting research to improve Conducting research to improve the quality, reliability, the quality, reliability,
improvements improvements research grant research grant
accuracy, accessibility, accuracy, accessibility, affordability, and security of affordability, and security of
program program
voting equipment, election systems, voting equipment, election systems, and voting and voting
(52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043) §§21041-21043)
technology technology
Voting technology pilot Voting technology pilot
FY2003: $10.0 mil ion FY2003: $10.0 mil ion
EAC EAC
Conducting pilot programs Conducting pilot programs to test new voting to test new voting
program grant program program grant program
technologies and implement technologies and implement them on a trial basis them on a trial basis
(52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053) §§21051-21053)
Protection and advocacy Protection and advocacy
FY2003: $10.0 mil ion FY2003: $10.0 mil ion
HHSg
Ensuring ful participation in the electoral Ensuring ful participation in the electoral ~~process~~ process for for
(P&A) system grant program (P&A) system grant program
FY2004: $10.0 mil ion FY2004: $10.0 mil ion
individuals with individuals with ~~disabilitie~~sidisabilitiesi
(52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062) §§21061-21062)
FY2005: $10.0 mil ion FY2005: $10.0 mil ion
FY2006: $10.0 mil ion FY2006: $10.0 mil ion
Subsequent fiscal years:Subsequent fiscal years: Such Such
sums as necessarsums as necessaryh
CRS-9 CRS-9

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 11 link to page 7 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 11 link to page 7
Grant Program
Authorized Amountsa
Administering ~~Department~~ Department or Agency
Permissible Uses of Funds
Mock elections Mock elections grant grant
FY2003: $200,000 FY2003: $200,000
EAC EAC
Conducting voter education activities Conducting voter education activities for students and for students and
program program
Subsequent six fiscal years: Subsequent six fiscal years:
their parents their parents
(52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. §§21071-21072) §§21071-21072)
Such sums Such sums as necessary as necessary
Help America Help America Vote Col ege Vote Col ege
FY2003: $5.0 mil ion FY2003: $5.0 mil ion
EAC EAC
Encouraging students at institutions of higher education Encouraging students at institutions of higher education
Program Program
~~Succeeding~~Subsequent fiscal years: fiscal years: Such Such
to serve to serve as pol workersas pol workers and state and local election and state and local election
(52 U.S.C. (52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123) §§21121-21123)
sums as necessar sums as necessaryj
officials to use their services officials to use their services
Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S. CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code. Code.
Notes:
a. Authorized amounts are listeda. Authorized amounts are listed here as they are presented in statutory language. here as they are presented in statutory language.
b. The MOVE Act assigned responsibilityb. The MOVE Act assigned responsibility for administeringfor administering this grant program to the presidentialthis grant program to the presidential designee designated under designee designated under ~~UOCAV A~~UOCAVA. Executive Order. Executive Order 12642 12642
identified the presidential designee identified the presidential designee for UOCAVA as the Secretary of Defense,for UOCAVA as the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretaryand the Secretary has delegated UOCAVA responsibilitieshas delegated UOCAVA responsibilities to the DOD’sto the DOD’s Federal Federal
Voting Assistance ProgramVoting Assistance Program (FVAP). Executive Order 12642, “Designation of the Secretary of Defense(FVAP). Executive Order 12642, “Designation of the Secretary of Defense as the Presidential Designeeas the Presidential Designee Under Title I of the Uniformed Under Title I of the Uniformed
and Overseasand Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act,” 53 Citizens Absentee Voting Act,” 53 Federal Register 21975, June 8, 1988. 21975, June 8, 1988.
c. HAVA lists c. HAVA lists GSA as the administrator for GSA as the administrator for ~~some of the act’s grant programs, and GSA distributed some HAVA funding while the EAC was being established.~~
~~However, the EAC is named by HAVA as~~ the act’s general improvements and lever and punch card voting system replacement grant programs but names the EAC the administrator of that funding for purposes of audits and repayments (52 U.S.C. §the administrator of that funding for purposes of audits and repayments (52 U.S.C. §~~21142), and the~~§20901-20906, 21142). The Consolidated Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) also authorized GSA to make requirements payments while the EAC was being established but provided for expiration of that authority by the earlier of (1) June 30, 2004, or (2) the end of the three-month period after the appointment of all members of~~199) provided for transferring administrative authority for the funds to~~ the EAC. the EAC.
d. Recipients are prohibited from using funds awarded under these grant programs for legal judgments or litigation costs that are not otherwise d. Recipients are prohibited from using funds awarded under these grant programs for legal judgments or litigation costs that are not otherwise ~~permitted by these~~
~~sections (52 U.S.C.~~ permitted by the relevant sections of HAVA (52 U.S.C. §§20901, 21001).§§20901, 21001).
e. Appropriations for the requirements e. Appropriations for the requirements payments program for FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years werepayments program for FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years were authorized only for complying with requirementsauthorized only for complying with requirements established established
by the MOVE Act (52 U.S.C. by the MOVE Act (52 U.S.C. §21001).§21001).
f. f.
States are permitted to use requirements States are permitted to use requirements payments to make general improvementspayments to make general improvements to the administration of federal electionsto the administration of federal elections if they have already implemented if they have already implemented
HAVA’sHAVA’s ~~requirements~~ requirements or limitor limit their spending on such improvementstheir spending on such improvements to the minimumto the minimum amount they are guaranteed for requirementsamount they are guaranteed for requirements ~~p ayments~~ payments for a given fiscal year for a given fiscal year
(52 U.S.C.(52 U.S.C. §21002). For more on guaranteed minimums,§21002). For more on guaranteed minimums, see the see the “Requirements Payments Program” section of this report ansection of this report and Table 1.
g. HHS g. HHS ~~initial y~~initially assigned responsibility assigned responsibility for administering these grant programsfor administering these grant programs to the Administrationto the Administration for Children and Families.for Children and Families. The programsThe programs ~~were~~ were subsequently subsequently
transferred to HHS’s transferred to HHS’s ~~Administration~~ Administration for Community Living,for Community Living, fol owing the creation of that agency in 2012. HHS, “Statement of Organization, Functions, and fol owing the creation of that agency in 2012. HHS, “Statement of Organization, Functions, and
DelegationsDelegations of Authority; Administrationof Authority; Administration for Community Living,” 77for Community Living,” 77 Federal Register 23250-23260, April 18, 2012. 23250-23260, April 18, 2012.
h. HAVA directs HHS to set aside 7% of the funding appropriated under this section for a given fiscal year to fund training and technical assistance for activities h. HAVA directs HHS to set aside 7% of the funding appropriated under this section for a given fiscal year to fund training and technical assistance for activities
conducted under the section (52 U.S.C. § conducted under the section (52 U.S.C. §§21061). 21061).
i. i.
Recipients are prohibited from using funding awarded under this grant program to initiate or otherwise Recipients are prohibited from using funding awarded under this grant program to initiate or otherwise participate in litigation related to election-relatedparticipate in litigation related to election-related disability disability
access (52 U.S.C. §21062). access (52 U.S.C. §21062).
j. j.
The amounts listed here are for the Help America The amounts listed here are for the Help America Vote Col egeVote Col ege Program as a whole.Program as a whole. Grant-making is one of a number of activities,Grant-making is one of a number of activities, including developing materials including developing materials
and sponsoring seminarsand sponsoring seminars and workshops, that HAVAand workshops, that HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct as part of the program (52 U.S.C.authorizes the EAC to conduct as part of the program (52 U.S.C. §21122).§21122).
CRS-10 CRS-10

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

As enacted, HAVA As enacted, HAVA authorized a total of $3 authorized a total of $3 ~~bil ion~~ billion for the requirements payments program over for the requirements payments program over
the period from FY2003 through FY2005. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment the period from FY2003 through FY2005. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment
(MOVE) Act of 2009—which set new requirements for the voting and registration processes used (MOVE) Act of 2009—which set new requirements for the voting and registration processes used
by individualsby individuals covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986
(UOCAVA;(UOCAVA; 52 U.S.C. §§20301-20311)—amended HAVA52 U.S.C. §§20301-20311)—amended HAVA to also authorize such sums as to also authorize such sums as
necessary for FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years to help HAVAnecessary for FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years to help HAVA states meet the new MOVE Act states meet the new MOVE Act
requirements.15 requirements.15 ~~The appropriations for requirements payments authorized by the MOVE Act were~~
~~authorized only for complying with the requirements established by that act.~~
Disability Access Grant Programs
Congressional testimony by representatives of the disability community highlighted the particular Congressional testimony by representatives of the disability community highlighted the particular
~~chal enges individuals~~ challenges individuals with disabilitieswith disabilities and older Americans faced in accessing the electoral and older Americans faced in accessing the electoral
process in 2000. Such process in 2000. Such ~~chal enges~~challenges included, among others, polling places that were inaccessible to included, among others, polling places that were inaccessible to
individualsindividuals with certain physical disabilitieswith certain physical disabilities and the often limited options for individuals with and the often limited options for individuals with
visual impairments to cast a visual impairments to cast a ~~bal ot~~ballot privately and independently.16 HAVA privately and independently.16 HAVA authorized two grant authorized two grant
programs to help address such programs to help address such ~~chal enges~~challenges: (1) a : (1) a polling place accessibility grant program, and (2) , and (2)
a a protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant program. .
As authorized, HAVA’s As authorized, HAVA’s ~~polling~~ polling place accessibility grant program was to be available to the HAVA place accessibility grant program was to be available to the HAVA
states and units of local government.17 Grants awarded under the program were to be used for states and units of local government.17 Grants awarded under the program were to be used for
improving the accessibility of pollingimproving the accessibility of polling ~~places~~ places to individuals with disabilities and conducting activities, such as voter outreach and conducting activities, such as voter outreach
campaigns and election worker trainings, to help share information about polling place campaigns and election worker trainings, to help share information about polling place
accessibility. accessibility.
P&A systems are state-level systems that are charged with empowering and advocating for P&A systems are state-level systems that are charged with empowering and advocating for
~~individuals~~ individuals with disabilities.18 HAVAwith disabilities.18 HAVA ~~authorized broad use of~~ made P&A system grant funds P&A system grant funds ~~by HAVA~~
~~state P&A systems19 to help individuals with disabilities participate in the electoral process but~~
~~prohibited use of the funds to initiate or participate~~broadly available to HAVA state P&A systems for helping ensure full participation in the electoral process by individuals with disabilities19 but prohibited use of the funds for initiating or participating in elections-related litigation.20 in elections-related litigation.20 The act The act
specifies that 7% of the funding appropriated for the P&A system grant program for any given specifies that 7% of the funding appropriated for the P&A system grant program for any given
fiscal year is to be distributed to other organizations to provide training and technical assistance fiscal year is to be distributed to other organizations to provide training and technical assistance
with activities funded under the program.with activities funded under the program.

~~15 T he MOVE Act was~~ 15 The MOVE Act was enacted as Subtitleenacted as Subtitle H of H of ~~T itle~~Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(P.L. 111-84). For more on UOCAVA and the MOVE Act, see(P.L. 111-84). For more on UOCAVA and the MOVE Act, see ~~CRS~~ CRS Report RS20764, Report RS20764, The ~~Uniform ed~~Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues, by R. Sam, by R. Sam ~~Garrett .~~
Garrett. 16 See,16 See, for example, U.S. Congress,for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on RulesSenate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Administration, Election Reform: Volume 1, ,
hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess.,hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-1036 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003), p. 9. March 14, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-1036 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003), p. 9.
17 Although HAVA 17 Although HAVA lists both the HAVAlists both the HAVA states and units of local government as potential recipients of polling place states and units of local government as potential recipients of polling place
accessibility grant funds,accessibility grant funds, the appropriations acts that have funded the appropriations acts that have funded ~~awar ds under~~ awards under the program have generally limited the program have generally limited
them to the HAVA states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7. them to the HAVA states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7.
18 Some P&A systems are part of state governments, whereas others are 18 Some P&A systems are part of state governments, whereas others are ~~nonpro fit~~nonprofit organizations. In addition to HAVA organizations. In addition to HAVA
grant funds,grant funds, P&A systems receive federal fundingP&A systems receive federal funding under other P&A programs to provide legal and other support in under other P&A programs to provide legal and other support in
areas other than election administration. For more information about P&A systems, see Administration for Community areas other than election administration. For more information about P&A systems, see Administration for Community
Living, Living, State Protection & Advocacy ~~System s~~Systems, at https://acl.gov/programs/aging-and-disability-networks/state-, at https://acl.gov/programs/aging-and-disability-networks/state-
protection-advocacy-systems. protection-advocacy-systems.
19 19 ~~T here~~There are also P&A systems that serve the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Native are also P&A systems that serve the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Native
Americans in the Four Corners region of the country (American Indian Americans in the Four Corners region of the country (American Indian ~~Consortium). T hose~~consortium). Those P&A systems are generally P&A systems are generally
not eligiblenot eligible for HAVA’sfor HAVA’s P&A system grant program, although the explanatory statement accompanying the P&A system grant program, although the explanatory statement accompanying the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) indicated that Congress intended to extend eligibility for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) indicated that Congress intended to extend eligibility for the
program to the American Indian program to the American Indian ~~Consortium~~consortium P&A system. P&A system.
20 Sen. Chris20 Sen. Chris Dodd, “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate, Dodd, “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate, Congressional Record, ,
daily edition, vol. 148, part 17 (February 26, 2002), pp. S1148daily edition, vol. 148, part 17 (February 26, 2002), pp. S1148 -1149. -1149.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
11 11

link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16
Table 5. Comparison of Original HAVA General Improvements Grant Program ~~with~~to FY2018, ~~FY2020~~2020, 2022, and CARES Act Funds
Original General ~~Improvements~~ Improvements Grant
FY2018 Funds
FY2020 Funds
FY2022 Funds CARES Act Funds

~~Grant~~ Program
(P.L. 115-141)
(P.L. 116-93)
(P.L. 117-103) (P.L. 116-136)
Uses Uses
Making Making ~~general improvements to the~~certain general
Making general improvements Making general improvements
~~Making general improvements to~~to the administration of federal
Preventing, preparing for, or Preventing, preparing for, or
~~administration of federal elections~~
~~to the administration of federal~~
~~the administration of federal~~
~~responding to coronavirus,~~
~~elections,~~ responding to improvements to election elections, including enhancing election technology and improving coronavirus, domestically and internationally, administration election securitya in ~~including enhancing~~
~~elections, including enhancing~~
~~domestical y and international y, in~~
~~election technology and~~
~~election technology and~~
~~the 2020 federal election cycle~~
~~improving election securitya~~
~~improving election securitya~~
the 2020 federal election cycle Guaranteed minimum Guaranteed minimum

award amounts award amounts

50 states and DC:
$5 mil $5 mil ~~ion~~bionb
$3 mil ion $3 mil ion
$3 mil ion $3 mil ion
$ $1 mil ion $3 mil io3 mil ionc
Eligible territories:
$1 mil $1 mil ~~ion~~bionb
$600,000 $600,000
$600,000 $600,000
$ $200,000 $600,00600,000c
Eligible recipients Eligible recipients
50 states, DC, American 50 states, DC, American Samoa,Samoa,
HAVA states HAVA states
HAVA states and the HAVA states and the
Commonwealth of HAVA states and the HAVA states and the
Commonwealth of the Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
~~Commonwealth of the Northern~~
~~Commonwealth of the Northern~~
~~Virgin Islands (HAVA states)~~
~~Mariana Islands~~
~~Mariana Islandsc~~
~~Spending deadline~~
—
—
—
~~December~~ the Northern Mariana Islands Northern Mariana Islandsc Virgin Islands (HAVA states) Spending deadline — — — — December 31, 20231, 2020d
Match requirement Match requirement
— —
5%e
20%e
20%e 20%c,e
Reporting Reporting ~~requirement~~
—f
—f
—f
Quarterly (financial) Within 20 days of an election in Within 20 days of an election in
~~the 2020~~ the 2020 requirement and annual (progress) federal election cycle federal election cycle
Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S.CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code and relevant appropriations measures. Code and relevant appropriations measures.
Notes: Congress appropriated funding for FY2018Congress appropriated funding for FY2018, FY2020, and FY2022 for four ~~and FY2020 for three~~ sets of HAVA grant funds: FY2018 funds, FY2020 funds, sets of HAVA grant funds: FY2018 funds, FY2020 funds, FY2022 funds, and CARES Act funds. The acts that and CARES Act funds. The acts that
provided the funds included substantive provisions that modifiedprovided the funds included substantive provisions that modified or supplemented some parametersor supplemented some parameters of the program under which the funds wereof the program under which the funds were appropriated. This table appropriated. This table
~~compares~~ compares selected parametersselected parameters of the original grant program as authorized by HAVA to corresponding parametersof the original grant program as authorized by HAVA to corresponding parameters of the FY2018, FY2020, of the FY2018, FY2020, FY2022, and CARES Act funds. and CARES Act funds.
a. Explanatory statements accompanying a. Explanatory statements accompanying ~~these~~the FY2018 and FY2020 consolidated appropriations acts listed some appropriations acts listed some election security-specific purposes for which recipients election security-specific purposes for which recipients may use the funds. Guidance may use the funds. Guidance
issued by the U.S. Election Assistanceissued by the U.S. Election Assistance ~~Commission (EAC) fol owing the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic~~ Commission (EAC) clarified that these funds—as clarified that these funds—as ~~wel~~ well as someas some other funding other funding
~~previously~~ appropriated under HAVA—may be used to cover certain costs incurred appropriated under HAVA—may be used to cover certain costs incurred ~~as a result of the pandemic~~in response to the COVID-19 pandemic or an increase in threats to election officials. .
b. These minimums b. These minimums ~~were~~ were for the combination of awards under HAVA’sfor the combination of awards under HAVA’s general improvementsgeneral improvements and leverand lever and punch card voting system replacementand punch card voting system replacement grant programs. grant programs.
c. A general provision of the CARES Act (§23003) extended these conditions on the FY2020 funds to the CARES Act funds. c. A general provision of the CARES Act (§23003) extended these conditions on the FY2020 funds to the CARES Act funds.
d. Recipients d. Recipients ~~are~~were required to return any funds that required to return any funds that ~~have~~had not been obligated as of this deadline to the U.S. Treasury. not been obligated as of this deadline to the U.S. Treasury.
e. According to the EAC, somee. According to the EAC, some ~~eligible territories~~ eligible territories have been exempted fromhave been exempted from these match requirements.these match requirements. The appropriations acts specify that each nonexempt recipient The appropriations acts specify that each nonexempt recipient
must provide funds for grant activities in an amount equal to the specified percentage “of the total amount of the payment made to the [recipient].” must provide funds for grant activities in an amount equal to the specified percentage “of the total amount of the payment made to the [recipient].”
f. f.
Recipients of these funds are subject to reporting requirements, Recipients of these funds are subject to reporting requirements, as specified by the EAC, but the acts themselvesas specified by the EAC, but the acts themselves did not set financial reporting requirements.did not set financial reporting requirements.
CRS-12 CRS-12

