The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA):
October 5, 2022
Overview and Ongoing Role in Election
Karen L. Shanton
Administration Policy
Analyst in American National Government
Overview and Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy
Updated September 30, 2025
(R46949)
Jump to Main Text of Report
Summary
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was enacted in response to issues with the The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was enacted in response to issues with the
administration of the 2000 elections. The highest-profile administration of the 2000 elections. The highest-profile
problems in 2000issues in those elections were in Florida— were in Florida—
where disputes about the vote count delayed the resolution of the presidential race for weeks—where disputes about the vote count delayed the resolution of the presidential race for weeks—
For a copy of the full report,
but post-election hearings and reports identified issues with various aspects of election but post-election hearings and reports identified issues with various aspects of election
please call 7-5700 or visit www.crs.gov.
administration across multiple states.administration across multiple states.
Congress’
Congress's response to those findings, in HAVA, spanned a correspondingly wide range of elections topics. s response to those findings, in HAVA, spanned a correspondingly wide range of elections topics.
ItThe act took three took three
main approaches to the issues. First, it set requirements for the administration of federal elections. Some states and localities main approaches to the issues. First, it set requirements for the administration of federal elections. Some states and localities
had adopted policies or technologies before the 2000 elections that may have helped had adopted policies or technologies before the 2000 elections that may have helped
them avoid problems facedprevent some of the issues encountered by other by other
jurisdictions in 2000, and other policy proposals were offered in post-2000 hearings and reports. HAVA was designed, in jurisdictions in 2000, and other policy proposals were offered in post-2000 hearings and reports. HAVA was designed, in
part, to standardize use of some of those policies and technologies in federal elections. Title III of the act set new federal part, to standardize use of some of those policies and technologies in federal elections. Title III of the act set new federal
requirements for voting systems, provisional voting, voting information, statewide voter registration databases, voter requirements for voting systems, provisional voting, voting information, statewide voter registration databases, voter
identification, and the federal mail voter registration form created by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993identification, and the federal mail voter registration form created by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
(NVRA).
.
Second, HAVA authorized the first major federal grant programs for elections. Complying with HAVASecond, HAVA authorized the first major federal grant programs for elections. Complying with HAVA
’'s Title III s Title III
requirements involved significant financial investments for many states and localities. There were also other post-2000 requirements involved significant financial investments for many states and localities. There were also other post-2000
changes to election processes—not addressed by the HAVA requirements—that states and localities wanted or needed to changes to election processes—not addressed by the HAVA requirements—that states and localities wanted or needed to
make. Congress authorized a pair of general grant programs in HAVA to help states meet the actmake. Congress authorized a pair of general grant programs in HAVA to help states meet the act
’'s Title III requirements and s Title III requirements and
make certain general improvements to election administration. HAVA also authorized more specialized grant programs to make certain general improvements to election administration. HAVA also authorized more specialized grant programs to
facilitate or incentivize action on voting technology, disability access, youth voter participation, and poll worker recruitment.facilitate or incentivize action on voting technology, disability access, youth voter participation, and poll worker recruitment.
Third, HAVA provided for creation of the election administration-dedicated U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Third, HAVA provided for creation of the election administration-dedicated U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Federal agency support for the general administration of elections was provided in 2000 by a small office at the Federal Federal agency support for the general administration of elections was provided in 2000 by a small office at the Federal
Election Commission Election Commission
(FEC) known as the Office of Election Administration (OEA). The scope of the issues with the conduct known as the Office of Election Administration (OEA). The scope of the issues with the conduct
of the 2000 elections prompted calls for an expanded federal agency role in elections. Some proposed assigning any new of the 2000 elections prompted calls for an expanded federal agency role in elections. Some proposed assigning any new
responsibilities to the existing OEA, while others wanted to create a new agency that would be fully dedicated to election responsibilities to the existing OEA, while others wanted to create a new agency that would be fully dedicated to election
administration. There was also debate about whether a new elections agency should have the authority to issue regulations. administration. There was also debate about whether a new elections agency should have the authority to issue regulations.
Congress struck a balance in HAVA by providing for a new agency, the EAC, but positioning it as a support agency.Congress struck a balance in HAVA by providing for a new agency, the EAC, but positioning it as a support agency.
HAVA and the agency it created have continued to play a central role in congressional engagement with election HAVA and the agency it created have continued to play a central role in congressional engagement with election
administration issues since the actadministration issues since the act
’'s enactment in 2002. s enactment in 2002.
For example, Congress responded to foreign Congress responded to foreign
interferenceefforts to interfere in the 2016 elections and in the 2016 elections and
the emergence of the the emergence of the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 election cycle pandemic in the 2020 election cycle
, for example, with by providing new new
funding for funding for
one of HAVA’s grant programsa HAVA grant program administered by the EAC. Members have also introduced legislation to revisit HAVA or the EAC or to . Members have also introduced legislation to revisit HAVA or the EAC or to
extend them to extend them to
address new aspects of election administration.new aspects of election administration.
The ongoing role of HAVA in federal elections policymaking is partly a result of two The ongoing role of HAVA in federal elections policymaking is partly a result of two
distinctive features of the act. HAVA features of the act. HAVA
was (1) more wide-ranging in the topics it aimed to address than elections measures Congress had tended to approve in the was (1) more wide-ranging in the topics it aimed to address than elections measures Congress had tended to approve in the
recent past, with (2) a greater emphasis on federal assistance for states and localities. Other recent federal election laws had recent past, with (2) a greater emphasis on federal assistance for states and localities. Other recent federal election laws had
tended primarily to set requirements and to focus on particular aspects of tended primarily to set requirements and to focus on particular aspects of
election administrationelections or access to the electoral or access to the electoral
process for particular groups of voters. HAVA, by contrast, spans multiple issues and voter groups and pairs its requirements process for particular groups of voters. HAVA, by contrast, spans multiple issues and voter groups and pairs its requirements
with grant programs and the assistance-oriented EAC. Those features have made HAVA and the EAC common choices of with grant programs and the assistance-oriented EAC. Those features have made HAVA and the EAC common choices of
vehicles for vehicles for
proposals to set new federal standards forefforts to extend federal requirements to new aspects of election administration or provide election administration or provide
for new federal support for elections.new federal support for elections.
Ongoing congressional engagement with HAVA can also be traced, in part, to interest in revisiting the act. There was broad Ongoing congressional engagement with HAVA can also be traced, in part, to interest in revisiting the act. There was broad
agreement during the HAVA debate that Congress should consider a legislative response to the agreement during the HAVA debate that Congress should consider a legislative response to the
problemsissues with the conduct of with the conduct of
the 2000 elections but disagreement about exactly what that legislative response should look like. Compromises struck in the 2000 elections but disagreement about exactly what that legislative response should look like. Compromises struck in
HAVA did not necessarily resolve the underlying disagreements, and new developments since 2002—both due to HAVA and HAVA did not necessarily resolve the underlying disagreements, and new developments since 2002—both due to HAVA and
independently of it—have changed the election administration landscape. As a result, some Members have proposed independently of it—have changed the election administration landscape. As a result, some Members have proposed
revisiting HAVArevisiting HAVA
’'s treatment of particular elections issues or the structure of the act or the agency it created.s treatment of particular elections issues or the structure of the act or the agency it created.
Congressional Research Service
link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 10 link to page 15 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 7 link to page 12 link to page 26 link to page 31 link to page 33 link to page 26 link to page 31 link to page 33 link to page 34 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Note on Terminology ................................................................................................................ 1
Overview of Major Provisions ........................................................................................................ 2
Requirements............................................................................................................................. 3
Grant Programs ......................................................................................................................... 7
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) ......................................................................... 12
Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy .......................................................................... 15
Proposals to Revisit HAVA or the EAC .................................................................................. 16
Proposals to Extend HAVA or the EAC .................................................................................. 19
Potential Considerations for Congress .......................................................................................... 20
Tables
Table 1. Requirements for Federal Elections Established by Title III of HAVA ............................. 4
Table 2. Funding Authorized and Appropriated for HAVA Grant Programs ................................... 9
Table A-1. Major Provisions of HAVA by Issue Area ................................................................... 23
Table B-1. HAVA Amendments to Military and Overseas Voting Processes ................................ 28
Table C-1. Timeline of Congressional Deliberations on Election Administration ........................ 30
Appendixes
Appendix A. Major Provisions of HAVA by Issue Area ................................................................ 23
Appendix B. HAVA Amendments to Military and Overseas Voting Processes ............................. 28
Appendix C. Timeline of Congressional Deliberations on Election Administration ..................... 30
Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 31
Congressional Research Service
link to page 12 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Introduction
Introduction
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) was The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) was
enacted in response to issues with the administration of the 2000 elections. The highest-profile enacted in response to issues with the administration of the 2000 elections. The highest-profile
problems in 2000issues in those elections were in Florida—where disputes about the vote count delayed the resolution of were in Florida—where disputes about the vote count delayed the resolution of
the presidential race for weeks—but post-election hearings and reports identified issues with the presidential race for weeks—but post-election hearings and reports identified issues with
various aspects of election administration across multiple states.various aspects of election administration across multiple states.