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Election Technology Research Grant Programs
Election technology shortcomings, such as the unreliability of lever and punch card voting Election technology shortcomings, such as the unreliability of lever and punch card voting
systems, contributed to the issues with the administration of the 2000 elections. One approach systems, contributed to the issues with the administration of the 2000 elections. One approach
Congress took to addressing such shortcomings—as described in the Congress took to addressing such shortcomings—as described in the “Voting System
Replacement Grant Programs”” section of this report—was section of this report—was ~~to authorize~~authorizing funding to help replace funding to help replace
lever and punch card voting systems. Another was lever and punch card voting systems. Another was ~~to authorize~~authorizing funding for research into better funding for research into better
systems. HAVA’s systems. HAVA’s voting technology improvements research grant program and and voting technology
pilot program grant program were intended to facilitate development and testing of new voting were intended to facilitate development and testing of new voting
technologies.21 technologies.21
The MOVE Act, which set new requirements for the voting and registration processes used by The MOVE Act, which set new requirements for the voting and registration processes used by
UOCAVAUOCAVA voters and authorized new appropriations for requirements payments to help HAVA voters and authorized new appropriations for requirements payments to help HAVA
states meet them, also authorized funding to help improve UOCAVAstates meet them, also authorized funding to help improve UOCAVA election technologies. The election technologies. The
act’s act’s UOCAVA election technology pilot program grant program was intended to fund testing of was intended to fund testing of
new election technologies for use by individuals covered by UOCAVA.22 new election technologies for use by individuals covered by UOCAVA.22
Youth Voter Participation and Poll Worker Recruitment Grant
Programs
Young people participated in the 2000 elections at lower rates than their older counterparts,23 and Young people participated in the 2000 elections at lower rates than their older counterparts,23 and
some of the issues with the administration of the 2000 elections were caused by a shortage of some of the issues with the administration of the 2000 elections were caused by a shortage of
qualified poll workers.24 Congress authorized two grant programs in HAVAqualified poll workers.24 Congress authorized two grant programs in HAVA that were aimed at that were aimed at
addressing one or both of those issues.25 HAVA’s addressing one or both of those issues.25 HAVA’s mock elections grant program was designed to was designed to
fund activities, such as simulated national elections and quiz team competitions, to help fund activities, such as simulated national elections and quiz team competitions, to help
encourage students and their parents to engage with the electoral process.26 The encourage students and their parents to engage with the electoral process.26 The Help America
Vote College Program, which was to be developed by the EAC, was intended to use grant-making , which was to be developed by the EAC, was intended to use grant-making

~~21 T he EAC has used~~ 21 The EAC has used funding provided for these grant programs to conduct Accessiblefunding provided for these grant programs to conduct Accessible Voting Voting ~~T echnology~~Technology, Military , Military
Heroes, andHeroes, and Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy ~~T esting~~Testing and Post and Post -Election Audit initiatives. EAC, -Election Audit initiatives. EAC, Discretionary Grants, ,
at https://web.archive.org/web/20200622235023/https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/discretionary-grants/. As at https://web.archive.org/web/20200622235023/https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/discretionary-grants/. As
administered by the EAC, these grant programs were generally availableadministered by the EAC, these grant programs were generally available to private organizations or private institutions to private organizations or private institutions
of higher education in addition to or in partnership with state or local government entities. See, for example, EAC, of higher education in addition to or in partnership with state or local government entities. See, for example, EAC,
Notice of Federal Funds Available: 2010 Voting System Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Testing & Post-Election
Audit Initiative, September 10, 2010, p. 2, at https://web.archive.org/web/20120921090304/http://www.eac.gov/assets/, September 10, 2010, p. 2, at https://web.archive.org/web/20120921090304/http://www.eac.gov/assets/
1/AssetManager/L&A%20Post%20Election%20Audit%20NOFA%20FINAL.9.07.10.pdf1/AssetManager/L&A%20Post%20Election%20Audit%20NOFA%20FINAL.9.07.10.pdf . .
22 The~~22 T he~~ U.S. Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) implemented this grant program as U.S. Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) implemented this grant program as
its Electronic Absentee Systems for Elections (EASE)its Electronic Absentee Systems for Elections (EASE) and EASE 2 grant programs, which wereand EASE 2 grant programs, which were available to states, available to states,
territories, and localities. FVAP, territories, and localities. FVAP, EASE Grant Program , at https://www.fvap.gov/eo/grants/ease-1; and FVAP,, at https://www.fvap.gov/eo/grants/ease-1; and FVAP, EASE 2
Grant Program , at https://www.fvap.gov/eo/grants/ease-2. , at https://www.fvap.gov/eo/grants/ease-2.
23 23 ~~T hom~~Thom File, File, Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 1964 -2012, U.S. Census Bureau,, U.S. Census Bureau, April 2014, April 2014,
p. 6, atp. 6, at https://www.census.gov/https://www.census.gov/~~prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf.~~
~~24 See,~~ library/publications/2014/demo/p20-573.html. 24 See, for example, GAO, for example, GAO, Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation . .
25 HAVA25 HAVA also authorized another initiative to encourage youth voter participation: The Help America Vote Foundation. also authorized another initiative to encourage youth voter participation: The Help America Vote Foundation.
~~T he~~The foundation is not discussed foundation is not discussed in detail in this report because HAVAin detail in this report because HAVA does not explicitly list grantdoes not explicitly list grant -making to states or -making to states or
localities aslocalities as one of its functions. one of its functions.
26 As administered by the EAC, this grant program was 26 As administered by the EAC, this grant program was available to state and local election offices as wellavailable to state and local election offices as well as as nonprofit nonprofit
organizations in partnership with state or local election offices and tribal organizations. See, for example, EAC,organizations in partnership with state or local election offices and tribal organizations. See, for example, EAC, Notice
of Federal Funds Available: 2010 Help ~~Am erica~~ America Vote Act Mock Election, January 2010, p. 1, at https://web.archive.org/, January 2010, p. 1, at https://web.archive.org/
web/20101223025104/http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/web/20101223025104/http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/
2010%20Help%20America%20Vote%20Act%20Mock%20Election%20-%20Notice.pdf. 2010%20Help%20America%20Vote%20Act%20Mock%20Election%20-%20Notice.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
13 13

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

and other activities to encourage students at institutions of higher education to serve as poll and other activities to encourage students at institutions of higher education to serve as poll
workers and state and local election officials to take advantage of their services.27 workers and state and local election officials to take advantage of their services.27
Election Data Collection Grant Program
Election data can help policymakers identify potential improvements to election administration Election data can help policymakers identify potential improvements to election administration
processes. Data indicating that mail processes. Data indicating that mail ~~bal ots~~ballots are being rejected at particularly high rates in a given are being rejected at particularly high rates in a given
locality, for example, might encourage the locality to review its locality, for example, might encourage the locality to review its ~~bal ot~~ballot design, voter education, or design, voter education, or
election worker training processes. election worker training processes.
The EAC collects data from state and local election officials after each regular federal general The EAC collects data from state and local election officials after each regular federal general
election—using a survey known as the Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS)28—but election—using a survey known as the Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS)28—but
Congress found that some EAVS data quality and response rates were lower than expected.29 It Congress found that some EAVS data quality and response rates were lower than expected.29 It
responded by including language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) to responded by including language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) to
establish and fund an establish and fund an election data collection grant program. Grant awards under this program, . Grant awards under this program,
which were to be available in the amount of $2 which were to be available in the amount of $2 ~~mil ion~~ million to each of five HAVAto each of five HAVA states, were to be states, were to be
used to improve the collection of data for the November 2008 regular federal general election. used to improve the collection of data for the November 2008 regular federal general election.
Potential Considerations for Congress
Proposals to provide funding for election administration-related grant programs gained new Proposals to provide funding for election administration-related grant programs gained new
traction after the 2016 elections. Prior to the 2016 election cycle, Congress had not funded broad-traction after the 2016 elections. Prior to the 2016 election cycle, Congress had not funded broad-
based elections grant programs for states or localities since the FY2010 appropriations for based elections grant programs for states or localities since the FY2010 appropriations for
HAVA’sHAVA’s requirements payments program,30 and it was not requirements payments program,30 and it was not ~~general y~~generally considered likely to do so.31 considered likely to do so.31
~~The~~However, developments like the emergence of election interference as a significant issue in the 2016 election cycle and the emergence of election interference as a significant issue in the 2016 election cycle and the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycleonset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycle~~, however,~~ have introduced election administration introduced election administration
~~chal enges that were~~challenges that have been ongoing, difficult for states and localities to manage alone, or both.32 ongoing, difficult for states and localities to manage alone, or both.32

~~27 HAVA~~ 27 HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct various activities as part of the Help America Vote College authorizes the EAC to conduct various activities as part of the Help America Vote College ~~Pro gram~~Program, but the , but the
agency has tended to useagency has tended to use the funding Congressthe funding Congress has provided for the program for granthas provided for the program for grant -making. Grant recipients have -making. Grant recipients have
includedincluded public andpublic and private institutions of higher education, includingprivate institutions of higher education, including community colleges. EAC, “community colleges. EAC, “ Help America Vote Help America Vote
CollegeCollege Program,” at https://www.eac.gov/payments_and_grants/help_america_vote_college_program. Program,” at https://www.eac.gov/payments_and_grants/help_america_vote_college_program.
28 For more on the EAVS, 28 For more on the EAVS, see CRSsee CRS In FocusIn Focus IF11266, IF11266, The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and
2018 Findings, by Karen L. Shanton. , by Karen L. Shanton.
29 U.S.29 U.S. Congress, HouseCongress, House Committee on Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, House Appropriations Committee Print: Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764; P.L. 110-161P.L. 110-161), committee print, 110th Cong., 1st sess., December 26, 2007, p. , committee print, 110th Cong., 1st sess., December 26, 2007, p.
893. 893.
30 Funding 30 Funding had been provided for grant programs for specific elections-related purposes, such as HAVA’shad been provided for grant programs for specific elections-related purposes, such as HAVA’s disability disability
accessaccess grant programs, but not for more general grant programs like HAVA’sgrant programs, but not for more general grant programs like HAVA’s general improvements grant program and general improvements grant program and
requirements payments program. EAC, requirements payments program. EAC, Agency Financial Report, November , November ~~19, 2019~~15, 2021, p. 4, at https://www.eac.gov/, p. 4, at https://www.eac.gov/
sites/default/files/sites/default/files/~~eac_assets/1/6/EAC_FY2019_Agency_Financial_Report.pdf.~~
~~31 T he then-Chair of the House~~ document_library/files/FY21_EAC_AFR_FINAL.pdf. 31 The then-chair of the Committee on House Administration said in 2014, for example, that state and local Committee on House Administration said in 2014, for example, that state and local
election officials shouldelection officials should not expect federal assistance with covering the costs of replacing voting machines. Cory not expect federal assistance with covering the costs of replacing voting machines. Cory
Bennett, “States Ditch Electronic Voting Machines,” Bennett, “States Ditch Electronic Voting Machines,” The Hill, November 2, 2014. Proposals to terminate the EAC in , November 2, 2014. Proposals to terminate the EAC in
the 112th through 115th Congresses werethe 112th through 115th Congresses were also predicated in part on the assumption that the agency would not have new also predicated in part on the assumption that the agency would not have new
grant grant ~~funding~~ funding to administer. For more on proposals to terminate the EAC, see CRSto administer. For more on proposals to terminate the EAC, see CRS Report R45770, Report R45770, The U.S. Election
Assistance ~~Com m ission~~Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton. , by Karen L. Shanton.
32 For more on election interference, COVID-19, and other election emergencies, see CRS 32 For more on election interference, COVID-19, and other election emergencies, see CRS Report R46455, Report R46455, COVID-19
and Other Election ~~Em ergencies~~Emergencies: Frequently Asked Questions and Recent Policy ~~Developm ents~~Developments, coordinated by R. , coordinated by R.
SamSam ~~Garrett~~ Garrett. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
14 14

link to page 8 link to page 29 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 8 link to page 29 link to page 20 link to page 20 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

As described in the As described in the “General Improvements Grant Program”” section of this report, Congress section of this report, Congress
has responded to responded to ~~those chal enges~~such challenges, in part, by providing $380 , in part, by providing $380 ~~mil ion~~ million for HAVAfor HAVA grant funds for FY2018, $75 million for FY2022, and a total of $825 million in regular and supplemental appropriations for FY2020. ~~grant funds for~~
~~FY2018, $425 mil ion for FY2020 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and $400~~
~~mil ion for FY2020 in the CARES Act. Congress has also considered further HAVA grant funding~~
~~for FY2020 and FY2021. The House passed a version of the Heroes Act (H.R. 6800; passed 208-~~
~~199) that would make $3.6 bil ion available for FY2020 for elections contingency planning,~~
~~preparation, and resilience, for example, and an FY2021 consolidated appropriations bil (H.R.~~
~~7617; passed 217-197) that included $500 mil ion for replacing direct-recording electronic (DRE)~~
~~voting machines and other elections-related purposes.33~~
Some Members have also proposed legislation to establish new elections grant programs for Some Members have also proposed legislation to establish new elections grant programs for
states or localities. Some of those proposalsstates or localities. Some of those proposals~~, like some of the grant programs in the 116th~~
~~Congress’s Securing America’s Federal Elections (SAFE) Act (H.R. 2722; S. 2053; S. 2238) and~~
~~Emergency Assistance for Safe Elections (EASE) Act (H.R. 7905), are directed specifical y to~~
~~election interference- or COVID-19-related chal enges. Others would address other election~~
~~administration issues. The Ranked Choice Voting Act (H.R. 4464) would authorize a grant~~
~~program to help states implement ranked choice voting, for example, and the Voter Empowerment~~
~~Act of 2019 (H.R. 1275/S. 549) would, among other purposes, establish a grant program to help~~
~~states meet proposed voter registration requirements~~ would authorize grant funding for a limited number of fiscal years, while others—such as the 117th Congress’s Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747), Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act (H.R. 5746), and Sustaining Our Democracy Act (H.R. 7992/S. 4239)—would establish a program and trust fund that would provide for ongoing funding. For more on legislation related to elections ~~. For more on legislation related to elections~~
grant programs in the grant programs in the ~~116th~~117th Congress, Congress, seesee Appendix A.34
The increased prominence of state and local elections grant programs since the 2016 election The increased prominence of state and local elections grant programs since the 2016 election
cycle might suggest questions about what role, if any, such programs could play in future federal cycle might suggest questions about what role, if any, such programs could play in future federal
election administration policy. The following subsections introduce some issues that may be of election administration policy. The following subsections introduce some issues that may be of
interest to Members who are considering whether or how to propose a role for similar grant interest to Members who are considering whether or how to propose a role for similar grant
programs and to Members who are weighing whether to support, oppose, or amend such programs and to Members who are weighing whether to support, oppose, or amend such
proposals. proposals.
Role of Federal Grant Programs
A central debate in A central debate in ~~election administration is over the proper role of the federal government.~~
elections policy is over the role the federal government should play in election administration. Some say that Congress should facilitate or mandate changes in the way elections are conducted Some say that Congress should facilitate or mandate changes in the way elections are conducted
in order to advance certain objectives, such as ensuring that in order to advance certain objectives, such as ensuring that ~~al eligible~~ all eligible voters have access to the voters have access to the
~~bal ot~~ballot or protecting the integrity of the electoral process. or protecting the integrity of the electoral process.3533 Others see a more limited role for the Others see a more limited role for the
federal government, suggesting that the state and local officials who are primarily responsible for federal government, suggesting that the state and local officials who are primarily responsible for
administering elections are best positioned to identify and implement the right election administering elections are best positioned to identify and implement the right election
administration policies for their jurisdictions.administration policies for their jurisdictions.3634
That debate has carried over to some discussions of state and local elections grant programs. That debate has carried over to some discussions of state and local elections grant programs.
Federalism considerations have informed some deliberations about how to structure election Federalism considerations have informed some deliberations about how to structure election
administration-related grant programs for states and localities (see the administration-related grant programs for states and localities (see the “Options for Legislative
Proposals” section of this report for selected examples). Such considerations have also prompted section of this report for selected examples). Such considerations have also prompted
some to question whether to authorize or fund such grant programs at some to question whether to authorize or fund such grant programs at al all. Some have opposed elections grant programs for states or localities on the grounds either that such programs would constitute federal overreach in and of themselves or that they could lead to such overreach.35 In addition to such general objections, some have voiced opposition to individual proposals to authorize or fund elections grant programs on more specific grounds. They have noted that some states still have funding remaining from previous appropriations for the grant program a given appropriations bill would fund, for example, or suggested that Congress does not yet have enough information to determine whether further funding for the program is warranted.36 Some Members might also disagree with the objectives of a proposed grant program or think that other 33 See, for example, Brennan Center for Justice, “~~. Some have opposed~~

~~33 T he House also passed another version of the Heroes Act (H.R. 8406) on October 1, 2020, as an amendment to the~~
~~Senate amendment to H.R. 925 (passed 214-207).~~
~~34 Some of the proposals in this more general category have also been introduced in previous Congresses. T he Voter~~
~~Empowerment Act, for example, has been introduced in similar form in each Congress since the 112 th.~~
~~35 See, for example, Brennan Center for Justice, “~~ Voting Reform,” at https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-Voting Reform,” at https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-
every-american-can-vote/voting-reform. every-american-can-vote/voting-reform.
3634 See, See, for example, Hans von Spakovsky, “Leave for example, Hans von Spakovsky, “Leave ~~Electio ns~~Elections up to the States,” USA Today, November 26, 2012. 35 See, for example, Maggie Miller, “Election Security Funds Caught in Crosshairs of Spending Debate,” The Hill, September 17, 2019. 36 See, for example, Maggie Miller, “New Federal Funds for Election Security Garner Mixed Reactions on Capitol Hill,” The Hill, December 17, 2019. Congressional Research Service 15 link to page 19 link to page 43 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities congressional tools, such as federal requirements or nonfinancial assistance from federal ~~up to the States,” USA Today, November 26, 2012.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
15

~~link to page 19~~ ~~Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities~~

~~elections grant programs for states or localities on the grounds either that such programs would~~
~~constitute federal overreach in and of themselves or that they could lead to such overreach.37~~
~~In addition to such general objections, some have voiced opposition to individual proposals to~~
~~authorize or fund elections grant programs on more specific grounds. They have noted that some~~
~~states stil have funding remaining from previous appropriations for the grant program a given~~
~~appropriations bil would fund, for example, or suggested that Congress does not yet have enough~~
~~information to determine whether further funding for the program is warranted.38 Some Members~~
~~might also disagree with the objectives of a proposed grant program or think that other~~
~~congressional tools, such as federal requirements or nonfinancial assistance from federal~~
agencies, would be better equipped to achieve them. agencies, would be better equipped to achieve them.
Given the nature of its subject, this report tends to focus on how election administration-related Given the nature of its subject, this report tends to focus on how election administration-related
grant programs for states and localities have played or might play a role in federal election grant programs for states and localities have played or might play a role in federal election
administration policy. As the above discussion suggests, however, a prior question in any given administration policy. As the above discussion suggests, however, a prior question in any given
case might be whether they should play such a role. Either as a general principle or in specific case might be whether they should play such a role. Either as a general principle or in specific
instances, Congress might choose not to authorize election administration-related grant programs instances, Congress might choose not to authorize election administration-related grant programs
for states and localities or not to provide funding for them. for states and localities or not to provide funding for them.
Options for Legislative Proposals
The The “Role of Federal Grant Programs” ” section of this report describes some cases in which section of this report describes some cases in which
Members might oppose proposals to authorize or fund election administration-related grant Members might oppose proposals to authorize or fund election administration-related grant
programs for states or localities. There are also some circumstances in which Members might programs for states or localities. There are also some circumstances in which Members might
favor such proposals. State or local elections grant programs might appeal to Members who are favor such proposals. State or local elections grant programs might appeal to Members who are
hesitant to set federal requirements for election administration, for example, or who want to hesitant to set federal requirements for election administration, for example, or who want to
engage with aspects of election administration for which Congress’s authority to set requirements engage with aspects of election administration for which Congress’s authority to set requirements
is limited.is limited.3937 Grant programs might also appeal to Members who believe that funding is the best Grant programs might also appeal to Members who believe that funding is the best
way to achieve certain election administration objectives or that states and localities either cannot way to achieve certain election administration objectives or that states and localities either cannot
or should not be solely responsible for financing certain aspects of election administration. or should not be solely responsible for financing certain aspects of election administration.
Most of the funding Congress has made available to states and localities for election Most of the funding Congress has made available to states and localities for election
administration-related purposes to date has been appropriated under grant programs authorized by administration-related purposes to date has been appropriated under grant programs authorized by
HAVA.HAVA. Members who are interested in proposing further elections grant funding for states or Members who are interested in proposing further elections grant funding for states or
localities might consider whether to continue appropriating funding under existing grant localities might consider whether to continue appropriating funding under existing grant
programs or to establish new grant programs that are tailored more programs or to establish new grant programs that are tailored more ~~specifical y~~specifically to current needs. to current needs.4038
In either case, Members might also consider exactly how to structure the grant programs. Choices In either case, Members might also consider exactly how to structure the grant programs. Choices
about how grant programs are structured—whether they are made in authorizing legislation like about how grant programs are structured—whether they are made in authorizing legislation like
HAVAHAVA or substantive provisions of appropriations acts like Division B of the CARES Act—can or substantive provisions of appropriations acts like Division B of the CARES Act—can
help determine how effective the programs are at achieving their intended purposes and what, if help determine how effective the programs are at achieving their intended purposes and what, if
any, unintended consequences they might have. Information about the options available for any, unintended consequences they might have. Information about the options available for

~~37 See, for example, Maggie Miller, “Election Security Funds Caught in Crosshairs of Spending Debate,” The Hill,~~
~~September 17, 2019.~~
~~38 See, for example, Maggie Miller, “New Federal Funds for Election Security Garner Mixed Reactions on Capitol~~
~~Hill,” The Hill, December 17, 2019.~~
~~39 For more on Congress’s authority to set requirements for election administration, see CRS Report RL30747,~~
Congressional Authority to Direct How States Adm inister Elections, by Kenneth R. T homas.
~~40 For more on the relationship between establishing~~ structuring grant programs might, therefore, be of interest both to Members who are considering proposing new grant programs or funding and to Members who are weighing whether to support, oppose, or amend such proposals. Previous legislative proposals suggest some possible questions about how to structure election administration-related grant programs for states and localities, some options available for answering them, and some of the considerations that have informed choices among such options in the past. The following subsections introduce some of those questions, options, and considerations (for examples of how the options have been implemented in previous legislative proposals, see Appendix B). The discussion in these subsections is intended to be illustrative rather than to provide a comprehensive accounting of all of the factors that might inform choices 37 For more on Congress’s authority to set requirements for election administration, see CRS Report RL30747, Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections, by Kenneth R. Thomas. 38 For more on the relationship between establishing federal programs and appropriating funding for them, see CRS federal programs and appropriating funding for them, see CRS
Report R42098, Report R42098, Authorization of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues, coordinated by Edward, coordinated by Edward C. Liu;C. Liu; CRS CRS
Report R42388, Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, coordinated by James V., coordinated by James V. Saturno; and Saturno; and
CRSCRS Report RS20371, Report RS20371, Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process, by Bill Heniff Jr. , by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
16 16

~~link to page 43~~ Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities about elections grant programs. Congressional clients may contact CRS for more detailed discussion of considerations that might be relevant to specific legislative proposals.39 Uses of Funds  Are grant funds limited to use for specific activities or available ~~for States and Localities~~

~~structuring grant programs might, therefore, be of interest both to Members who are considering~~
~~proposing new grant programs or funding and to Members who are weighing whether to support,~~
~~oppose, or amend such proposals.~~
~~Previous legislative proposals suggest some possible questions about how to structure election~~
~~administration-related grant programs for states and localities, some options available for~~
~~answering them, and some of the considerations that have informed choices among such options~~
~~in the past. The following subsections introduce some of those questions, options, and~~
~~considerations (for examples of how the options have been implemented in previous legislative~~
~~proposals, see Appendix B). The discussion in these subsections is intended to be il ustrative~~
~~rather than to provide a comprehensive accounting of al of the factors that might inform choices~~
~~about elections grant programs. Congressional clients may contact CRS for more detailed~~
~~discussion of considerations that might be relevant to specific legislative proposals.41~~
~~Uses of Funds~~
~~ Are grant funds limited to use for specific activities or available~~ for more general for more general
purposes? purposes?
 Are grant funds intended to finance voluntary activities or help meet federal  Are grant funds intended to finance voluntary activities or help meet federal
requirements? requirements?
 Are any uses of grant funds prohibited or prioritized?  Are any uses of grant funds prohibited or prioritized?
State and local officials who are open to receiving federal elections grant funding have tended to State and local officials who are open to receiving federal elections grant funding have tended to
express a preference for funding with minimal restrictions.express a preference for funding with minimal restrictions.4240 The National Association of The National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS) adopted a resolution in February 2019, for example, that urged Secretaries of State (NASS) adopted a resolution in February 2019, for example, that urged
Congress not to set further conditions on HAVACongress not to set further conditions on HAVA funds than are laid out in the act.funds than are laid out in the act.4341 Some election Some election
officials have also advocated for funding flexibilityofficials have also advocated for funding flexibility in congressional testimony, arguing against in congressional testimony, arguing against
limitinglimiting the purposes for which federal funding may be used or attaching funding to federal the purposes for which federal funding may be used or attaching funding to federal
requirements.requirements.4442
As the officials primarily responsible for administering elections, state and local officials might As the officials primarily responsible for administering elections, state and local officials might
have particular insight into the election administration problems that are most pressing in their have particular insight into the election administration problems that are most pressing in their
jurisdictions and the proposed solutions to those problems that are most likely to be effective. jurisdictions and the proposed solutions to those problems that are most likely to be effective.
State and local officials State and local officials ~~wil likely~~ will likely also play a prominent role in implementing—and helping also play a prominent role in implementing—and helping

~~41 Congress has also used or proposed using funding to engage with election administration in ways other than~~
~~authorizing or funding grant programs for states or localities. For example, Congress has directed federal agencies to~~
~~use~~ determine the success of—any federal funding initiatives. Such considerations might lead Members to favor general purpose grant programs that are intended to help fund voluntary rather than mandatory activities. Members might choose to limit use of grant funds to more specific purposes or attach funding to federal requirements, on the other hand, if they have a particular solution to an election administration problem in mind or if they want to encourage consistency in the way states approach a given aspect of election administration. For example, HAVA’s lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program aimed to solve the reliability problems with those voting systems specifically by replacing the systems. The act’s requirements payments program 39 Congress has also used or proposed using funding to engage with election administration in ways other than authorizing or funding grant programs for states or localities. For example, Congress has directed federal agencies to use some of their funding to support state and local election administration work and authorized more general grant some of their funding to support state and local election administration work and authorized more general grant
programs that have been usedprograms that have been used to fund elections-related projects. Members have also introduced billsto fund elections-related projects. Members have also introduced bills that would that would
condition eligibility for certain federal fundingcondition eligibility for certain federal funding on adopting or rejecting election administration on adopting or rejecting election administration ~~po licies~~policies. Such uses. Such uses of of
fundingfunding are outsideare outside the scope of this report. the scope of this report.
4240 State and local officials may not always want or need federal elections funding. In congressional testimony on State and local officials may not always want or need federal elections funding. In congressional testimony on
preparations for the 2020 general election, for example, one state official indicated that, barring certain eventualities, preparations for the 2020 general election, for example, one state official indicated that, barring certain eventualities,
his state didhis state did not need further financial assistance from the federal government to conduct its 2020 elections.not need further financial assistance from the federal government to conduct its 2020 elections. U.S. U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on RulesCongress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Administration, 2020 General Election Preparations, hearing, 116th Cong., , hearing, 116th Cong.,
2nd sess.,2nd sess., July 22, 2020. July 22, 2020.
43 41 National Association of Secretaries of State, National Association of Secretaries of State, NASS Resolution on Principles for Federal Assistance in Funding of
Elections, February, February 4, 2019, at https://www.nass.org/node/1557. 4, 2019, at https://www.nass.org/node/1557.
4442 See, See, for example, Written Statement of R. Kyle Ardoin in U.S. Congress,for example, Written Statement of R. Kyle Ardoin in U.S. Congress, ~~House~~ Committee on House Committee on House
Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, The ~~Im pact~~Impact of COVID-19 on Voting Rights and Election ~~Adm inistration:~~
Administration: Ensuring Safe and Fair Elections, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., June, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., June 11, 2020, p. 2; and Statement from the 11, 2020, p. 2; and Statement from the
Honorable Honorable ~~T re~~Tre Hargett, Hargett, ~~T ennessee~~Tennessee Secretary of State, in U.S. Secretary of State, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, Administration, 2020 General Election Preparations, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 22, 2020, p. 2. 22, 2020, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
17 17

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities ~~for States and Localities~~

~~determine the success of—any federal funding initiatives. Such considerations might lead~~
~~Members to favor general-purpose grant programs that are intended to help fund voluntary rather~~
~~than mandatory activities.~~
~~Members might choose to limit use of grant funds to more specific purposes or attach funding to~~
~~federal requirements, on the other hand, if they have a particular solution to an election~~
~~administration problem in mind or if they want to encourage consistency in the way states~~
~~approach a given aspect of election administration. For example, HAVA’s lever and punch card~~
~~voting system replacement grant program aimed to solve the reliability problems with those~~
~~voting systems specifical y by replacing the systems. The act’s requirements payments program~~
was attached to requirements to help standardize certain practices, such as having a centralized was attached to requirements to help standardize certain practices, such as having a centralized
statewide voter registration list, across states.statewide voter registration list, across states.4543
The above discussion focuses on two options available to Congress: (1) limiting use of grant The above discussion focuses on two options available to Congress: (1) limiting use of grant
funds to specific activities, and (2) making funds available for more general purposes. There are funds to specific activities, and (2) making funds available for more general purposes. There are
also some other alternatives that might appeal to Members who are interested in a middle ground also some other alternatives that might appeal to Members who are interested in a middle ground
between those options. One possible intermediate approach, which Congress used with HAVA’s between those options. One possible intermediate approach, which Congress used with HAVA’s
P&A system grant program, is to make grant funds broadly available for general purposes but P&A system grant program, is to make grant funds broadly available for general purposes but
prohibit some specific uses of the funds. Another, which the House has explored in prohibit some specific uses of the funds. Another, which the House has explored in ~~its versions of~~
~~the FY2020~~some recent consolidated and Financial Services and General Government appropriations Financial Services and General Government appropriations ~~bil (H.R. 3351) and an~~
~~FY2021 consolidated appropriations bil (H.R. 7617)~~bills, is to prioritize use of the funds for a , is to prioritize use of the funds for a
particular activity, such as replacing particular activity, such as replacing ~~DRE~~ direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines, but permit them to be used for more voting machines, but permit them to be used for more
general purposes under certain conditions.general purposes under certain conditions.44
Amount of Funding
 Is the total amount of federal funding  Is the total amount of federal funding authorized for the grant program a fixed for the grant program a fixed amount, or is amount, or is
~~it based on the costs of conducting~~it such sums as may be necessary to conduct the funded activities? the funded activities?
 Are grant recipients required to contribute to funding grant activities?  Are grant recipients required to contribute to funding grant activities?
 How is funding  How is funding ~~al ocated~~allocated to grant recipients? to grant recipients?
 Are eligible Are eligible recipients guaranteed minimum—or subject to maximum—award recipients guaranteed minimum—or subject to maximum—award
amounts? amounts?
Congress might use grant programs either to help states or localities perform a particular activity Congress might use grant programs either to help states or localities perform a particular activity
or to encourage them to do so. Whether a given grant program is intended to facilitate elections or to encourage them to do so. Whether a given grant program is intended to facilitate elections
activities or incentivize them might affect how much funding Congress chooses to make available activities or incentivize them might affect how much funding Congress chooses to make available
for the program. If the objective of a given grant program is to enable states to perform an for the program. If the objective of a given grant program is to enable states to perform an
activity, for example, the amount of funding Congress chooses to provide for the program might activity, for example, the amount of funding Congress chooses to provide for the program might
be based on the actual costs of conducting the activity. be based on the actual costs of conducting the activity.
Congress has sometimes also required grant recipients to contribute some of the total funding for Congress has sometimes also required grant recipients to contribute some of the total funding for
grant activities, such as by providing matching funds. The 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico grant activities, such as by providing matching funds. The 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico ~~were~~

~~45 Even in cases in which~~ are required to match 5% of the federal funding they received in FY2018 HAVA funds, for example, and 20% of the funding received in FY2020, FY2022, and CARES Act funds.45 43 Even in cases in which Congress attaches funding to a requirement, it may leave grantees some flexibility about Congress attaches funding to a requirement, it may leave grantees some flexibility about
exactly how to comply with the requirement. HAVAexactly how to comply with the requirement. HAVA explicitly states that decisions about how to implement explicitly states that decisions about how to implement ~~t he~~the act’s act’s
requirements are to be left to the states, for example, and states have taken different approaches to meeting requirements are to be left to the states, for example, and states have taken different approaches to meeting
requirements like the act’s statewide voter registration list requirement. For more on statewide voter registration lists, requirements like the act’s statewide voter registration list requirement. For more on statewide voter registration lists,
see CRSsee CRS ~~Report~~ Report R46406, R46406, Voter Registration: Recent ~~Developm ents~~Developments and Issues for Congress, by Sarah J. Eckman; and , by Sarah J. Eckman; and
EAC, EAC, Voluntary Guidance on ~~Im plem entation~~Implementation of Statewide Voter Registration Lists,, ~~July~~ July 2005, at https://www.eac.gov/2005, at https://www.eac.gov/
sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/1/Implementing%20Statewide%20Voter%20Registration%20Lists.pdfsites/default/files/eac_assets/1/1/Implementing%20Statewide%20Voter%20Registration%20Lists.pdf .
~~Congressional Research Service~~
18

~~Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities~~

~~required to match 5% of the federal funding they received in FY2018 HAVA funds, for example,~~
~~and 20% of the funding they received in FY2020 and CARES Act funds.46~~
~~Requiring grant recipients to contribute to funding grant activities might have some advantages.~~
~~For one thing, it increases the total amount of funding available~~ . 44 See, for example, a House-passed FY2021 consolidated appropriations act (H.R. 7617; passed 217-197), the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2022 (H.R. 4345), and the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2023 (H.R. 8254). 45 According to the EAC, these match requirements have been waived for the other eligible territories. EAC, State Governments’ Use of Help America Vote Act Funds 2007, July 2008, pp. 22-23, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/EAC_Report_to_Congress_on_State_Expenditures_of_HAVA_Funds_2007.pdf; EAC, Election Assistance Commission FY2008/2009/2010/2011 Requirements Payment Schedule, at https://web.archive.org/web/20191227211147/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/4699.PDF; and EAC, “HAVA Frequently Asked Questions,” at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/grants-faqs. Congressional Research Service 18 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities Requiring grant recipients to contribute to funding grant activities might have some advantages. For one thing, it increases the total amount of funding available for grant activities without further for grant activities without further
increasing federal investment. Some have also suggested that, by requiring potential grantees to increasing federal investment. Some have also suggested that, by requiring potential grantees to
make a case to state or local authorities for providing matching funds, match requirements might make a case to state or local authorities for providing matching funds, match requirements might
encourage grant recipients to think more carefully about how to deploy grant funds.encourage grant recipients to think more carefully about how to deploy grant funds.4746
Match requirements may also come with trade-offs, however. For example, some have suggested Match requirements may also come with trade-offs, however. For example, some have suggested
that requiring a 20% match for CARES Act HAVAthat requiring a 20% match for CARES Act HAVA funds at a time when there were other pressing funds at a time when there were other pressing
demands on state budgets and some state legislatures had suspended their sessions due to demands on state budgets and some state legislatures had suspended their sessions due to
COVID-19 made it difficult for some states to access the funds.COVID-19 made it difficult for some states to access the funds.4847 States with more limited States with more limited
resources may also find it more resources may also find it more ~~chal enging~~challenging to meet match requirements in general than better- to meet match requirements in general than better-
resourced states. resourced states.
A proposal was offered, during the HAVA A proposal was offered, during the HAVA debate, to address this last trade-off by linking the debate, to address this last trade-off by linking the
percentage of federal funding states were required to match to their level of financial need.percentage of federal funding states were required to match to their level of financial need.4948 That That
proposal was not adopted, but variations among states have factored into other decisions about proposal was not adopted, but variations among states have factored into other decisions about
elections grant programs. For example, Congress chose to use nondiscretionary formulas to elections grant programs. For example, Congress chose to use nondiscretionary formulas to
~~al ocate~~allocate some HAVA some HAVA funds due to concerns that using competitive grant processes would funds due to concerns that using competitive grant processes would
disadvantage states with more limited grant-writing resources.disadvantage states with more limited grant-writing resources.5049 The formulas Congress set out in The formulas Congress set out in
~~HAVA~~ HAVA were also structured to reflect variations among states. were also structured to reflect variations among states. ~~Al ocations~~Allocations of lever and punch card of lever and punch card
voting system replacement grant funds varied with the number of precincts that used such voting system replacement grant funds varied with the number of precincts that used such
systems in the November 2000 general election, for example, and systems in the November 2000 general election, for example, and ~~al ocations~~allocations of general of general
improvements funds and requirements payments vary by voting-age population. improvements funds and requirements payments vary by voting-age population.
Recipients of Funding
 Is grant funding available—directly or indirectly—to local officials?  Is grant funding available—directly or indirectly—to local officials?