1
Congress’1
Congress's response to those findings, in HAVA, spanned a correspondingly wide range of s response to those findings, in HAVA, spanned a correspondingly wide range of
elections topics, from voting systems to voter identification to the accessibility of the electoral elections topics, from voting systems to voter identification to the accessibility of the electoral
process to individuals with disabilities. HAVA took three main approaches to the issues: (1) process to individuals with disabilities. HAVA took three main approaches to the issues: (1)
setting requirements for the administration of federal elections, (2) authorizing the first major setting requirements for the administration of federal elections, (2) authorizing the first major
federal grant programs for federal grant programs for
electionselection administration, and (3) providing for creation of the election administration-, and (3) providing for creation of the election administration-
dedicated U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).dedicated U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
HAVA and the agency it created have continued to play a central role in congressional HAVA and the agency it created have continued to play a central role in congressional
engagement with election administration issues since the actengagement with election administration issues since the act
’'s enactment in 2002. s enactment in 2002.
For example, Congress Congress
responded to foreign responded to foreign
interferenceefforts to interfere in the 2016 elections and the emergence of the in the 2016 elections and the emergence of the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 election cycle pandemic in the 2020 election cycle
, for example, with by providing new funding new funding
for one of HAVA’s grant programs.2for a HAVA grant program administered by the EAC.2 Members have also introduced legislation to revisit HAVA or Members have also introduced legislation to revisit HAVA or
the EAC or to extend them to the EAC or to extend them to
address new aspects of election administration.new aspects of election administration.
This report provides an overview of HAVA and the ongoing role the act has played in policy This report provides an overview of HAVA and the ongoing role the act has played in policy
discussions about election administration. It starts by describing major provisions of HAVA and discussions about election administration. It starts by describing major provisions of HAVA and
then summarizes proposals to revisit or extend the act or the agency it created. The report closes then summarizes proposals to revisit or extend the act or the agency it created. The report closes
by briefly introducing some considerations that might be relevant to discussions of any future role by briefly introducing some considerations that might be relevant to discussions of any future role
for HAVA in federal policymaking on election administration.for HAVA in federal policymaking on election administration.
Note on Terminology
HAVA defines “state”
HAVA generally defines "state" as including the 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), American Samoa, as including the 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), American Samoa,
Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
33 Congress has considered proposals to expand Congress has considered proposals to expand
thethat general definition to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), but none definition to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), but none
of those proposals has been enacted as of this writing.4
1 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, July 2001, at https://vote.caltech.edu/reports/1; The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To
Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, August 2001, at https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/NCFER_2001.pdf; and U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Elections: Perspectives on
Activities and Challenges Across the Nation, GAO-02-3, October 2001, at https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d023.pdf.
2 P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-93; and P.L. 116-136. 3 52 U.S.C. §21141. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) was not included in HAVA’s definition of “state” because it did not hold federal elections when HAVA was enacted in 2002. 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 Other Territories, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 28, 2020, p. 2.
4 See, for example, the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093) and the Voter Empowerment Act of 2021 (H.R. 2358/S. 954). The Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) Program Inclusion Act (P.L. 117-182) extended eligibility for one of HAVA’s grant programs to the protection and advocacy (P&A) systems serving CNMI and Native Americans in the Four Corners region of the country (American Indian consortium)of those proposals has been enacted as of this writing.
The Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) Program Inclusion Act (P.L. 117-182), which amended HAVA to extend eligibility for one of its grant programs to the protection and advocacy (P&A) systems serving CNMI and Native Americans in the Four Corners region of the country (American Indian consortium), and the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access (COCOA) Act of 2024 (P.L. 118-106), which amended the act to address Congress's authority to send designees to observe states' federal election processes, define "state" for those purposes as including CNMI. Some appropriations . Some appropriations
acts have also included language extending eligibility for certain other HAVA funding to CNMI.acts have also included language extending eligibility for certain other HAVA funding to CNMI.
For more on those acts, see Table 2 of this report and CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States
Congressional Research Service
1
link to page 26 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
This report generally follows HAVA’s usage of the term. Where the narrower meaning of “state” 4
Except in the context of the PAVA Program Inclusion Act, the COCOA Act, and relevant appropriations acts, this report typically uses HAVA's general definition of "state." Where the narrower meaning of the term is intended, the report uses the phrase is intended, the report uses the phrase
“"the 50 states.the 50 states.
” "
Overview of Major Provisions
A defining image of the 2000 elections was a picture of a member of a Florida county canvassing A defining image of the 2000 elections was a picture of a member of a Florida county canvassing
board inspecting a punch card ballot with a magnifying glass.board inspecting a punch card ballot with a magnifying glass.
55 Florida Florida
’'s closely contested race s closely contested race
would decide the 2000 presidential election. One of the issues highlighted by litigation and would decide the 2000 presidential election. One of the issues highlighted by litigation and
recounts in the state was the challenge of interpreting incompletely punched recounts in the state was the challenge of interpreting incompletely punched
“hanging chads” and “dimpled chads”"hanging" and "dimpled" chads left by the punch card voting left by the punch card voting
machinessystems used in some Florida counties. used in some Florida counties.
6
6
Hearings and reporting on the 2000 elections emphasized, however, that the election Hearings and reporting on the 2000 elections emphasized, however, that the election
administration administration
problems in 2000issues that year were not limited to Florida or to punch card voting were not limited to Florida or to punch card voting
machines.7 systems.7 Those investigations identified other Those investigations identified other
problemsissues with voting systems. The lever voting machines with voting systems. The lever voting machines
used in some jurisdictions in 2000 could jam, for example, and did not produce paper trails that used in some jurisdictions in 2000 could jam, for example, and did not produce paper trails that
could be used to reconstruct votes cast on a jammed machine.could be used to reconstruct votes cast on a jammed machine.
88 Confusing ballot formats Confusing ballot formats
contributed to high rates of contributed to high rates of
“overvoting”"overvoting"—or making more selections for a given contest than —or making more selections for a given contest than
permitted—in some counties.permitted—in some counties.
9
9
The investigations also revealed The investigations also revealed
problemsissues with other aspects of the administration of the 2000 with other aspects of the administration of the 2000
elections, beyond voting systems. elections, beyond voting systems.
EligibleFor example, eligible voters who had been erroneously removed from the voters who had been erroneously removed from the
voter registration rolls were turned away from the polls in some states, voter registration rolls were turned away from the polls in some states,
for example.10 Representatives ofand some polling places were moved or closed early without notice.10 Witnesses representing military and overseas citizens military and overseas citizens
and of, individuals with disabilities individuals with disabilities
, and older and older
individuals individuals
in congressional hearings reported distinctreported particular obstacles to registration and voting by members of those groups. obstacles to registration and voting by members of those groups.
11
11
Congress took three main approaches, in HAVA, to responding to issues highlighted by the 2000 Congress took three main approaches, in HAVA, to responding to issues highlighted by the 2000
elections: (1) setting requirements for the administration of federal elections, (2) authorizing elections: (1) setting requirements for the administration of federal elections, (2) authorizing
elections grant programs, and (3) expanding agency support for election administration through elections grant programs, and (3) expanding agency support for election administration through
creation of the EAC.12
and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton.
5 See, for example, Robert Rosenberg, “‘I Had to Examine Every Disputed Ballot’: George W Bush v Al Gore, Florida, 2000,” The Guardian, July 1, 2016, at https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jul/01/disputed-ballot-george-w-bush-al-gore-florida-recount-2000.
6 See, for example, Samantha Levine, “Hanging Chads: As the Florida Recount Implodes, the Supreme Court Decides Bush v. Gore,” January 17, 2008, at https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/the-legacy-of-hanging-chads. 7 See, for example, The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the
Electoral Process, p. 18; and GAO, Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation, pp. 24-25.