~~46 According to the EAC, these match requirements have been waived for the other eligible territories. EAC,~~ ~~State~~
~~Governments’ Use of Help America Vote Act Funds 2007, July 2008, pp. 22-23, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/~~
~~files/eac_assets/1/6/EAC_Report_to_Congress_on_State_Expenditures_of_HAVA_Funds_2007.pdf ; EAC,~~ ~~Election~~
~~Assistance Com m ission FY2008/2009/201 0/2011 Requirem ents Paym ent Schedule, at https://web.archive.org/web/~~
~~20191227211147/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/4699.PDF; and EAC, “ 2020 CARES Act Grant FAQs,” at~~
~~https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/2020-cares-act-grant-faqs.~~
~~47 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules~~  Is grant funding available to election officials or to other state or local entities?  Which jurisdictions or entities are eligible for the grant program? State-level election officials have been the direct recipients of most of the funding Congress has made available for election administration-related grant programs to date, and they have generally had discretion over whether or how to share the funds. In most states, however, most of the day-to-day work of administering elections is done at the local level.50 Local officials are often both 46 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Administration, 2020 General Election
Preparations, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 22, 2020. 22, 2020.
4847 See, See, for example, Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Speaker for example, Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Speaker
Nancy Pelosi andNancy Pelosi and Leader Kevin McCarthy, April 2, 2020, at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/NASS%20Letters/Leader Kevin McCarthy, April 2, 2020, at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/NASS%20Letters/
4.2.20%20NASS%20CARES%20Funding%20Letter%20to%20House%4.2.20%20NASS%20CARES%20Funding%20Letter%20to%20House%~~2 0Leadership~~20Leadership.pdf; and Letter from Paul Pate, .pdf; and Letter from Paul Pate,
President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Sen. Mitch McConnell and Sen. Chuck Schumer,President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Sen. Mitch McConnell and Sen. Chuck Schumer, April April
2, 2020, at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/NASS%20Letters/2, 2020, at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/NASS%20Letters/
4.2.20%20NASS%20CARES%20Funding%20Letter%20to%20Senate%20Leadership.pdf4.2.20%20NASS%20CARES%20Funding%20Letter%20to%20Senate%20Leadership.pdf . Proposals . Proposals ~~have been~~
were offered to repeal the match requirement for CARESoffered to repeal the match requirement for CARES Act fundsAct funds or permit it to be waived.or permit it to be waived. See, for example, the See, for example, the 116th Congress’s Heroes Heroes
Act (H.R. 6800), the Secure Our Elections Act (H.R. 6777), the State Elections Preparedness Act (S. 3778), and the Act (H.R. 6800), the Secure Our Elections Act (H.R. 6777), the State Elections Preparedness Act (S. 3778), and the
Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020 (S. 4033)Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020 (S. 4033) ~~in the 116th Congress.~~
49. 48 Sen. Mary Landrieu, Sen. Mary Landrieu, “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate,“Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate, Congressional Record, ,
daily edition, vol. 148, part 18 (February 27, 2002), p. S1227.daily edition, vol. 148, part 18 (February 27, 2002), p. S1227.
50 49 Sen. Sam Sen. Sam Brownback,Brownback, “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate, “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate, Congressional Record, ,
daily edition, vol. 148, part 14 (February 14, 2002), p. S812.daily edition, vol. 148, part 14 (February 14, 2002), p. S812.
~~Congressional Research Service~~
19

~~Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities~~

~~ Is grant funding available to election officials or to other state or local~~
~~government entities?~~
~~ Which jurisdictions or entities are eligible for the grant program?~~
~~State-level election officials have been the direct recipients of most of the funding Congress has~~
~~made available for election administration-related grant programs to date, and they have general y~~
~~had discretion over whether or how to share the funds. In most states, however, most of the day-~~
~~to-day work of administering elections is done at the local level.51 Local officials are often both~~ 50 States retain primary responsibility for most of the day-to-day work of administering elections in a few states. For more on the division of election administration responsibilities between states and localities, see CRS Report R45549, Congressional Research Service 19 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities
responsible for most elections-related spending and most familiar with the specifics of election responsible for most elections-related spending and most familiar with the specifics of election
administration needs. administration needs.
There may be There may be ~~compel ing~~compelling administrative reasons to distribute elections grant funding at the state administrative reasons to distribute elections grant funding at the state
level—some localities might have difficulty meeting federal grant compliance requirements, for level—some localities might have difficulty meeting federal grant compliance requirements, for
example, and it might be easier for the federal agencies charged with administering grant example, and it might be easier for the federal agencies charged with administering grant
programs to coordinate with the states than with thousands of local jurisdictions—but some programs to coordinate with the states than with thousands of local jurisdictions—but some
Members have explored ways to involve local officials in either spending grant funds or helping Members have explored ways to involve local officials in either spending grant funds or helping
decide how they are spent.decide how they are spent.5251 HAVA HAVA required the HAVArequired the HAVA states to submit detailed state plans for states to submit detailed state plans for
use of their requirements payments, for example, and directed them to include local officials on use of their requirements payments, for example, and directed them to include local officials on
the committees that developed the plans. the committees that developed the plans. ~~Bil s~~ Bills have also been introduced that would require states have also been introduced that would require states
to pass some elections grant funding through to localities or to pass some elections grant funding through to localities or ~~al ow~~allow local officials to apply for local officials to apply for
elections grant funds if their state officials opt not to do so or authorize them to apply.elections grant funds if their state officials opt not to do so or authorize them to apply.5352
Some election administration-related grant programs have also been directed to non-elections- Some election administration-related grant programs have also been directed to non-elections-
specific specific ~~government~~ entities rather than to election officials. Although election officials are a entities rather than to election officials. Although election officials are a
natural choice for carrying out most election administration tasks, certain elections-related natural choice for carrying out most election administration tasks, certain elections-related
activities might be a better fit for entities with other subject matter expertise. Congress directed activities might be a better fit for entities with other subject matter expertise. Congress directed
one of HAVA’sone of HAVA’s disability access grant programs to P&A systems, for example, because P&A disability access grant programs to P&A systems, for example, because P&A
systems were thought to be particularly systems were thought to be particularly ~~wel~~ well-equipped to help improve electoral access for -equipped to help improve electoral access for
~~individuals~~ individuals with disabilities.with disabilities.5453
HAVA’s HAVA’s P&A system grant program highlights another potential question about recipients of P&A system grant program highlights another potential question about recipients of
election administration-related grant funds: which jurisdictions or entities should be eligibleelection administration-related grant funds: which jurisdictions or entities should be eligible for for
funding? HAVAfunding? HAVA defined “states” as the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and defined “states” as the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and that definition has been used to set eligibilitythe U.S. Virgin Islands, and that definition has been used to set eligibility for a number of for a number of
elections grant programs, including HAVA’selections grant programs, including HAVA’s P&A system program. That has meant that the P&A system program. That has meant that the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)—and, in the case of the P&A system Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)—and, in the case of the P&A system
grant program, the P&A system serving the American Indian grant program, the P&A system serving the American Indian ~~Consortium—has general y not been~~
~~eligible~~ consortium—has generally not been eligible for funding Congress has appropriated for HAVAfor funding Congress has appropriated for HAVA grant programs for states.grant programs for states.55

~~51 States retain primary responsibility for most of the day-to-day work of administering elections in a few states. For~~
~~more on the division of election administration responsibilities between states and localities, see CRS Report R45549,~~
The State and Local Role in Election Adm inistra tion: Duties and Structures, by Karen L. Shanton.
~~52 As authorized, HAVA’s polling place accessibility grant program is available to units of local government as well as~~
~~HAVA states. However, the appropriations acts that have funded awards under the progr am have generally limited~~
~~them to the HAVA states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7.~~
~~53 See, for example, the Secure Elections Act (H.R. 6663/S. 2261/S. 2593) in the 115th Congress and a House-passed~~
~~FY2021 consolidated appropriations bill (H.R. 7617) in the 116th Congress.~~
~~54 Sen. T om~~54 Congress might choose to base eligibility for any future state elections grant programs on the current HAVA definition of “state.” However, some have explored extending eligibility for certain programs to CNMI or the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium. CNMI was not included in HAVA’s definition of “state” because it did not hold federal elections when HAVA was enacted.55 Since the territory started electing a Delegate to Congress in 2008, however, bills The State and Local Role in Election Administration: Duties and Structures, by Karen L. Shanton. 51 As authorized, HAVA’s polling place accessibility grant program is available to units of local government as well as HAVA states. However, the appropriations acts that have funded awards under the program have generally limited them to the HAVA states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7. 52 See, for example, the Secure Elections Act (H.R. 6663/S. 2261/S. 2593) in the 115th Congress and the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2023 (H.R. 8254) in the 117th Congress. 53 Sen. Tom Harkin, “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate, Harkin, “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate, Congressional Record, ,
daily edition, vol. 148, part 17 (February 26, 2002), p. S1144.daily edition, vol. 148, part 17 (February 26, 2002), p. S1144.
55 54 Some exceptions to this general rule are described Some exceptions to this general rule are described below.below. ~~T he~~ The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)(HHS) also announced a single-sourcealso announced a single-source grant awardgrant award for CNMI for FY2010 for HAVA-related activities. HHSfor CNMI for FY2010 for HAVA-related activities. HHS indicated indicated
that it was awardingthat it was awarding the grant because, “With its participation in Federal elections [starting in 2008], CNMI’s eligibility the grant because, “With its participation in Federal elections [starting in 2008], CNMI’s eligibility
~~Congressional Research Service~~
20

~~Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities~~

~~Congress might choose to base eligibility for any future state elections grant programs on the~~
~~current HAVA definition of “state.” However, some have explored extending eligibility for certain~~
~~programs to CNMI or the P&A system serving the American Indian Consortium. CNMI was not~~
~~included in HAVA’s definition of “state” because it did not hold federal elections when HAVA~~
~~was enacted.56 Since the territory started electing a Delegate to Congress in 2008, however, bil s~~
~~have been introduced to amend the HAVA definition to include CNMI or extend eligibility for the~~
for funding under HAVA is now established.” HHS, “Award of a Single-Source Grant to the Commonwealth Election Commission of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI),” 75 Federal Register 66380-66381, October 28, 2010. 55 Testimony of the Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, in U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Voting Rights and Election Administration in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Congressional Research Service 20 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities have been introduced to amend the HAVA definition to include CNMI or extend eligibility for the P&A system grant program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian P&A system grant program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian
~~Consortium.57~~consortium.56 Congress has also used appropriations measures to expand eligibility Congress has also used appropriations measures to expand eligibility for elections for elections
grant programs, such as by including provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020grant programs, such as by including provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020,
; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022; and the CARES Act that made their HAVAand the CARES Act that made their HAVA funds available to CNMI.funds available to CNMI.5857
Availability of Funding
 Is there a statutory deadline by which the agency that is charged with  Is there a statutory deadline by which the agency that is charged with
administering the grant program must distribute the grant funding? administering the grant program must distribute the grant funding?
 Are grant recipients required to obligate or spend grant funds or complete funded  Are grant recipients required to obligate or spend grant funds or complete funded
activities by a certain deadline? activities by a certain deadline?
 Are appropriations for the grant program authorized for a limited number of  Are appropriations for the grant program authorized for a limited number of
fiscal years or on an ongoing basis? fiscal years or on an ongoing basis?
Some states require gubernatorial or state legislative approval to claim, use, or match federal Some states require gubernatorial or state legislative approval to claim, use, or match federal
funds, and the procurement processes states and localities use to acquire resources like voting funds, and the procurement processes states and localities use to acquire resources like voting
machines can take months or years to complete. The potential for such delays at the state and machines can take months or years to complete. The potential for such delays at the state and
local levels and the emergency nature of certain elections spending have sometimes led Congress local levels and the emergency nature of certain elections spending have sometimes led Congress
to encourage prompt distribution of elections grant funds. The CARES Act, for example, directed to encourage prompt distribution of elections grant funds. The CARES Act, for example, directed
the EAC to distribute its HAVAthe EAC to distribute its HAVA grant funds within 30 days of the act’s enactment. grant funds within 30 days of the act’s enactment.
Congress might also set deadlines by which grant recipients must obligate or spend their funds or Congress might also set deadlines by which grant recipients must obligate or spend their funds or
complete funded activities. Such deadlines can help ensure that grant funds are spent within a complete funded activities. Such deadlines can help ensure that grant funds are spent within a
specified time period. Awards under certain HAVAspecified time period. Awards under certain HAVA grant programs, such as the act’s general grant programs, such as the act’s general
improvements grant program and requirements payments program, were made available to improvements grant program and requirements payments program, were made available to
recipients without fiscal year limitation, and recipients were permitted to keep and use any recipients without fiscal year limitation, and recipients were permitted to keep and use any
interest the grant funds generated. That offered an incentive to save grant funding for future needs interest the grant funds generated. That offered an incentive to save grant funding for future needs
or ongoing costs rather than spending it quickly, and some states have reported or ongoing costs rather than spending it quickly, and some states have reported ~~stil~~ still having grant having grant
funds or interest in their accounts funds or interest in their accounts ~~more than 15~~almost 20 years after the grant funding was appropriated. years after the grant funding was appropriated.59

~~for funding under HAVA is now established.” HHS, “Award of a Single-Source Grant to the Commonwealth Election~~
~~Commission of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI),” 75 Federal Register 66380-66381,~~
~~October 28, 2010.~~
~~56 T estimony of the Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on House~~
~~Administration, Subcommittee on Elections,~~ ~~Voting Rights and Election Adm inistration in the U.S. Virgin Islands and~~
~~Other Territories, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 28, 2020, p. 2.~~
~~57 See, for example, the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) Program In clusion Act (H.R. 5510) in the~~
~~116th Congress.~~
~~58 Congress specified in report language accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L. 108-199) that~~
~~it intended the P&A system serving the American Indian Consortium to be eligible for HAVA’s P&A system grant~~
~~program. T hat~~58 Deadlines may also come with trade-offs, however. Some have argued that the deadlines for certain grant programs, such as HAVA’s lever and punch card voting system replacement program, helped incentivize spending that was not well-tailored to the program’s objectives.59 NASS also expressed concern that the deadline for obligating CARES Act funding could Other Territories, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 28, 2020, p. 2. 56 See, for example, the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) Program Inclusion Act (H.R. 5510) in the 116th Congress. 57 Congress specified in report language accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) that it intended the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium to be eligible for HAVA’s P&A system grant program. That P&A system does not appear, however, to have received an FY2004 P&A system grant award. P&A system does not appear, however, to have received an FY2004 P&A system grant award.
Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Discretionary ~~Program s~~ Programs, p. D-134, at https://, p. D-134, at https://web.archive.org/web/20200713024048/https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/olab/sec2_discre_prog_2006cj.pdf. files/olab/sec2_discre_prog_2006cj.pdf.
5958 EAC, EAC, 2020 Grant Expenditure Report, July 2021, at https://web.archive.org/web/20220320121722/https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/paymentgrants/expenditures/2020_State_Grant_Expenditure_Report_FINAL.pdf. 59 See, for example, Brandon Fail, “HAVA’s Unintended Consequences: A Lesson for Next Time,” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 116, no. 2 (November 2006), pp. 499-500. Congressional Research Service 21 link to page 19 link to page 19 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities introduce complications for use of the funds, and some states cited the deadline as a barrier to spending their shares.60 One possible way to encourage timely spending without setting deadlines could be to provide for ongoing funding for certain election administration-related purposes.61~~Grant Expenditure Report: Fiscal Year 2018, April 4, 2019, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/~~
~~eac_assets/1/6/FY2018HAVAGrantsExpenditureReport.pdf.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
21

~~link to page 19 link to page 19~~ ~~Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities~~

~~Deadlines may also come with trade-offs, however. Some have argued that the deadlines for~~
~~certain grant programs, such as HAVA’s lever and punch card voting system replacement~~
~~program, helped incentivize spending that was not wel -tailored to the program’s objectives.60 A~~
~~concern was also raised during the HAVA debate that setting short deadlines for certain grant~~
~~spending could introduce problems under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth~~
~~Amendment, as localities that could not meet the deadlines might have their elections disrupted~~
~~while other localities in the same state would not.61~~
~~One possible way to encourage timely spending without setting deadlines could be to provide~~
~~ongoing appropriations for certain election administration-related purposes.~~ Some states have Some states have
reported that they waited to spend some of their HAVAreported that they waited to spend some of their HAVA grant funds so they would have funding grant funds so they would have funding
~~available~~ available to cover unexpected expenses or meet future iterations of ongoing needs.62 State and to cover unexpected expenses or meet future iterations of ongoing needs.62 State and
local officials have also referred to election security in particular as a “race without a finish line” local officials have also referred to election security in particular as a “race without a finish line”
and requested regular funding from Congress for security-related expenses.63 Providing for and requested regular funding from Congress for security-related expenses.63 Providing for
regular federal funding could help assure states that they would have the resources to handle regular federal funding could help assure states that they would have the resources to handle
ongoing or unexpected costs without caching current grant funds. ongoing or unexpected costs without caching current grant funds.
Some Members might be hesitant to provide states or localities with ongoing elections funding, Some Members might be hesitant to provide states or localities with ongoing elections funding,
however, due to federalism-based considerations. As suggested by thehowever, due to federalism-based considerations. As suggested by the “Role of Federal Grant
Programs” ” section of this report, some Members might view ongoing funding for state or local section of this report, some Members might view ongoing funding for state or local
elections grant programs as federal overreach or a path to such overreach. That view might also elections grant programs as federal overreach or a path to such overreach. That view might also
be shared by some state and local officials, who might be wary of such ongoing federal be shared by some state and local officials, who might be wary of such ongoing federal
involvement in election administration. involvement in election administration.
Administration of Grant Programs
 Are details of grants administration, such as the contents or frequency of  Are details of grants administration, such as the contents or frequency of
spending plans or reporting, specified in spending plans or reporting, specified in ~~bil~~ bill text, specified in report language, or text, specified in report language, or
left to the discretion of the federal agency charged with administering the grant left to the discretion of the federal agency charged with administering the grant
program? program?
 Which agency is charged with administering the grant program?  Which agency is charged with administering the grant program?
 Is the administering agency encouraged or required to collaborate or consult with  Is the administering agency encouraged or required to collaborate or consult with
other agencies or other agencies or ~~election~~elections stakeholders? stakeholders?
Congress might choose to leave decisions about details of grants administration, such as the Congress might choose to leave decisions about details of grants administration, such as the
information potential grantees are required to provide about their spending plans, to the discretion information potential grantees are required to provide about their spending plans, to the discretion
of the federal agency that is charged with administering a given grant program.64 In some cases, of the federal agency that is charged with administering a given grant program.64 In some cases,
however, Congress might determine that there is particular information it needs to conduct however, Congress might determine that there is particular information it needs to conduct

~~60 See, for example, Brandon Fail, “HAVA’s Unintended Consequences: A Lesson for Next T ime,”~~ ~~The Yale Law~~
~~Journal, vol. 116, no. 2 (November 2006), pp. 499 -500.~~
~~61 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Report Together with Additional Views, report to~~
~~accompany H.R. 3295, 107th Cong., 1st sess., December 10, 2001, H.Rept. 107-329 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p.~~
~~41.~~
~~62 See, for example, the spending plans some states submitted for FY2018 HAVA funds. EAC, “ HAVA Election~~
~~Security Funds,” at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/hava-election-security-funds.~~
~~63 See, for example, T estimony of Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on~~
~~Rules and Administration, Election Security Preparations: A State and Local Perspective, hearing, 115th Cong., 2nd~~
~~sess., June 20, 2018, pp. 1, 3.~~
~~64 For more on grants administration and the role of agency discretion , see CRS Report R42769,~~ ~~Federal Grants-in-Aid~~
~~Adm inistration: A Prim er, by Natalie Keegan.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
22

~~Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities~~

~~effective oversight of a grant program and include specific administrative conditions in bil text or~~
~~report language.65 HAVA requires recipients of requirements payments to file and update detailed~~
~~state plans for the payments, for example, and the CARES Act requires recipients of its HAVA~~
~~funds to report on their spending within 20 days of each election they hold in the 2020 federal~~
~~election cycle.~~
~~Such additional administrative conditions may help Congress gain better insight into how grant~~
~~funds are being used, how wel a given grant program is working, and whether further funding for~~
~~the program is warranted. However, they might also come with trade-offs. For example, the short~~
~~turnaround time for CARES Act reporting raised concerns for some about whether election~~
~~officials could comply with the act’s reporting requirement while also fulfil ing their other~~
~~postelection responsibilities, such as canvassing the vote. NASS indicated that this might be a~~
~~chal enge in a letter to Congress,66 for example, and some Members have~~ effective oversight of a grant program and include specific administrative conditions in bill text or report language.65 HAVA requires recipients of requirements payments to file and update detailed 60 Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Kevin McCarthy; and Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Sen. Mitch McConnell and Sen. Chuck Schumer. See also, for example, the FY2021 financial and progress reporting some states submitted for CARES Act funds. EAC, “2020 CARES Act Grants,” at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/2020-cares-act-grants. 61 For examples of legislation in the 117th Congress that would take this approach, see the Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747), the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act (H.R. 5746), and the Sustaining Our Democracy Act (H.R. 7992/S. 4239). 62 See, for example, the spending plans some states submitted for FY2018 HAVA funds. EAC, “HAVA Election Security Funds,” at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/hava-election-security-funds. 63 See, for example, Testimony of Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Election Security Preparations: A State and Local Perspective, hearing, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., June 20, 2018, pp. 1, 3. 64 For more on grants administration and the role of agency discretion, see CRS Report R42769, Federal Grants-in-Aid Administration: A Primer, by Natalie Keegan. 65 For more on the respective roles of bill text and report language, see CRS Report R44124, Appropriations Report Congressional Research Service 22 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities state plans for the payments, for example, and the CARES Act required recipients of its HAVA funds to report on their spending within 20 days of each election they held in the 2020 federal election cycle. Such additional administrative conditions may help Congress gain better insight into how grant funds are being used, how well a given grant program is working, and whether further funding for the program is warranted. However, they might also come with trade-offs. For example, the short turnaround time for CARES Act reporting raised concerns for some about whether election officials could comply with the act’s reporting requirements while also fulfilling their other postelection responsibilities, such as canvassing the vote. NASS indicated that this might be a challenge in a letter to Congress,66 for example, and some Members proposed legislation to proposed legislation to
modify the requirement.67 In general, Congress might consider how to balance oversight needs modify the requirement.67 In general, Congress might consider how to balance oversight needs
against administrative demands to ensure that it can get the information it needs to evaluate grant against administrative demands to ensure that it can get the information it needs to evaluate grant
programs without overly burdening grantees or administering agencies. programs without overly burdening grantees or administering agencies.
The administering agency for most of the election administration-related grant programs The administering agency for most of the election administration-related grant programs
Congress has authorized for states and localities to date is the EAC. With subject matter expertise Congress has authorized for states and localities to date is the EAC. With subject matter expertise
in election administration and relationships with the state election officials to whom most grant in election administration and relationships with the state election officials to whom most grant
funds have been directed, the EAC has often been a preferred choice to administer elections grant funds have been directed, the EAC has often been a preferred choice to administer elections grant
programs.programs.
However, Congress has sometimes determined that an agency with other subject matter expertise However, Congress has sometimes determined that an agency with other subject matter expertise
or relationships with other state or local officials is a better fit for a given grant program or that or relationships with other state or local officials is a better fit for a given grant program or that
the EAC should collaborate or consult with other agencies. The U.S. Department of Health and the EAC should collaborate or consult with other agencies. The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services was charged with administering HAVA’sHuman Services was charged with administering HAVA’s ~~disability~~ disability access grant programs,68 for access grant programs,68 for
example, and the U.S. Department of Defense administered the MOVE Act’s UOCAVAexample, and the U.S. Department of Defense administered the MOVE Act’s UOCAVA election election
technology pilot program grant program.69 The National Institute of Standards and Technology technology pilot program grant program.69 The National Institute of Standards and Technology
was directed to assist the EAC with administering HAVA’swas directed to assist the EAC with administering HAVA’s voting technology improvements voting technology improvements
research and voting technology pilot program grant programs, and some have envisioned a research and voting technology pilot program grant programs, and some have envisioned a
similar collaboration between the EAC and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on an similar collaboration between the EAC and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on an
~~election security grant program.70~~

~~65 For more on the respective roles of bill text and report language, see CRS Report R44124,~~ ~~Appropriations Report~~
~~Language: Overview of Developm ent, Com ponents, and Issues for Congress, by Jessica T ollestrup.~~
election security grant program.70 Language: Overview of Components and Development, by Kevin P. McNellis. 66 Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Speaker Nancy 66 Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Speaker Nancy ~~Pe losi~~Pelosi and and
Leader Kevin McCarthy; and Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Leader Kevin McCarthy; and Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to
Sen.Sen. Mitch McConnell and Sen. Chuck Schumer. Mitch McConnell and Sen. Chuck Schumer.
67 See, 67 See, for example, the 116th Congress’s Heroes Act (H.R. 6800), Secure Our Elections Act (H.R. 6777), and Natural for example, the 116th Congress’s Heroes Act (H.R. 6800), Secure Our Elections Act (H.R. 6777), and Natural
Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020 (S. 4033). Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020 (S. 4033).
68 The~~68 T he~~ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)(HHS) initially assignedinitially assigned responsibility for administering its responsibility for administering its
HAVAHAVA grant programs to the Administration for Children and Families. grant programs to the Administration for Children and Families. ~~T he~~The programs were subsequently programs were subsequently transferred to transferred to
HHS’sHHS’s Administration for Community Living, following the creation of that agency in 2012. HHS, “Statement of Administration for Community Living, following the creation of that agency in 2012. HHS, “Statement of
Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority; Administration for Community Living,” 77Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority; Administration for Community Living,” 77 Federal Register
23250-23260, April 18, 2012. 23250-23260, April 18, 2012.
69 69 ~~T he~~The MOVE Act assigned MOVE Act assigned responsibility for administering this grant program to the presidential designeeresponsibility for administering this grant program to the presidential designee designated designated
under UOCAVA.under UOCAVA. Executive Order 12642 identified the presidential designeeExecutive Order 12642 identified the presidential designee as the Secretary of the U.S. as the Secretary of the U.S. ~~Departme nt~~Department
of Defense (DOD), and the Secretary has delegatedof Defense (DOD), and the Secretary has delegated ~~UOCAVA~~ UOCAVA responsibilities to DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance responsibilities to DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance
Program (FVAP). Executive Order 12642, “Designation of the Secretary of Defense as the Presidential Designee Under Program (FVAP). Executive Order 12642, “Designation of the Secretary of Defense as the Presidential Designee Under
~~T itle~~Title I of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act,” 53 I of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act,” 53 Federal Register 21975, June 8, 1988. 21975, June 8, 1988.
70 See,70 See, for example, the Secure Elections Act (H.R. 6663/S. 2593) in the 115th Congress. for example, the Secure Elections Act (H.R. 6663/S. 2593) in the 115th Congress.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
23 23

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Concluding Observations
Congress has tended, Congress has tended, ~~historical y~~historically, to take a circumscribed approach to federal involvement in , to take a circumscribed approach to federal involvement in
elections funding. HAVAelections funding. HAVA authorized a grant program to help replace lever and punch card voting authorized a grant program to help replace lever and punch card voting
systems, for example, but left the costs of maintaining or upgrading the replacement systems to systems, for example, but left the costs of maintaining or upgrading the replacement systems to
states and localities. Appropriations for election administration-related grant programs for states states and localities. Appropriations for election administration-related grant programs for states
and localities have also and localities have also ~~typical y~~typically been authorized for a limited number of fiscal years rather than been authorized for a limited number of fiscal years rather than
on an ongoing basis. on an ongoing basis.
State and local elections grant programs have taken on a prominent role in federal election State and local elections grant programs have taken on a prominent role in federal election
administration policy following reports of election interference efforts in the 2016 election cycle administration policy following reports of election interference efforts in the 2016 election cycle
and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycle. Congress appropriated a total of and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycle. Congress appropriated a total of
~~more than $1.2 bil ion for state elections grant programs for FY2018 and FY2020 and~~ almost $1.3 billion under HAVA’s general improvements grant program for FY2018, FY2020, and FY2022 and has advanced advanced
other proposals to authorize or fund state or local elections grant programs through parts of the other proposals to authorize or fund state or local elections grant programs through parts of the
~~legislative~~ legislative process. process.
An open question might be whether the post-2016 prominence of state and local elections grant An open question might be whether the post-2016 prominence of state and local elections grant
programs reflects potential interest among Members in increased federal involvement in election programs reflects potential interest among Members in increased federal involvement in election
administration funding or whether the FY2018administration funding or whether the FY2018, FY2020, and FY2022 ~~and FY2020~~ appropriations were more isolated appropriations were more isolated
responses to immediate responses to immediate ~~chal enges~~challenges. Does Congress foresee authorizing or funding further . Does Congress foresee authorizing or funding further
elections grant programs for states or localities, or would it prefer to leave grant programs and elections grant programs for states or localities, or would it prefer to leave grant programs and
funding levels as they are? If Members are interested in further grant programs, would funding funding levels as they are? If Members are interested in further grant programs, would funding
for the programs be provided on a time-limited or ongoing basis? Would such grant programs or for the programs be provided on a time-limited or ongoing basis? Would such grant programs or
funding be intended to help states and localities respond to specific funding be intended to help states and localities respond to specific ~~chal enges~~challenges like the ones like the ones
presented by election interference and the COVID-19 pandemic or to advance broader elections presented by election interference and the COVID-19 pandemic or to advance broader elections
objectives, such as ensuring that objectives, such as ensuring that ~~al eligible~~ all eligible voters have access to the voters have access to the ~~bal ot~~ballot or protecting the or protecting the
integrity of the electoral process? integrity of the electoral process?
Previous legislative Previous legislative proposals suggest some of the options available to Congress for structuring proposals suggest some of the options available to Congress for structuring
elections grant programs for states and localities and some of the considerations that have elections grant programs for states and localities and some of the considerations that have
informed choices among those options in the past. Information about such options and informed choices among those options in the past. Information about such options and
considerations might be helpful both to Members who are considering proposing new state or considerations might be helpful both to Members who are considering proposing new state or
local elections grant programs or funding and to Members who are weighing whether to support, local elections grant programs or funding and to Members who are weighing whether to support,
oppose, or amend such proposals.oppose, or amend such proposals.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
24 24

Appendix A. Legislation in the ~~116th~~117th Congress
This table includes This table includes ~~bil s~~bills that would authorize, fund, or modify the parameters of election administration-related grant programs for states or that would authorize, fund, or modify the parameters of election administration-related grant programs for states or
localities. It covers grant programs for state or local election officials as localities. It covers grant programs for state or local election officials as ~~wel~~ well as programs for non-elections-specific government entities, such as as programs for non-elections-specific government entities, such as
public institutions of higher education. The latest major action listed for each public institutions of higher education. The latest major action listed for each ~~bil~~ bill is current as of is current as of ~~December 8, 2020~~July 7, 2022. .
The table does not cover provisions that would condition eligibility The table does not cover provisions that would condition eligibility for federal funding on adopting or rejecting particular elections policies; for federal funding on adopting or rejecting particular elections policies;
provisions that would establish an election security grants advisory committee; provisions that would modify the parameters of an elections provisions that would establish an election security grants advisory committee; provisions that would modify the parameters of an elections
grant program indirectly by changing the conditions on a more general category of grant programs; or provisions that would authorize funding grant program indirectly by changing the conditions on a more general category of grant programs; or provisions that would authorize funding
for in-kind elections goods or services, bug bounty programs, redistricting commissions, public financing of political campaigns, or general for in-kind elections goods or services, bug bounty programs, redistricting commissions, public financing of political campaigns, or general
security for state or local government systems.71 It also does not include proposed amendments that were not adopted, and the provided security for state or local government systems.71 It also does not include proposed amendments that were not adopted, and the provided
summaries do not cover non-grant-related provisions of the summaries do not cover non-grant-related provisions of the ~~bil s~~bills. .
Table A-1. Proposals to Authorize, Fund, or Modify Election Administration-Related Grant Programs for States or Localities,
~~116th~~117th Congress
Bill Number
Short Title
Latest Major Action
Summary of Grant-Related Provisions
P.L. P.L. ~~116-93~~117-103
Consolidated Appropriations Consolidated Appropriations
Enacted Enacted
Appropriated $ Appropriated $~~425~~75 mil ion mil ion for making general improvementsfor making general improvements to the administrationto the administration of of
Act, Act, ~~2020~~2022
federal elections, federal elections, including for enhancing election technology and improvingincluding for enhancing election technology and improving election election
securitysecurity.
~~P.L. 116-94~~
~~Further Consolidated~~
~~Enacted~~
~~Included~~; and included funding for carrying out the provisions funding for carrying out the provisions of HAVA related to disability access of HAVA related to disability access
~~Appropriations Act, 2020~~
grant programs in general budget authority for the Administrationgrant programs in general budget authority for the Administration for Community for Community
Living’sLiving’s Aging and DisabilityAging and Disability ~~Services~~ Services programs. 71 A bug ~~programs.~~
~~P.L. 116-136~~
~~Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and~~
~~Enacted~~
~~Appropriated $400 mil ion for preventing, preparing for, and responding to~~
~~Economic Security (CARES) Act~~
~~coronavirus, domestical y or international y, for the 2020 federal election cycle.~~

~~71 A bug~~ bounty program is a program that provides compensation for identifying and reporting security vulnerabilities in a bounty program is a program that provides compensation for identifying and reporting security vulnerabilities in a ~~syst em~~system. See,. See, for example, the for example, the ~~Election Security~~For the People Act Act
~~of 2019~~of 2021 (H.R. (H.R. ~~2660/S. 1540) and the Nonpartisan Bill for the People Act of 2019 (H.R. 1612~~1/S. 1/S. 2093). ).
CRS-25 CRS-25

Bill Number
Short Title
Latest Major Action
Summary of Grant-Related Provisions
H.R. 1 H.R. 1
For the People Act of For the People Act of ~~2019~~2021
Passed Passed by the House the House
Would authorize use of Help America Would authorize use of Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requirements Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requirements
payments for payments for ~~meeting~~complying with voter registration voter registration ~~requirements~~ requirements and making and making ~~improvements to~~
improvements to voting system security; voting system security;
would would ~~expand and reauthorize HAVA’s~~ reauthorize and expand the permissible uses of funding under HAVA’s pol ing place accessibilitypol ing place accessibility grant program; grant program;
would repealwould repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A) system the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A) system
grant funds for initiating or otherwisegrant funds for initiating or otherwise participating in litigation about election-related participating in litigation about election-related
disability access; disability access;
would amend the HAVAwould amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include the Commonwealthdefinition of “state” to include the Commonwealth of the of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and specify a minimumNorthern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and specify a minimum amount for HAVA amount for HAVA
requirementsrequirements payments to CNMI; would extend eligibility for HAVA’s P&A system grant program to the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum payment amount; would ~~payments to CNMI;~~
~~would~~ include the protection of electioninclude the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in
state plans for HAVA requirementsstate plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committeespayments and require the committees responsible responsible
for developing state plans to be for developing state plans to be ~~geographical y~~geographically representative; and representative; and
would authorize grant programs for would authorize grant programs for ~~meeting requirements related to automatic voter~~
~~registration and registration~~ complying with automatic voter registration and registration portability and correctionportability and correction; requirements; encouraging minorsencouraging minors to to
participate in electionparticipate in election activities; providing 12th graders with information about activities; providing 12th graders with information about
~~registering~~ registering to vote; conducting pilotto vote; conducting pilot programs to enable individuals with disabilitiesprograms to enable individuals with disabilities to register to
~~register~~ to vote and request and receiveto vote and request and receive absentee absentee ~~bal ots~~ballots at home; conducting research at home; conducting research
into accessibleinto accessible ~~paper bal ot~~ and secure remote voting systems and voting, verification, voting, verification, and casting mechanismsand casting mechanisms ~~and best~~
~~practices for increasing~~ to increase the accessibility the accessibility ~~of paper bal ots~~ of voting and verification; establishing absentee ballot tracking programs; recruiting and training pol ; recruiting and training pol
workers;workers; ~~rewarding~~ recognizing institutions of higher education that exceed requirements institutions of higher education that exceed requirements for helping students register to vote; conducting public education campaigns about election changes in response to emergencies, ensuring the accessibility of election websites to individuals with disabilities, and complying with best practices for ensuring the continuity of elections websites during emergencies~~for~~
~~registering students to vote; establishing absentee bal ot tracking programs~~; replacing ; replacing
voting systemsvoting systems that do not meet specified requirementsthat do not meet specified requirements or are not in compliance with or are not in compliance with
specified federal voting systemspecified federal voting system guidelines,guidelines, making improvementsmaking improvements to voting system to voting system
security, and implementingsecurity, and implementing and modelingand modeling best practices for best practices for ~~bal ot~~ ballot design, instructions, design, instructions,
and testing; conducting risk-limitingand testing; conducting risk-limiting audits; and conducting research into improving audits; and conducting research into improving
election infrastructure security, quality, reliability,election infrastructure security, quality, reliability, accuracy, accessibility,accuracy, accessibility, and and
~~affordability and increasing voter participation.~~
~~H.R. 126~~
~~Students Voicing Opinions in~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for providing 12th graders with information about~~
~~Today’s Elections (VOTE) Act~~
~~registering to vote.~~
~~H.R. 378~~
~~Safeguarding Election~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize grant programs for conducting postelection audits; and meeting paper~~
~~Infrastructure Act of 2019~~
~~bal ot and manual counting requirements and making other improvements to voting~~
~~system security.~~
affordability and increasing voter participation. CRS-26 CRS-26