8 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, p. 6. 9 See, for example, Alan Agresti and Brett Presnell, “Misvotes, Undervotes and Overvotes: The 2000 Presidential Election in Florida,” Statistical Science, vol. 17, no. 4 (2002), pp. 438-439. 10 See, for example, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential
Election, June 2001, at https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Federal Election Practices and Procedures, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 2001.
11 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Department of Defense Voting Assistance and Military Absentee Ballot Issues, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 9, 2001 (Washington: GPO, 2001); and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Election Reform, hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-1036 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003).
12 The following three subsections of this report provide an overview of major provisions of the act by type of provision. For an overview of major provisions of HAVA by issue area, see Appendix A.
Congressional Research Service
2
link to page 7 link to page 31 link to page 7 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Requirements
creation of the EAC.12
Requirements
Some states and localities had adopted policies or technologies before the 2000 elections that may Some states and localities had adopted policies or technologies before the 2000 elections that may
have helped have helped
them avoid problems facedprevent issues encountered by other jurisdictions in 2000. by other jurisdictions in 2000.
VotingFor example, voting systems that alerted systems that alerted
voters voters
towho attempted to make multiple selections for a single office reportedly reduced overvoting in some cases, multiple selections for a single office reportedly reduced overvoting in some cases,
for example, and statewide voter registration databases may have helped election officials in some and statewide voter registration databases may have helped election officials in some
states maintain more accurate voter rolls.states maintain more accurate voter rolls.
1313 Provisional voting policies, which enabled voters Provisional voting policies, which enabled voters
whose eligibility was challenged at the polls to cast provisional ballots, may have helped mitigate whose eligibility was challenged at the polls to cast provisional ballots, may have helped mitigate
some of the effects of voter registration list maintenance errors.some of the effects of voter registration list maintenance errors.
14
14
Other policy proposals were offered in post-2000 hearings and reports. Other policy proposals were offered in post-2000 hearings and reports.
TechnologyFor example, technology experts experts
suggested setting national standards for voting system auditability, suggested setting national standards for voting system auditability,
for example, and the U.S. and the U.S.
Department of DefenseDepartment of Defense
’'s (DODs (DOD
’'s) Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), among others, s) Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), among others,
proposed changes to military and overseas voting proposed changes to military and overseas voting
processes.15
and registration processes.15
HAVA was designed, in part, to standardize use of some of those policies and technologies in HAVA was designed, in part, to standardize use of some of those policies and technologies in
federal elections. Title VII of the act amended existing federal elections. Title VII of the act amended existing
federal law to incorporate some of the proposed law to incorporate some of the proposed
changes to military and overseas votingchanges to military and overseas voting
and registration, and Title III set requirements for other aspects of the , and Title III set requirements for other aspects of the
conduct of federal elections. The Title III requirementsconduct of federal elections. The Title III requirements
, as amended, are briefly summarized below. For details are briefly summarized below. For details
of those requirements and the Title VII provisions, respectively, of those requirements and the Title VII provisions, respectively,
seesee Table 1 and Appendix B.1616
Voting systemsVoting systems. Require each state to set uniform standards for what counts as a vote Require each state to set uniform standards for what counts as a vote
on each type of voting system it uses, and require voting systems to offer voters the on each type of voting system it uses, and require voting systems to offer voters the
opportunity to check and correct their ballots; notify voters about overvoting; opportunity to check and correct their ballots; notify voters about overvoting;
produce a manually auditable permanent paper record; provide for accessibility for produce a manually auditable permanent paper record; provide for accessibility for
individuals with disabilities; satisfy alternative language requirements of the Voting individuals with disabilities; satisfy alternative language requirements of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (VRA; P.L. 89-110), as amended; and meet specified error rate Rights Act of 1965 (VRA; P.L. 89-110), as amended; and meet specified error rate
standards.standards.
Provisional votingvoting. Require election officials to permit certain voters, including Require election officials to permit certain voters, including
voters whose names do not appear on the voter rolls, to cast provisional ballots; count voters whose names do not appear on the voter rolls, to cast provisional ballots; count
provisional ballots cast by voters who are found to be eligible under state law to vote; provisional ballots cast by voters who are found to be eligible under state law to vote;
and provide voters with specified options for checking the status of their provisional and provide voters with specified options for checking the status of their provisional
ballots. (Section continues following Table 1.)