Bill Number
Short Title
Latest Major Action
Summary of Grant-Related Provisions
H.R. H.R. ~~1275~~
~~Voter Empowerment Act of 2019 Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for meeting voter registration~~
~~requirements and require use of HAVA requirements payments to reimburse the~~
~~United States Postal Service (USPS) for carrying absentee bal ots free of postage;~~
~~would expand and reauthorize HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program;~~
~~would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or~~
~~otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;~~
~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI and specify a minimum~~
~~amount for HAVA requirements payments to CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to automatic voter~~
~~registration and registration portability and correction; conducting pilot programs to~~
~~enable individuals with disabilities to register and vote from home; conducting research~~
~~into accessible paper bal ot voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best~~
~~practices for increasing the accessibility of paper bal ots; recruiting and training pol~~
~~workers; conducting risk-limiting audits; and establishing absentee bal ot tracking~~
~~programs.~~
~~H.R. 1442~~
~~Pre-Registration of Voters~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for encouraging minors to participate in election~~
~~Everywhere (PROVE) Act~~
~~activities.~~
~~H.R. 1512~~
~~FAST Voting Act of 2019~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize grant programs for investing in practices and technology to expedite~~
~~voting at the pol s and simplify voter registration; making improvements to voting~~
~~system security; and implementing automatic voter registration.~~
~~H.R. 1573~~
~~Disability Voting Rights Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would expand and reauthorize HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program.~~
~~H.R. 1612~~
~~Nonpartisan Bil For the People~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would expand and reauthorize HAVA's pol ing place accessibility grant program; and~~
~~Act of 2019~~
~~would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to automatic voter~~
~~registration and registration portability and correction; conducting pilot programs to~~
~~enable individuals with disabilities to register and vote from home; conducting risk-~~
~~limiting audits; and conducting research into improving election infrastructure security,~~
~~quality, reliability, accuracy, accessibility, and affordability.~~
~~H.R. 1631~~
~~Postage Free Bal ot Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would require use of HAVA requirements payments to reimburse USPS for carrying~~
~~absentee bal ots free of postage.~~
~~H.R. 1637~~
~~High School Voter~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for conducting high school voter registration drives.~~
~~Empowerment Act of 2019~~
~~H.R. 1694~~
~~Native American Voting Rights~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for establishing and operating Native American~~
~~Act of 2019~~
~~voting task forces.~~
~~CRS-27~~

~~Bill Number~~
~~Short Title~~
~~Latest Major Action~~
~~Summary of Grant-Related Provisions~~
~~H.R. 1946~~
~~Securing America’s Elections Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize appropriations for HAVA requirements payments for meeting bal ot~~
~~of 2019~~
~~verification and audit capacity requirements.~~
~~H.R. 2660~~
~~Election Security Act of 2019~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or~~
~~otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;~~
~~would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for making improvements to~~
~~voting system security;~~
~~would include the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in~~
~~state plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committees responsible~~
~~for developing state plans to be geographical y representative;~~
~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for conducting research into accessible paper bal ot~~
~~voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best practices for increasing the~~
~~accessibility of paper bal ots; replacing voting systems that do not meet specified~~
~~requirements or are not in compliance with specified federal voting system guidelines,~~
~~making improvements to voting system security, and implementing and modeling best~~
~~practices for bal ot design, instructions, and testing; conducting risk-limiting audits; and~~
~~conducting research into improving election infrastructure security, quality, reliability,~~
~~accuracy, accessibility, and affordability and increasing voter participation.~~
~~H.R. 2722~~
~~Securing America’s Federal~~
~~Passed by the House~~
~~Would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or~~
~~Elections (SAFE) Act~~
~~otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;~~
~~would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for making improvements to~~
~~voting system security;~~
~~would include the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in~~
~~state plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committees responsible~~
~~for developing state plans to be geographical y representative;~~
~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for conducting research into accessible paper bal ot~~
~~voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best practices for increasing the~~
~~accessibility of paper bal ots; replacing voting systems that do not meet specified~~
~~requirements or are not in compliance with specified federal voting system guidelines,~~
~~making improvements to voting system security, and implementing and modeling best~~
~~practices for bal ot design, instructions, and testing; and conducting risk-limiting audits.~~
~~CRS-28~~

~~Bill Number~~
~~Short Title~~
~~Latest Major Action~~
~~Summary of Grant-Related Provisions~~
~~H.R. 2740~~
~~Labor, Health and Human~~
~~Passed by the House~~
~~Would provide funding for carrying out the provisions of HAVA related to disability~~
~~Services, Education, Defense,~~
~~access grant programs.~~
~~State, Foreign Operations, and~~
~~Energy and Water Development~~
~~Appropriations Act, 2020~~
~~H.R. 2754~~
~~Protecting American Votes and~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system~~ 4 John R. Lewis Voting Rights Passed the House Would authorize a grant program for small jurisdictions for complying with a Advancement Act of 2021 requirement to submit or publish notice of changes to voting qualifications, prerequisites, standards, practices, or procedures. H.R. 102 Restoring Faith in Elections Act Introduced Would authorize a grant program for complying with automatic voter registration and registration portability and correction requirements. H.R. 126 Students Voicing Opinions in Introduced Would authorize a grant program for providing 12th graders with information about Today’s Elections (VOTE) Act registering to vote. H.R. 635 Pre-Registration Of Voters Introduced Would authorize a grant program for encouraging minors to participate in election Everywhere (PROVE) Act activities. H.R. 775 Disability Voting Rights Act Introduced Would reauthorize and expand the permissible uses of funding under HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program. H.R. 1307 Vote by Mail Tracking Act Introduced Would authorize funding for complying with a requirement to use the United States Postal Service (USPS) barcode service for ballots. H.R. 1343 Voting Access Act Introduced Would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for complying with requirements related to pol ing place operations. H.R. 1662 Updating Postal Data on Introduced Would authorize a grant program for conducting list maintenance activities required by Addresses for Trustworthy HAVA and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Elections (UPDATE) Act H.R. 2232 Help Students Vote Act Introduced Would authorize a grant program for recognizing institutions of higher education that exceed requirements for helping students register to vote; and would designate a percentage of federal work study funding for compensating students employed in activities including voter registration, nonpartisan voter engagement, and voter participation work. CRS-27 Bill Number Short Title Latest Major Action Summary of Grant-Related Provisions H.R. 2358 Voter Empowerment Act of 2021 Introduced Would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for complying with voter registration requirements; would reauthorize and expand the permissible uses of funding under HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program; would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant funds for initiating or otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access; would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and specify a minimum amount for HAVA requirements payments to CNMI; would extend eligibility for HAVA’s P&A system grant program to the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum payment amount; and would authorize grant programs for complying with automatic voter registration and registration portability and correction requirements; encouraging minors to participate in election activities; providing 12th graders with information about registering to vote; conducting pilot programs to enable individuals with disabilities to register to vote and request and receive absentee ballots at home; conducting research into accessible and secure remote voting systems and voting, verification, and casting mechanisms to increase the accessibility of voting and verification; establishing absentee ballot tracking programs; recruiting and training pol workers; recognizing institutions of higher education that exceed requirements for helping students register to vote; and conducting public education campaigns about election changes in response to emergencies, ensuring the accessibility of election websites to individuals with disabilities, and complying with best practices for ensuring the continuity of elections websites during emergencies. H.R. 2844 Election Protection Act of 2021 Introduced Would authorize a grant program for conducting election administration activities, for states that certify compliance with specified requirements for voter registration list maintenance; voter identification; mail ballot delivery, col ection, and acceptance; ballot tabulation, processing, and observation; and voting system audits. CRS-28 Bill Number Short Title Latest Major Action Summary of Grant-Related Provisions H.R. 2941 Accessible Voting Act of 2021 Introduced Would reauthorize and expand the permissible uses of funding under HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program; would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant funds for initiating or otherwise ~~grant funds for initiating or~~
~~Elections Act of 2019~~
~~otherwise~~ participating in litigation about election-relatedparticipating in litigation about election-related disability access; disability access;
would would ~~specify a minimum amount~~extend eligibility for HAVA for HAVA’s P&A system P&A system grant grant ~~awards~~program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum payment amount for the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium; and would authorize grant programs for complying with requirements related to accessibility of the electoral process and election information to individuals with disabilities; and conducting research into accessible and secure remote voting systems and voting, verification, and casting mechanisms to increase the accessibility of voting and verification. H.R. 3077 Postal Service Improvement Act Ordered to be reported Would authorize funding for complying with a requirement to use the USPS barcode by the House service for ballots. Committee on Oversight and Reform H.R. 3372 One Stop Shop Community Ordered to be reported Would authorize a grant program for operating hotlines that provide information about Reentry Program Act of 2021 by the House voter registration, voting rights restoration, and other reentry services for individuals Committee on the returning to the community after conviction or incarceration. Judiciary H.R. 3772 Housing Is a Human Right Act of Introduced Would authorize a grant program for facilitating voting by individuals who are homeless 2021 or housing-unstable. H.R. 3863 Fair Representation Act Introduced Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting and otherwise conducting federal elections. H.R. 3867 Every Vote Counts Act Introduced Would authorize a grant program for complying with a requirement to establish an absentee ballot tracking program. H.R. 4345 Financial Services and General Reported by the House Would appropriate $500 mil ion for making general improvements to the Government Appropriations Act, Committee on administration of federal elections, including for enhancing election technology and 2022 Appropriations improving election security. H.R. 4350 National Defense Authorization Cloture not invoked on Would authorize a grant program for implementing voting technologies for individuals Act for Fiscal Year 2022 an amendment in the covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 nature of a substitute (UOCAVA). CRS-29 Bill Number Short Title Latest Major Action Summary of Grant-Related Provisions H.R. 4384 Securing America’s Elections Act Introduced Would authorize funding for HAVA requirements ~~to the American~~
~~Indian Consortium P&A system;~~
~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for replacing paperless voting systems; acquiring~~
~~accessible bal ot marking devices; designing and printing bal ots; and conducting risk-~~
~~limiting audits.~~
~~H.R. 2807~~
~~Help Students Vote Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for rewarding institutions of higher education that~~
~~exceed requirements for registering students to vote.~~
~~H.R. 3351~~
~~Financial Services and General~~
~~Passed by the House~~
~~Would provide funding for replacing voting systems that use direct-recording electronic~~
~~Government Appropriations Act,~~
~~(DRE) voting machines and other elections-related purposes.~~
~~2020~~
~~H.R. 3412~~
~~Election Security Assistance Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize appropriations for making general improvements to the~~
~~administration of federal elections, including for enhancing election technology and~~
~~improving election security.~~
~~H.R. 4000~~
~~Fair Representation Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting and~~
~~otherwise conducting federal elections.~~
~~H.R. 4464~~
~~Ranked Choice Voting Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting and~~
~~otherwise conducting federal elections.~~
~~H.R. 4990~~
~~Election Technology Research~~
~~Passed by the House~~
~~Would authorize grant programs for establishing a Center of Excel ence in Election~~
~~Act of 2019~~
~~Systems; conducting research to improve the understanding of threats to voting~~
~~systems and inform the development of technologies, processes, and policies that~~
~~contribute to election security, fairness, and accessibility; and establishing at least one~~
~~multidisciplinary center for elections systems research and education.~~
~~H.R. 5510~~
~~Protection and Advocacy for~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would extend eligibility for HAVA's P&A system grant program to the P&A systems~~
~~Voting Access (PAVA) Program~~
~~serving CNMI and the American Indian Consortium and specify a minimum amount for~~
~~Inclusion Act~~
~~HAVA P&A system grant awards to the American Indian Consortium P&A system.~~
~~CRS-29~~

~~Bill Number~~
~~Short Title~~
~~Latest Major Action~~
~~Summary of Grant-Related Provisions~~
~~H.R. 6010~~
~~Voter Choice Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting.~~
~~H.R. 6183~~
~~Voting Access Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize appropriations for HAVA requirements payments for complying with~~
~~standards related to the location and operation of pol ing places.~~
~~H.R. 6202~~
~~Resilient Elections During~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for meeting requirements and conducting activities~~
~~Quarantines and Natural~~
~~related to election contingency planning and absentee voting.~~
~~Disasters Act of 2020~~
~~H.R. 6308~~
~~Housing is a Human Right Act of~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for facilitating voting by individuals who are homeless~~
~~2020~~
~~or housing-unstable.~~
~~H.R. 6379~~
~~Take Responsibility for Workers~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would provide funding for improving elections contingency planning, preparation, and~~
~~and Families Act~~
~~resilience; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to election~~
~~contingency planning, early voting, absentee voting, voter registration, and electoral~~
~~access for voters residing in Indian lands; voluntarily complying with the requirements~~
~~in 2020 federal primary elections; complying with special election rules in the case of an~~
~~emergency period; and conducting risk-limiting audits.~~
~~H.R. 6512~~
~~Voter Notification of Timely~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for meeting requirements related to public education~~
~~Information about Changes in~~
~~campaigns and election office websites.~~
~~Elections (Notice) Act~~
~~H.R. 6673~~
~~Federal Election Failsafe Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for establishing and implementing election~~
~~contingency plans.~~
~~H.R. 6777~~
~~Secure Our Elections Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would repeal the match requirement for Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic~~
~~Security (CARES) Act HAVA funds.~~
~~CRS-30~~

~~Bill Number~~
~~Short Title~~
~~Latest Major Action~~
~~Summary of Grant-Related Provisions~~
~~H.R. 6800~~
~~The Heroes Act~~
~~Passed by the House~~
~~Would provide funding for improving elections contingency planning, preparation, and~~
~~resilience;~~
~~would repeal or modify the match requirement, reporting requirement, and spending~~
~~deadline for CARES Act HAVA funds;~~
~~would authorize access to CARES and Heroes Act HAVA funds without state~~
~~legislative action and real ocation of CARES and Heroes Act funds to replace FY2018~~
~~and FY2020 HAVA funds that were applied to COVID-19-related costs; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to election~~
~~contingency planning, early voting, absentee voting, voter identification, voter~~
~~registration, and electoral access for voters residing in Indian lands; voluntarily~~
~~complying with the requirements in 2020 federal primary elections; complying with~~
~~special election rules in the case of an emergency period; and conducting risk-limiting~~
~~audits.~~
~~H.R. 6807~~
~~VoteSafe Act of 2020~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to absentee voting,~~
~~early voting, and pol ing place safety; and promoting safe, accessible, and efficient in-~~
~~person voting.~~
~~H.R. 6847~~
~~Vote From Home Act of 2020~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for meeting absentee voting requirements.~~
~~H.R. 7068~~
~~VoteSafe Act of 2020~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to absentee voting,~~
~~early voting, and pol ing place safety; and promoting safe, accessible, and efficient in-~~
~~person voting.~~
~~H.R. 7118~~
~~Vote From Home America Act of Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for meeting absentee voting requirements.~~
~~2020~~
~~H.R. 7427~~
~~American Coronavirus/COVID-~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to election~~
~~19 Election Safety and Security~~
~~contingency planning, early voting, absentee voting, voter identification, voter~~
~~(ACCESS) Act~~
~~registration, and electoral access for voters residing in Indian lands; voluntarily~~
~~complying with the requirements in 2020 federal primary elections; complying with~~
~~special election rules in the case of an emergency period; and conducting risk-limiting~~
~~audits.~~
~~H.R. 7614~~
~~Departments of Labor, Health~~
~~Reported by Committee~~
~~Would provide funding for carrying out the provisions of HAVA related to disability~~
~~and Human Services, and~~
~~access grant programs.~~
~~Education, and Related Agencies~~
~~Appropriations Act, 2021~~
~~CRS-31~~

~~Bill Number~~
~~Short Title~~
~~Latest Major Action~~
~~Summary of Grant-Related Provisions~~
~~H.R. 7617~~
~~Defense, Commerce, Justice,~~
~~Passed by the House~~
~~Would provide funding for replacing voting systems that use DRE voting machines and~~
~~Science, Energy and Water~~
~~other elections-related purposes; and carrying out the provisions of HAVA related to~~
~~Development, Financial Services~~
~~disability access grant programs.~~
~~and General Government, Labor,~~
~~Health and Human Services,~~
~~Education, Transportation,~~
~~Housing, and Urban~~
~~Development Appropriations~~
~~Act, 2021~~
~~H.R. 7668~~
~~Financial Services and General~~
~~Reported by Committee~~
~~Would provide funding for replacing voting systems that use DRE voting machines and~~
~~Government Appropriations Act,~~
~~other elections-related purposes.~~
~~2021~~
~~H.R. 7755~~
~~Accessible Voting Act of 2020~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would expand and reauthorize HAVA's pol ing place accessibility grant program;~~
~~would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or~~
~~otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;~~
~~would extend eligibility for HAVA's P&A system grant program to the P&A system~~
~~serving the American Indian Consortium and specify a minimum amount for HAVA~~
~~P&A grant awards to the American Indian Consortium P&A system;~~
~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize a grant program for meeting requirements related to the accessibility~~
~~of election information and processes and the transparency of changes to election~~
~~prerequisites, standards, practices, and procedures.~~
~~H.R. 7905~~
~~Emergency Assistance for Safe~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize grant programs for providing student loan repayments for volunteer~~
~~Elections (EASE) Act~~
~~student pol workers and absentee bal ot tabulators; maintaining and ensuring the~~
~~accuracy of voter registration lists; and protecting pol ing places and individuals present~~
~~in pol ing places from exposure to COVID-19.~~
~~H.R. 8011~~
~~Cyber Navigators for Elections~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for obtaining the services of election cyber~~
~~Act~~
~~navigators to provide assistance with risk management, resiliency, and technical~~
~~support.~~
~~H.R. 8081~~
~~American Right to Vote Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI and specify a minimum~~
~~amount for HAVA requirements payments to CNMI.~~
~~H.R. 8104~~
~~Vote By Mail Stamp Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for supporting voting by mail.~~
~~CRS-32~~

~~Bill Number~~
~~Short Title~~
~~Latest Major Action~~
~~Summary of Grant-Related Provisions~~
~~H.R. 8406~~
~~The Heroes Act~~
~~Passed by the House as~~
~~Would provide funding for improving elections contingency planning, preparation, and~~
~~an amendment to the~~
~~resilience;~~
~~Senate amendment to~~
~~would repeal or modify the match requirement, reporting requirement, and spending~~
~~H.R. 925~~
~~deadline for CARES Act HAVA funds;~~
~~would authorize real ocation of CARES and Heroes Act HAVA funds to replace~~
~~FY2018 and FY2020 HAVA funds that were applied to COVID-19-related costs; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to election~~
~~contingency planning, early voting, absentee voting, voter identification, voter~~
~~registration, and electoral access for voters residing in Indian lands; voluntarily~~
~~complying with the requirements in 2020 federal primary elections; and conducting~~
~~risk-limiting audits.~~
~~S. 549~~
~~Voter Empowerment Act of 2019 Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for meeting voter registration~~
~~requirements and require use of HAVA requirements payments to reimburse USPS for~~
~~carrying absentee bal ots free of postage;~~
~~would expand and reauthorize HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program;~~
~~would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or~~
~~otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;~~
~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI and specify a minimum~~
~~amount for HAVA requirements payments to CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to automatic voter~~
~~registration and registration portability and correction; conducting pilot programs to~~
~~enable individuals with disabilities to register and vote from home; conducting research~~
~~into accessible paper bal ot voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best~~
~~practices for increasing the accessibility of paper bal ots; recruiting and training pol~~
~~workers; conducting risk-limiting audits; and establishing absentee bal ot tracking~~
~~programs.~~
~~S. 550~~
~~Register America to Vote Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for implementing automatic voter registration and~~
~~improving election security systems related to voter registration.~~
~~S. 621~~
~~Pre-Registration Of Voters~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for encouraging minors to participate in election~~
~~Everywhere (PROVE) Act~~
~~activities.~~
~~S. 625~~
~~Students Voicing Opinions in~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for providing 12th graders with information about~~
~~Today’s Elections (VOTE) Act~~
~~registering to vote.~~
~~CRS-33~~

~~Bill Number~~
~~Short Title~~
~~Latest Major Action~~
~~Summary of Grant-Related Provisions~~
~~S. 739~~
~~Native American Voting Rights~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for establishing and operating Native American~~
~~Act of 2019~~
~~voting task forces.~~
~~S. 949~~
~~For the People Act of 2019~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for meeting~~payments for complying with ballot of 2021 verification and audit capacity requirements. H.R. 4502 Labor, Health and Human Passed the House Would appropriate $500 mil ion for making general improvements to the Services, Education, Agriculture, administration of federal elections, including for enhancing election technology and Rural Development, Energy and improving election security; and Water Development, Financial would include funding for carrying out the provisions of HAVA related to disability Services and General access grant programs in general budget authority for the Administration for Government, Interior, Community Living’s Aging and Disability Services programs. Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2022 H.R. 5008 Frank Harrison, Elizabeth Introduced Would authorize a grant program for establishing Native American voting task forces. Peratrovich, and Miguel Trujil o Native American Voting Rights Act of 2021 H.R. 5314 Protecting Our Democracy Act Passed the House Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting. H.R. 5500 Voter Choice Act Introduced Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting. CRS-30 Bill Number Short Title Latest Major Action Summary of Grant-Related Provisions H.R. 5746 Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis House agreed to the Would authorize use of Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requirements Act text as an amendment to payments for complying with voter registration requirements; a Senate amendment to would reauthorize and expand the permissible uses of funding under HAVA’s pol ing an unrelated bil ; in the place accessibility grant program; Senate, cloture was not invoked on the question would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A) system of agreeing to the House grant funds for initiating or otherwise participating in litigation about election-related amendment disability access; would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and specify a minimum amount for HAVA requirements payments to CNMI; would extend eligibility for HAVA’s P&A system grant program to the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum payment amount; would authorize grant programs for complying with automatic voter registration and registration portability and correction requirements; conducting pilot programs to enable individuals with disabilities to register to vote and request and receive absentee ballots at home; conducting research into accessible and secure remote voting systems and voting, verification, and casting mechanisms to increase the accessibility of voting and verification; establishing absentee ballot tracking programs; recruiting and training pol workers; replacing voting systems that do not meet specified requirements or are not in compliance with specified federal voting system guidelines, making improvements to voting system security, implementing and modeling best practices for ballot design, instructions, and testing, and acquiring accessible voting systems that meet specified requirements; reimbursing costs of providing free voter identification; and establishing Native American voting task forces; and would establish a program and trust fund to provide for ongoing funding for elections-related activities, including activities to improve the efficiency and functioning of election administration, secure election infrastructure, and increase access to voting by members of specified groups. H.R. 6293 High School Voter Introduced Would authorize a grant program for complying with a requirement to conduct high Empowerment Act of 2021 school voter registration drives. H.R. 7326 Protection and Advocacy for Introduced Would extend eligibility for HAVA’s P&A system grant program to the P&A systems Voting Access Program (PAVA) serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum amount for Inclusion Act HAVA P&A system grant awards to the American Indian consortium P&A system. H.R. 7536 Civic Duty to Vote Act Introduced Would authorize a grant program for complying with a requirement to implement compulsory voting. CRS-31 Bill Number Short Title Latest Major Action Summary of Grant-Related Provisions H.R. 7992 Sustaining Our Democracy Act Introduced Would establish a program and trust fund to provide for ongoing funding for elections-related activities to promote efficient election administration; secure election infrastructure; recruit, train, retain, and protect election workers; and increase access to voting for underserved communities, individuals with disabilities, racial and language minority groups, UOCAVA voters, and voters residing in Indian lands. H.R. 8015 Enhanced Pay for Election Introduced Would authorize a grant program for providing enhanced pay for election workers. Workers Act H.R. 8254 Financial Services and General Reported by the House Would appropriate $400 mil ion for making general improvements to the Government Appropriations Act, Committee on administration of federal elections, including for enhancing election technology and 2023 Appropriations improving election security. H.R. 8295 Departments of Labor, Health Reported by the House Would include funding for carrying out the provisions of HAVA related to disability and Human Services, and Committee on access grant programs in general budget authority for the Administration for Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Community Living’s Aging and Disability Services programs. Appropriations Act, 2023 CRS-32 Bill Number Short Title Latest Major Action Summary of Grant-Related Provisions S. 1 For the People Act of 2021 Senate Committee on Would authorize use of Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requirements Rules and Administration payments for complying with voter registration requirements and making discharged from further improvements to voting system security; consideration of the bil would reauthorize and expand the permissible uses of funding under HAVA’s ~~voter registration~~
~~requirements and making improvements to voting system security;~~
~~would expand and reauthorize HAVA’s~~ pol ing place accessibilitypol ing place accessibility grant program; grant program;
would repealwould repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A)~~P&A~~ system system grant funds for initiating or grant funds for initiating or
~~otherwise~~ otherwise participating in litigation about election-relatedparticipating in litigation about election-related disability access; disability access;
would amend the HAVAwould amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include definition of “state” to include ~~CNMI~~the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and specify a minimum and specify a minimum
amount for HAVAamount for HAVA ~~requirements~~ requirements payments to CNMI; would extend eligibility for HAVA’s P&A system grant program to the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum payment amount; would ~~payments to CNMI;~~
~~would~~ include the protection of electioninclude the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in
state plans for HAVA requirementsstate plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committeespayments and require the committees responsible responsible
for developing state plans to be for developing state plans to be ~~geographical y~~geographically representative; and representative; and
would authorize grant programs for would authorize grant programs for ~~meeting requirements related to automatic voter~~
~~registration and registration~~ complying with automatic voter registration and registration portability and correctionportability and correction; requirements; encouraging minorsencouraging minors to to
participate in electionparticipate in election activities; providing 12th graders with information about activities; providing 12th graders with information about
~~registering~~ registering to vote; conducting pilot programs to enable individuals with disabilitiesto vote; conducting pilot programs to enable individuals with disabilities to register to
~~register~~ to vote and request and receiveto vote and request and receive absentee absentee ~~bal ots~~ballots at home; conducting research at home; conducting research
into accessibleinto accessible ~~paper bal ot~~ and secure remote voting systems and voting, verification, voting, verification, and casting mechanismsand casting mechanisms ~~and best~~
~~practices for increasing~~ to increase the accessibility the accessibility ~~of paper bal ots~~ of voting and verification; establishing absentee ballot tracking programs; recruiting and training pol ; recruiting and training pol
workers;workers; ~~rewarding~~ recognizing institutions of higher education that exceed requirements institutions of higher education that exceed requirements for helping students register to vote~~for~~
~~registering students to vote; establishing absentee bal ot tracking programs~~; replacing ; replacing
voting systemsvoting systems that do not meet specified requirementsthat do not meet specified requirements or are not in compliance with or are not in compliance with
specified federal voting systemspecified federal voting system guidelines,guidelines, making improvementsmaking improvements to voting system to voting system
security, and implementingsecurity, and implementing and modelingand modeling best practices for best practices for ~~bal ot~~ballot design, instructions, design, instructions,
and testing; conducting risk-limitingand testing; conducting risk-limiting audits; and conducting research into improving audits; and conducting research into improving
election infrastructure security, quality, reliability,election infrastructure security, quality, reliability, accuracy, accessibility,accuracy, accessibility, and and
affordability and increasing voter participation. affordability and increasing voter participation.
S. S. ~~957~~
~~Early Voting Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize appropriations for HAVA requirements payments for meeting early~~
~~voting requirements.~~
~~S. 1319~~
~~Protecting the Right to~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for implementing or improving use of auditable paper~~
~~Independent and Democratic~~
~~bal ots, conducting risk-limiting audits, or implementing cybersecurity standards and~~
~~Elections (PRIDE) Voting Act~~
~~best practices.~~
~~CRS-34~~4 John R. Lewis Voting Rights Cloture not invoked on Would authorize grant programs for establishing Native American voting task forces Advancement Act of 2021 the motion to proceed and, for small jurisdictions, for complying with a requirement to submit or publish notice of changes to voting qualifications, prerequisites, standards, practices, or procedures. CRS-33

Bill Number
Short Title
Latest Major Action
Summary of Grant-Related Provisions
S. S. ~~1472~~
~~Protecting American Votes and~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or~~
~~Elections Act of 2019~~
~~otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;~~
~~would specify a minimum amount for HAVA P&A system grant awards to the American~~
~~Indian Consortium P&A system;~~
~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for replacing paperless voting systems; acquiring~~
~~accessible bal ot marking devices; designing and printing bal ots; and conducting risk-~~
~~limiting audits.~~
~~S. 1514~~
~~Help Students Vote Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for rewarding institutions of higher education that~~
~~exceed requirements for registering students to vote.~~
~~S. 1540~~
~~Election Security Act of 2019~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system~~ 640 Invest in Our Democracy Act of Introduced Would authorize a grant program for supporting continuing education in election 2021 administration or cybersecurity for election officials and employees. S. 954 Voter Empowerment Act of 2021 Introduced Would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for complying with voter registration requirements; would reauthorize and expand the permissible uses of funding under HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program; would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant funds for initiating or otherwise ~~grant funds for initiating or~~
~~otherwise~~ participating in litigation about election-relatedparticipating in litigation about election-related disability access; disability access;
would would ~~authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for making improvements to~~
~~voting system security;~~
~~would include the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in~~
~~state plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committees responsible~~
~~for developing state plans to be geographical y representative;~~
~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for conducting research into accessible paper bal ot~~
~~voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best practices for increasing the~~
~~accessibility of paper bal ots; replacing voting systems that do not meet specified~~
~~requirements or are not in compliance with specified federal voting system guidelines,~~
~~making improvements to voting system security, and implementing and modeling best~~
~~practices for bal ot design, instructions, and testing; conducting risk-limiting audits; and~~
~~conducting research into improving election infrastructure security, quality, reliability,~~
~~accuracy, accessibility, and affordability and increasing voter participation.~~
~~S. 1692~~
~~Invest in Our Democracy Act of~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for supporting continuing education in election~~
~~2019~~
~~administration or cybersecurity for election officials and employees.~~
~~CRS-35~~

~~Bill Number~~
~~Short Title~~
~~Latest Major Action~~
~~Summary of Grant-Related Provisions~~
~~S. 2053~~
~~Securing America’s Federal~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system~~ amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and specify a minimum amount for HAVA requirements payments to CNMI; would extend eligibility for HAVA’s P&A system grant program to the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum payment amount; and would authorize grant programs for complying with automatic voter registration and registration portability and correction requirements; encouraging minors to participate in election activities; providing 12th graders with information about registering to vote; conducting pilot programs to enable individuals with disabilities to register to vote and request and receive absentee ballots at home; conducting research into accessible and secure remote voting systems and voting, verification, and casting mechanisms to increase the accessibility of voting and verification; establishing absentee ballot tracking programs; recruiting and training pol workers; and recognizing institutions of higher education that exceed requirements for helping students register to vote. S. 992 Help Students Vote Act Introduced Would authorize a grant program for recognizing institutions of higher education that exceed requirements for helping students register to vote; and would designate a percentage of federal work study funding for compensating students employed in activities including voter registration, nonpartisan voter engagement, and voter participation work. CRS-34 Bill Number Short Title Latest Major Action Summary of Grant-Related Provisions S. 1470 Accessible Voting Act of 2021 Introduced Would reauthorize and expand the permissible uses of funding under HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program; would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant funds for initiating or otherwise ~~grant funds for initiating or~~
~~Elections (SAFE) Act~~
~~otherwise~~ participating in litigation about election-relatedparticipating in litigation about election-related disability access; would extend eligibility for HAVA’s P&A system grant program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum payment amount for the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium; and would authorize grant programs for complying with requirements related to accessibility of the electoral process and election information to individuals with disabilities; and conducting research into accessible and secure remote voting systems and voting, verification, and casting mechanisms to increase the accessibility of voting and verification. S. 1733 One Stop Shop Community Introduced Would authorize a grant program for operating hotlines that provide information about Reentry Program Act of 2021 voter registration, voting rights restoration, and other reentry services for individuals returning to the community after conviction or incarceration. CRS-35 Bill Number Short Title Latest Major Action Summary of Grant-Related Provisions S. 2093 For the People Act of 2021 Cloture not invoked on Would authorize use of Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requirements the motion to proceed payments for complying with voter registration requirements and making improvements to voting system security; would reauthorize and expand the permissible uses of funding under HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program; would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A) system ~~disability access;~~
~~would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for making improvements to~~
~~voting system security;~~
~~would include the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in~~
~~state plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committees responsible~~
~~for developing state plans to be geographical y representative;~~
~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for conducting research into accessible paper bal ot~~
~~voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best practices for increasing the~~
~~accessibility of paper bal ots; replacing voting systems that do not meet specified~~
~~requirements or are not in compliance with specified federal voting system guidelines,~~
~~making improvements to voting system security, and implementing and modeling best~~
~~practices for bal ot design, instructions, and testing; and conducting risk-limiting audits.~~
~~S. 2238~~
~~Securing America’s Federal~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or~~
~~Elections (SAFE) Act~~
~~otherwise~~ grant funds for initiating or otherwise participating in litigation about election-relatedparticipating in litigation about election-related disability access; disability access;
would would ~~authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for making improvements to~~
~~voting system security;~~
~~would include the protection of election~~ amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and specify a minimum amount for HAVA requirements payments to CNMI; would extend eligibility for HAVA’s P&A system grant program to the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum payment amount; would include the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in
state plans for HAVA requirementsstate plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committeespayments and require the committees responsible responsible
for developing state plans to be for developing state plans to be ~~geographical y~~geographically representative; representative;
and would authorize grant programs for complying with automatic voter registration and registration portability and correction requirements; encouraging minors to participate in election activities; providing 12th graders with information about registering to vote; conducting pilot programs to enable individuals with disabilities to register to vote and request and receive absentee ballots at home; conducting research into accessible and secure remote voting systems and voting, verification, and casting mechanisms to increase the accessibility of voting and verification; establishing absentee ballot tracking programs; recruiting and training pol workers; recognizing institutions of higher education that exceed requirements for helping students register to vote~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for conducting research into accessible paper bal ot~~
~~voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best practices for increasing the~~
~~accessibility of paper bal ots~~; replacing voting systems; replacing voting systems that do not meet specified that do not meet specified
~~requirements~~ requirements or are not in compliance with specified federal voting systemor are not in compliance with specified federal voting system ~~guidelines~~
~~and~~ guidelines, making improvements making improvements to voting system security, and implementing and modeling best practices for ballot design, instructions, and testing, and acquiring accessible voting systems that meet specified requirements; and conducting research into improving election infrastructure security, quality, reliability, accuracy, accessibility, and affordability and increasing voter participation. S. 2117 People Over Long Lines (POLL) Introduced Would authorize a grant program for complying with requirements related to pol ing Act place wait times and resources~~to voting system security; acquiring accessible bal ot marking~~
~~devices; designing and printing bal ots; and conducting risk-limiting audits.~~
~~S. 2524~~
~~Financial Services and General~~
~~Reported by Committee~~
~~Would provide funding for making general improvements to the administration of~~
~~Government Appropriations Act,~~
~~federal elections, including for enhancing election technology and improving election~~
~~2020~~
~~security~~. .
CRS-36 CRS-36

Bill Number
Short Title
Latest Major Action
Summary of Grant-Related Provisions
S. S. ~~3206~~
~~Accessible Voting Act of 2019~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would expand and reauthorize HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program;~~
~~would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system~~ 2702 Frank Harrison, Elizabeth Introduced Would authorize a grant program for establishing Native American voting task forces. Peratrovich, and Miguel Trujil o Native American Voting Rights Act of 2021 S. 2747 Freedom to Vote Act Cloture not invoked on Would authorize use of Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requirements the motion to proceed payments for complying with voter registration requirements; would reauthorize and expand the permissible uses of funding under HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program; would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant funds for initiating or otherwise ~~grant funds for initiating or~~
~~otherwise~~ participating in litigation about election-relatedparticipating in litigation about election-related disability access; disability access;
would would ~~extend eligibility for HAVA's P&A system grant program to the P&A system~~
~~serving the American Indian Consortium and specify a minimum amount for HAVA~~
~~P&A system grant awards to the American Indian Consortium P&A system;~~
~~would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and~~
~~would authorize a grant program for meeting requirements related to the accessibility~~
~~of election information and processes and the transparency of changes to election~~
~~prerequisites, standards, practices, and procedures.~~
~~S. 3340~~
~~Voter Choice Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting.~~
~~S. 3440~~
~~Resilient Elections During~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for meeting requirements and conducting activities~~
~~Quarantines and Natural~~
~~related to election contingency planning and absentee voting.~~
~~Disasters Act of 2020~~
~~S. 3529~~
~~Natural Disaster and Emergency~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize grant programs for using a federal service for providing voter~~
~~Bal ot Act of 2020~~
~~registration and absentee bal ot status updates; meeting requirements related to~~
~~election contingency planning, absentee voting, early voting, provisional bal ots, and~~
~~voter registration in the November 3, 2020, general election; and voluntarily complying~~
~~with related requirements in 2020 primary elections.~~
~~S. 3725~~
~~VoteSafe Act of 2020~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to absentee voting,~~
~~early voting, and pol ing place safety; and promoting safe, accessible, and efficient in-~~
~~person voting.~~
~~S. 3778~~
~~State Elections Preparedness Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize the EAC to waive the match requirement for CARES Act HAVA~~
~~funds in certain circumstances.~~
~~S. 3822~~
~~DemocracyCorps Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would repeal the match requirement for FY2020 and CARES Act HAVA funds; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to absentee voting,~~
~~pol ing place safety, early voting, and voter registration; and promoting safe, accessible,~~
~~and efficient in-person voting.~~
~~S. 3961~~
~~Pandemic Democracy for Al Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize grant programs for implementing online voter registration systems;~~
~~and facilitating an increase in absentee voting.~~
~~CRS-37~~