13 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, S. 368 and Election
Reform, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), pp. 40-41; and Electionline, Election
Reform: What’s Changed, What Hasn't and Why, 2000-2006, February 2006, p. 19, at https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/election_reform/electionline022006pdf.pdf.
14 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Help America Vote Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 3295, 107th Cong., 1st sess., December 10, 2001, H.Rept. 107-329 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), pp. 37-39; and Electionline, Election Reform: What’s Changed, What Hasn't and Why, 2000-2006, p. 32. For more on voter registration list maintenance, see CRS Report R46943, Voter Registration Records and List Maintenance for
Federal Elections, by Sarah J. Eckman.
15 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, p. 24; Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform, Revitalizing Our Nation’s Election System, pp. 79-80, at https://web.archive.org/web/20011108222052/http:/housedemocrats.house.gov/documents/electionreformreport.pdf; The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, pp. 42-43; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Department of Defense Voting Assistance
and Military Absentee Ballot Issues.
16 For more on military and overseas voting in general, see CRS In Focus IF11642, Absentee Voting for Uniformed
Services and Overseas Citizens: Roles and Process, In Brief, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report RS20764, The
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues, by R. Sam Garrett.
Congressional Research Service
3
link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9
Table 1. Requirements for Federal Elections Established by Title III of HAVA
Effective Date
Requirements
Voting Systems
January 1, 2006
ballots.
Voting information. Require election officials to post the following information at the polls: a sample ballot, the date of the election, polling place hours, instructions for voting and for complying with HAVA's requirements for mail registrants and first-time voters, and general information about voting rights and prohibitions on fraud and misrepresentation.
Statewide voter registration databases. Require states to implement centralized, computerized statewide voter registration lists and follow specified procedures for maintaining them.17
Voter identification. Require certain first-time voters who register by mail to provide one of a specified list of types of identification in order to cast a regular ballot.
Federal mail voter registration form. Require questions about citizenship and age, a statement about the new questions, and a statement about HAVA's voter ID requirement to be added to the federal mail voter registration form established by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA; P.L. 103-31; 52 U.S.C. §§20501-20511), and require election officials to offer voters who fail to answer the citizenship question an opportunity to complete the form.
Congressional election observers. Require states to provide congressional election observers access to federal election processes—including to areas where ballots are cast, processed, scanned, tabulated, canvassed, recounted, audited, or certified—with specified limitations on observers' activities and conditions for their removal and replacement.18HAVA left decisions about how to implement—and, to a certain extent, enforce—its Title III requirements to the states. The act directed the EAC to issue voluntary guidance for implementing the Title III requirements but left states discretion over exactly how to meet them.19 It assigned federal enforcement of the requirements to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) but routed action by individual voters on violations through state-based administrative complaint procedures20 rather than an explicit private right of action.21
Table 1. Requirements for Federal Elections Established by Title III of HAVA, as Amended
Effective Date
|
Requirements
|
Voting Systems
52 U.S.C. §21081
|
January 1, 2006
|
Require voting systems to permit voters privately and independently to verify and change or correct their Require voting systems to permit voters privately and independently to verify and change or correct their
52 U.S.C. §21081
ballots before they are cast and counted; notify voters who have selected more than one candidate for a single ballots before they are cast and counted; notify voters who have selected more than one candidate for a single
office that they have overvoted, inform them of the effects of overvoting, and provide an opportunity to office that they have overvoted, inform them of the effects of overvoting, and provide an opportunity to
correct the ballot before it is cast and correct the ballot before it is cast and
counted;a counted;a produce a manually auditable permanent paper record that is produce a manually auditable permanent paper record that is
available as an official record for recounts, and permit voters to change or correct their ballots before the available as an official record for recounts, and permit voters to change or correct their ballots before the
manually auditable permanent paper record is produced; be accessible to individuals with disabilities in a manually auditable permanent paper record is produced; be accessible to individuals with disabilities in a
manner that provides them the same opportunity for access and participation as other voters, through use of manner that provides them the same opportunity for access and participation as other voters, through use of
at least one direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system or other accessible voting system at each at least one direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system or other accessible voting system at each
pol ing place;b polling place;b provide alternative language accessibility as required by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provide alternative language accessibility as required by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
(VRA), as amended; and comply with the error rate standards established by Section 3.2.1 of the Federal (VRA), as amended; and comply with the error rate standards established by Section 3.2.1 of the Federal
Election CommissionElection Commission
’'s (FECs (FEC
’'s) 1990 Voting Systems Standards.s) 1990 Voting Systems Standards.