~~Bill Number~~
~~Short Title~~
~~Latest Major Action~~
~~Summary of Grant-Related Provisions~~
~~S. 4033~~
~~Natural Disaster and Emergency~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would repeal or modify the match requirement, reporting requirement, and spending~~
~~Bal ot Act of 2020~~
~~deadline for CARES Act HAVA funds;~~
~~would authorize real ocation of CARES HAVA funds to replace FY2018 and FY2020~~
~~HAVA funds that were applied to COVID-19-related costs; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for using a federal service for providing voter~~
~~registration and absentee bal ot status updates; meeting requirements and conducting~~
~~activities related to election contingency planning, public education campaigns, absentee~~
~~voting, early voting, provisional bal ots, voting accessibility and safety, bal ot chain-of~~
~~custody procedures, election process transparency, and voter registration in the~~
~~November 3, 2020, general election; and voluntarily complying with related~~
~~requirements or conducting related activities in 2020 primary elections.~~
~~S. 4668~~
~~People Over Long Lines Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would authorize a grant program for meeting requirements related to pol ing place~~
~~(POLL ACT)~~
~~wait times and resources.~~
~~S. 4800~~
~~The Heroes Act~~
~~Referred to Committee~~
~~Would provide funding for improving elections contingency planning, preparation, and~~
~~resilience;~~
~~would repeal or modify the match requirement, reporting requirement, and spending~~
~~deadline for CARES Act HAVA funds;~~
~~would authorize real ocation of CARES and Heroes Act HAVA funds to replace~~
~~FY2018 and FY2020 HAVA funds that were applied to COVID-19-related costs; and~~
~~would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to election~~
~~contingency planning, early voting, absentee voting, voter identification, voter~~
~~registration, and electoral access for voters residing in Indian lands; voluntarily~~
~~complying with the requirements in 2020 federal primary elections; and conducting~~
~~risk-limiting audits.~~
Source: CRS, based on review of appropriations measures and legislation introduced in the 116th Congress with the legislative subject term “Election Assistance
~~Commission” or “Elections, voting, political campaign regulation” on Congress.gov. Different search parameters may produce different results.~~
~~Notes:~~ ~~This table includes bil s that would authorize, fund, or modify the parameters of election administration -related grant programs for states or localities. It covers~~
~~grant programs for state or local election officials as wel as programs for non-elections-specific government entities, such as public institutions of higher education. The~~
~~latest major action listed for each bil is current as of December 8, 2020.~~
~~The table does not cover provisions that would condition eligibility for federal funding on adopting or rejecting particular elections policies; provisions that would~~
~~establish an election security grants advisory committee; provisions that would modify the parameters of an elections grant program indirectly by changing the conditions~~
~~on a more general category of grant programs; or provisions that would authorize funding for in-kind elections goods or services, bug bounty programs, redistricting~~
~~commissions, public financing of political campaigns, or general security for state or local government systems. It also does not include proposed amendments that were~~
~~not adopted, and the provided summaries do not cover non-grant-related provisions of the bil s.~~
~~CRS-38~~

~~link to page 20~~
~~Appendix B. Selected Options for Structuring Grant Programs~~
~~The “Options for Legislative Proposals” section of this report lists some questions that may be relevant to Members who are considering~~
~~developing or assessing proposals to authorize or fund elections grant programs for states or localities. The table below presents some of the~~
~~options for answering those questions that have been explored in previous legislation. The table is intended to be il ustrative rather than~~
~~comprehensive. It also includes only answers that have been offered explicitly in legislation or report language, not answers that might be~~
~~provided by other federal guidance on grant programs or appropriations or at the discretion of the federal departments or agencies that are~~
~~charged with administering elections grant programs.~~
~~Table B-1. Selected Options for Structuring Election Administration-Related Grant Programs for States and Localities~~
~~Category~~
~~Sample Questions~~
~~Sample Answers~~
~~Examples from Previous Legislation~~
~~Are grant funds limited to use for~~
~~Specific activities~~
~~CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136)~~
~~specific activities or available for more~~
~~HAVA general improvements grant program (52~~
~~general purposes?~~
~~General purposes~~
~~U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906)~~
~~Are grant funds intended to finance~~
~~Voluntary activities~~
~~HAVA voting technology pilot program grant~~
~~program (52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053)~~
~~voluntary activities or help meet~~
~~Uses of Funds~~
~~federal requirements?~~
~~HAVA requirements payments program (52~~
~~Federal requirements~~
~~U.S.C. §§21001-21008)~~
~~HAVA P&A system grant program (52 U.S.C.~~
~~Prohibited~~
~~Are any uses of grant funds prohibited~~
~~§§21061-21062)~~
~~or prioritized?~~
~~House-passed FY2021 consolidated appropriations~~
~~Prioritized~~
~~bil (116th Congress; H.R. 7617)~~
~~Is the total amount of federal funding~~
~~HAVA general improvements grant program (52~~
~~Fixed amount~~
~~for the grant program a fixed amount,~~
~~U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906)~~
~~or is it based on the costs of~~
~~MOVE Act requirements payments (52 U.S.C.~~
~~conducting the funded activities?~~
~~Based on costs of conducting funded activities~~
~~§21007)~~
~~Amount of Funding~~
~~By matching a percentage of the federal~~
~~Are grant recipients required to~~
~~funding they receive~~
~~FY2020 HAVA funds (P.L. 116-93)~~
~~contribute to funding grant activities?~~
~~By matching a percentage of the total amount~~
~~HAVA requirements payments program (52~~
~~to be spent on grant activities~~
~~U.S.C. §§21001-21008)~~
~~CRS-39~~

~~Category~~
~~Sample Questions~~
~~Sample Answers~~
~~Examples from Previous Legislation~~
~~Nondiscretionary formula, based on voting-~~
~~HAVA requirements payments program (52~~
~~age population~~
~~U.S.C. §§21001-21008)~~
~~HAVA lever and punch card voting system~~
~~How is funding al ocated to grant~~
~~Nondiscretionary formula, based on number~~
~~replacement grant program (52 U.S.C. §§20902-~~
~~recipients?~~
~~of qualifying precincts in the state~~
~~20906)~~
~~Competitive grant process~~
~~HAVA voting technology improvements research~~
~~grant program (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043)~~
~~Are eligible recipients guaranteed~~
~~Minimum award amounts~~
~~FY2018 HAVA funds (P.L. 115-141)~~
~~minimum—or subject to maximum—~~
~~Voting system replacement reimbursement grant~~
~~award amounts?~~
~~Maximum award amounts~~
~~program (P.L. 108-7)~~
~~Directly~~
~~HAVA pol ing place accessibility grant program (52~~
~~U.S.C. §§21021-21025)a~~
~~Secure Elections Act (115th Congress; H.R. 6663,~~
~~Is grant funding available—directly or~~
~~If the state does not apply~~
~~§7; S. 2593, §7)~~
~~indirectly—to local officials?~~
~~If authorized by the state~~
~~Secure Elections Act (115th Congress; S. 2261, §7)~~
~~House-passed FY2021 consolidated appropriations~~
~~Via mandatory pass-throughs~~
~~bil (116th Congress; H.R. 7617)~~
~~HAVA requirements payments program (52~~
~~Is grant funding available to election~~
~~Election officials~~
~~U.S.C. §§21001-21008)~~
~~Recipients of Funding~~
~~officials or to other state or local~~
~~government entities?~~
~~Other state or local government entities~~
~~HAVA P&A system grant program (52 U.S.C.~~
~~§§21061-21062)~~
~~50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam,~~
~~Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands~~
~~Election data col ection grant program (52 U.S.C.~~
~~(HAVA states)~~
~~$20981 note)~~
~~Which jurisdictions or entities are~~
~~HAVA states and the Commonwealth of the~~
~~eligible for the grant program?~~
~~Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)~~
~~FY2020 HAVA funds (P.L. 116-93)~~
~~HAVA states, CNMI, and the American Indian Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access~~
~~Consortium~~
~~Program Inclusion Act (116th Congress; H.R.~~
~~5510)~~
~~Availability of Funding~~
~~Within 30 days of the act’s enactment~~
~~CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136)~~
~~CRS-40~~

~~Category~~
~~Sample Questions~~
~~Sample Answers~~
~~Examples from Previous Legislation~~
~~Is there a statutory deadline by which~~
~~the agency that is charged with~~
~~Within 45 days of the act’s enactment~~
~~FY2018 HAVA funds (P.L. 115-141)~~
~~administering the grant program must~~
~~distribute the grant funding?~~
~~Are grant recipients required to~~
~~HAVA lever and punch card voting system~~
~~obligate or spend grant funds or~~
~~With option for deadline deferral waiver~~
~~replacement grant program (52 U.S.C. §§20902-~~
~~complete funded activities by a certain~~
~~20906)~~
~~deadline?~~
~~Without option for deadline deferral waiver~~
~~CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136)~~
~~Are appropriations for the grant~~
~~HAVA voting technology improvements research~~
~~Limited number of fiscal years~~
~~program authorized for a limited~~
~~grant program (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043)~~
~~number of fiscal years or on an~~
~~ongoing basis?~~
~~Ongoing basis~~
~~HAVA P&A system grant program (52 U.S.C.~~
~~§§21061-21062)~~
~~Are details of grants administration,~~
~~Specified in authorizing legislation~~
~~HAVA requirements payments program (52~~
~~such as the contents or frequency of~~
~~U.S.C. §§21001-21008)~~
~~spending plans or reporting, specified~~
~~in bil text, specified in report~~
~~Specified in appropriations legislation~~
~~CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136)~~
~~language, or left to the discretion of~~
~~the federal agency charged with~~
~~Joint Committee Print, Omnibus Appropriations~~
~~Specified in report language~~
~~administering the grant program?~~
~~Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8)~~
~~Administration of~~
~~EAC~~
~~Help America Vote Col ege Program (52 U.S.C.~~
~~Grant Programs~~
~~Which agency is charged with~~
~~§§21121-21123)~~
~~administering the grant program?~~
~~UOCAVA election technology pilot program grant~~
~~Other federal agency~~
~~program (52 U.S.C. §20311)~~
~~Is the administering agency~~
~~HAVA voting technology improvements research~~
~~Other agencies~~
~~encouraged or required to col aborate~~
~~grant program (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043)~~
~~or consult with other agencies or~~
~~Native American Voting Rights Act of 2019 (116th~~
~~election stakeholders?~~
~~Elections stakeholders~~
~~Congress; H.R. 1694, §4; S. 739, §4)~~
Source: CRS, based on review of data from Congress.gov.
Notes: This table is intended to be il ustrative rather than comprehensive. It includes only answers that have been offered explicitly in legislation or report language.
~~a. As authorized, HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program was available to units of local government. However, the appropriations acts that have funded~~
~~awards under the program have general y limited them to the HAVA states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7.~~
~~CRS-41~~

~~Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities~~

~~Author Information~~

~~Karen L. Shanton~~

~~Analyst in American National Government~~

~~Disclaimer~~
~~This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan~~
~~shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and~~
~~under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other~~
~~than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in~~
~~connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not~~
~~subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in~~
~~its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or~~
~~material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to~~
~~copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.~~

~~Congressional Research Service~~
~~R46646 · VERSION 1 · NEW~~
42amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and specify a minimum amount for HAVA requirements payments to CNMI; would extend eligibility for HAVA’s P&A system grant program to the P&A system serving the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum payment amount; would authorize grant programs for complying with automatic voter registration and registration portability and correction requirements; conducting pilot programs to enable individuals with disabilities to register to vote and request and receive absentee ballots at home; conducting research into accessible and secure remote voting systems and voting, verification, and casting mechanisms to increase the accessibility of voting and verification; establishing absentee ballot tracking programs; recruiting and training pol workers; replacing voting systems that do not meet specified requirements or are not in compliance with specified federal voting system guidelines, making improvements to voting system security, implementing and modeling best practices for ballot design, instructions, and testing, and acquiring accessible voting systems that meet specified requirements; reimbursing costs of providing free voter identification; and would establish a program and trust fund to provide for ongoing funding for elections-related activities, including activities to improve the efficiency and functioning of election administration, secure election infrastructure, and increase access to voting by members of specified groups. S. 2939 Voter Choice Act Introduced Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting. CRS-37 Bill Number Short Title Latest Major Action Summary of Grant-Related Provisions S. 3062 Departments of Labor, Health Introduced Would include funding for carrying out the provisions of HAVA related to disability and Human Services, and access grant programs in general budget authority for the Administration for Education, and Related Agencies Community Living’s Aging and Disability Services programs. Appropriations Act, 2022 S. 3179 Financial Services and General Introduced Would appropriate $100 mil ion for making general improvements to the Government Appropriations Act, administration of federal elections, including for enhancing election technology and 2022 improving election security. S. 3969 Protection and Advocacy Voting Passed the Senate Would extend eligibility for HAVA’s P&A system grant program to the P&A systems Access (PAVA) Program serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium and specify a minimum amount for Inclusion Act HAVA P&A system grant awards to the American Indian consortium P&A system. S. 4085 PROVE Act Introduced Would authorize a grant program for encouraging minors to participate in election activities. S. 4239 Sustaining Our Democracy Act Introduced Would establish a program and trust fund to provide for ongoing funding for elections-related activities to promote efficient election administration; secure election infrastructure; recruit, train, retain, and protect election workers; and increase access to voting for underserved communities, individuals with disabilities, racial and language minority groups, UOCAVA voters, and voters residing in Indian lands. S. 4335 Register America to Vote Act of Introduced Would authorize a grant program for complying with automatic voter registration 2022 requirements. Sources: CRS, based on review of appropriations measures and legislation introduced in the 117th Congress using certain search terms. Different search parameters may produce different results. Notes: This table includes bil s that would authorize, fund, or modify the parameters of election administration-related grant programs for states or localities. It covers grant programs for state or local election officials as well as programs for non-elections-specific government entities, such as public institutions of higher education. The latest major action listed for each bil is current as of July 7, 2022. The table does not cover provisions that would condition eligibility for federal funding on adopting or rejecting particular elections policies; provisions that would establish an election security grants advisory committee; provisions that would modify the parameters of an elections grant program indirectly by changing the conditions on a more general category of grant programs; or provisions that would authorize funding for in-kind elections goods or services, bug bounty programs, redistricting commissions, public financing of political campaigns, or general security for state or local government systems. It also does not include proposed amendments that were not adopted, and the provided summaries do not cover non-grant-related provisions of the bil s. CRS-38 link to page 20 Appendix B. Selected Options for Structuring Grant Programs The “Options for Legislative Proposals” section of this report lists some questions that may be relevant to Members who are considering developing or evaluating proposals to authorize or fund elections grant programs for states or localities. The table below presents some of the options for answering those questions that have been explored in previous legislation. The table is intended to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. It also includes only answers that have been offered explicitly in legislation or report language, not answers that might be provided by other federal guidance on grant programs or appropriations or at the discretion of the federal departments or agencies that are charged with administering elections grant programs. Table B-1. Selected Options for Structuring Election Administration-Related Grant Programs for States and Localities Category Sample Questions Sample Answers Examples from Previous Legislation Are grant funds limited to use for Specific activities CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136, Election Security Grants) specific activities or available for more general purposes? General purposes HAVA general improvements grant program (52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906) Are grant funds intended to finance Voluntary activities HAVA voting technology pilot program grant program (52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053) Uses of Funds voluntary activities or help meet federal requirements? HAVA requirements payments program (52 Federal requirements U.S.C. §§21001-21008) HAVA P&A system grant program (52 U.S.C. Prohibited §§21061-21062) Are any uses of grant funds prohibited or prioritized? Financial Services and General Government Prioritized Appropriations Act, 2023 (117th Congress; H.R. 8254, Election Security Grants) Is the total amount of federal funding HAVA general improvements grant program (52 authorized for the grant program a Fixed amount U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906) fixed amount, or is it such sums as Amount of Funding may be necessary to conduct the Such sums as may be necessary UOCAVA election technology pilot program grant funded activities? program (52 U.S.C. §20311) Are grant recipients required to By matching a percentage of the federal FY2020 HAVA funds (P.L. 116-93, Election contribute to funding grant activities? funding they receive Security Grants) CRS-39 link to page 46 Category Sample Questions Sample Answers Examples from Previous Legislation By matching a percentage of the total amount HAVA requirements payments program (52 to be spent on grant activities U.S.C. §§21001-21008) Nondiscretionary formula, based on voting- HAVA requirements payments program (52 age population U.S.C. §§21001-21008) How is funding allocated to grant Nondiscretionary formula, based on number HAVA lever and punch card voting system recipients? of qualifying precincts in the state replacement grant program (52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906) Competitive grant process HAVA voting technology improvements research grant program (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043) FY2018 HAVA funds (P.L. 115-141, Election Are eligible recipients guaranteed Minimum award amounts Reform Program) minimum—or subject to maximum—award amounts? Voting system replacement reimbursement grant Maximum award amounts program (P.L. 108-7, Election Reform Programs) HAVA pol ing place accessibility grant program (52 Directly U.S.C. §§21021-21025)a Secure Elections Act (115th Congress; H.R. If the state does not apply Is grant funding available—directly or 6663/S. 2593, §7) indirectly—to local officials? If authorized by the state Secure Elections Act (115th Congress; S. 2261, §7) Financial Services and General Government Via mandatory pass-throughs Appropriations Act, 2023 (117th Congress; H.R. 8254, Election Security Grants) Recipients of Funding Is grant funding available to election Election officials HAVA requirements payments program (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008) officials or to other state or local entities? Other state or local entities HAVA P&A system grant program (52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062) 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Election data collection grant program (52 U.S.C. Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands Which jurisdictions or entities are §20981 note) (HAVA states) eligible for the grant program? HAVA states and the Commonwealth of the FY2020 HAVA funds (P.L. 116-93, Election Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Security Grants) CRS-40 Category Sample Questions Sample Answers Examples from Previous Legislation HAVA states, CNMI, and the American Indian Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access consortium (PAVA) Program Inclusion Act (117th Congress; H.R. 7326/S. 3969, §2) Is there a statutory deadline by which Within 30 days of the act’s enactment CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136, Election the agency that is charged with Security Grants) administering the grant program must distribute the grant funding? Within 45 days of the act’s enactment FY2018 HAVA funds (P.L. 115-141, Election Reform Program) HAVA lever and punch card voting system Are grant recipients required to With option for extension replacement grant program (52 U.S.C. §§20902- obligate or spend grant funds or Availability of Funding 20906) complete funded activities by a certain deadline? CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136, Election Without option for extension Security Grants) Are appropriations for the grant HAVA voting technology improvements research Limited number of fiscal years program authorized for a limited grant program (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043) number of fiscal years or on an HAVA P&A system grant program (52 U.S.C. ongoing basis? Ongoing basis §§21061-21062) Are details of grants administration, HAVA requirements payments program (52 Specified in authorizing legislation such as the contents or frequency of U.S.C. §§21001-21008) spending plans or reporting, specified in bil text, specified in report Specified in appropriations legislation CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136, Election language, or left to the discretion of Security Grants) the federal agency charged with Specified in report language Joint Committee Print, Omnibus Appropriations Administration of administering the grant program? Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8, Election Reform Programs) Grant Programs EAC Election data collection grant program (52 U.S.C. Which agency is charged with §20981 note) administering the grant program? Other federal agency UOCAVA election technology pilot program grant program (52 U.S.C. §20311) Is the administering agency Other agencies HAVA voting technology improvements research encouraged or required to col aborate grant program (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043) CRS-41 Category Sample Questions Sample Answers Examples from Previous Legislation or consult with other agencies or Frank Harrison, Elizabeth Peratrovich, and Miguel elections stakeholders? Elections stakeholders Trujil o Native American Voting Rights Act of 2021 (117th Congress; H.R. 5008/S. 2702, §4) Source: CRS, based on review of data from Congress.gov. Notes: This table is intended to be il ustrative rather than comprehensive. It includes only answers that have been offered explicitly in legislation or report language. a. As authorized, HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program was available to units of local government. However, the appropriations acts that have funded awards under the program have generally limited them to the HAVA states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7. CRS-42 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities Author Information Karen L. Shanton Analyst in American National Government Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. Congressional Research Service R46646 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED 43