Require each state to adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards for what constitutes and Require each state to adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards for what constitutes and
wil will be counted be counted
as a vote for each type of voting system it uses.as a vote for each type of voting system it uses.
Provisional Provisional
Votingc
Votingc
52 U.S.C. §21082(a), (c)
January 1, 2004January 1, 2004
Require individuals who do not appear on the official list of eligible voters or whose eligibility to vote is Require individuals who do not appear on the official list of eligible voters or whose eligibility to vote is
52 U.S.C. §§21082(a),(c)
otherwise challenged by an election official to be permitted to cast a provisional ballot if they provide written otherwise challenged by an election official to be permitted to cast a provisional ballot if they provide written
affirmation that they are registered in the jurisdiction and eligible to vote in the election.affirmation that they are registered in the jurisdiction and eligible to vote in the election.
Require election officials to notify eligible individuals that they may cast a provisional Require election officials to notify eligible individuals that they may cast a provisional
bal otballot; transmit ; transmit
provisional ballots to the appropriate officials for prompt verification; count provisional ballots cast by provisional ballots to the appropriate officials for prompt verification; count provisional ballots cast by
individuals they find to be eligible under state law to vote; establish a free access system individuals can use to individuals they find to be eligible under state law to vote; establish a free access system individuals can use to
check the status of their provisional ballots; provide individuals who cast provisional ballots with written check the status of their provisional ballots; provide individuals who cast provisional ballots with written
information about the free access system; and establish and maintain procedures to protect the security, information about the free access system; and establish and maintain procedures to protect the security,
confidentiality, and integrity of personal information confidentiality, and integrity of personal information
col ectedcollected, stored, or otherwise used by the free access , stored, or otherwise used by the free access
system.system.
Require individuals who vote during certain extended Require individuals who vote during certain extended
pol ingpolling place hours to cast provisional rather than place hours to cast provisional rather than
regular ballots, and require those ballots to be held apart from other provisional regular ballots, and require those ballots to be held apart from other provisional
ballots.d
ballots.d
Voting InformationVoting Information
52 U.S.C. §21082(b)
January 1, 2004January 1, 2004
Require election officials to post the Require election officials to post the
fol owingfollowing information at the information at the
pol spolls: a sample ballot; information about the : a sample ballot; information about the
52 U.S.C. §21082(b)
date of the election and date of the election and
pol ingpolling place hours; instructions for how to vote, including how to cast a vote and a place hours; instructions for how to vote, including how to cast a vote and a
provisional ballot; instructions about HAVAprovisional ballot; instructions about HAVA
’'s requirements for mail-in registrants and first-time voters; general s requirements for mail-in registrants and first-time voters; general
information about federal and state voting rights, including information about the right to cast a provisional information about federal and state voting rights, including information about the right to cast a provisional
ballot and how to report violations of voting rights; and general information about federal and state ballot and how to report violations of voting rights; and general information about federal and state
prohibitions on fraud and misrepresentation.prohibitions on fraud and misrepresentation.
CRS-4
link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9
Effective Date
Requirements
Statewide Voter Registration
January 1, 2004f
Statewide Voter Registration Databasese
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)
January 1, 2004f
Require states to implement a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter Require states to implement a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter
Databasese
registration list that is defined, maintained, and administered at the state level; includes the name and registration list that is defined, maintained, and administered at the state level; includes the name and
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)
registration information of all registered voters in the state; assigns each registered voter a unique identifier; registration information of all registered voters in the state; assigns each registered voter a unique identifier;
and can be immediately electronically accessed by any election official in the state.and can be immediately electronically accessed by any election official in the state.
Require coordination of the statewide voter registration list with other agency databases in the state.Require coordination of the statewide voter registration list with other agency databases in the state.
Require voter registration information obtained by local election officials to be electronically entered into the Require voter registration information obtained by local election officials to be electronically entered into the
list on an expedited basis, and require chief state election officials to provide any support required to facilitate list on an expedited basis, and require chief state election officials to provide any support required to facilitate
expeditious entry of such information.expeditious entry of such information.
Require election officials to comply with provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) Require election officials to comply with provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)
when removing individuals from the list and coordinate the list with state agency records on felony status and when removing individuals from the list and coordinate the list with state agency records on felony status and
death for purposes of removing ineligible voters from the death for purposes of removing ineligible voters from the
list.g
list.g
Require list maintenance under the above provisions to be conducted in a manner that ensures that the name Require list maintenance under the above provisions to be conducted in a manner that ensures that the name
of each registered voter appears in the computerized list, only voters who are not registered or are ineligible of each registered voter appears in the computerized list, only voters who are not registered or are ineligible
to vote are removed from the list, and duplicate names are removed from the list.to vote are removed from the list, and duplicate names are removed from the list.
Require state or local officials to provide adequate technological security measures to prevent unauthorized Require state or local officials to provide adequate technological security measures to prevent unauthorized
access to the statewide voter registration list.access to the statewide voter registration list.
Require provisions to ensure that voter registration records are accurate and regularly updated, including Require provisions to ensure that voter registration records are accurate and regularly updated, including
reasonable efforts to remove registrants who are not eligible to vote and safeguards against erroneous reasonable efforts to remove registrants who are not eligible to vote and safeguards against erroneous
removal of eligible voters.removal of eligible voters.
Require voter registration applicants who have a current and valid driverRequire voter registration applicants who have a current and valid driver
’'s license number or Social Security s license number or Social Security
number to provide the license number or the last four digits of the Social Security number with their number to provide the license number or the last four digits of the Social Security number with their
registration applications, and require states to verify the information applicants provide.registration applications, and require states to verify the information applicants provide.
Require states to assign unique identifying numbers to voter registration applicants who have not been issued a Require states to assign unique identifying numbers to voter registration applicants who have not been issued a
current and valid license or Social Security number.current and valid license or Social Security number.
Require the official responsible for the state motor vehicle authority of each state to enter into data-matching Require the official responsible for the state motor vehicle authority of each state to enter into data-matching
agreements with the chief state election official of the state and the agreements with the chief state election official of the state and the
Commissionercommissioner of Social Security for of Social Security for
purposes of verifying the accuracy of information provided on voter registration purposes of verifying the accuracy of information provided on voter registration
applications.h
applications.h
Voter IdentificationVoter Identification
January 1, 2004i
52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(1)-(3)
January 1, 2004i
Require individuals who registered by mail, have not previously voted in a federal election in the state, and do Require individuals who registered by mail, have not previously voted in a federal election in the state, and do
52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(1)-(3)
not meet certain conditions to present one of a specified list of types of identification at the not meet certain conditions to present one of a specified list of types of identification at the
pol spolls (if voting in (if voting in
person) or include a copy of such identification with their ballot (if voting by mailperson) or include a copy of such identification with their ballot (if voting by mail
).j
).j
Require individuals who fail to meet the voter identification requirement to be permitted to cast a provisional Require individuals who fail to meet the voter identification requirement to be permitted to cast a provisional
ballot or have their mail ballot counted as a provisional ballot.ballot or have their mail ballot counted as a provisional ballot.
CRS-5
Federal Mail Voter Registration Form
52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(4)
|
January 1, 2004i
|
Effective Date
Requirements
Federal Mail Voter Registration
January 1, 2004i
Require the federal mail voter registration form to include questions about citizenship status and age and Require the federal mail voter registration form to include questions about citizenship status and age and
Form
boxes for applicants to check in response, a statement that voters who check boxes for applicants to check in response, a statement that voters who check
“no”"no" in response to either of the in response to either of the
52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(4)
questions should not complete the form, and a statement informing applicants who are registering for the first questions should not complete the form, and a statement informing applicants who are registering for the first
time by mail that identification information must be submitted with the registration form to avoid additional time by mail that identification information must be submitted with the registration form to avoid additional
identification requirements when voting for the first time.identification requirements when voting for the first time.
Require registrars to notify individuals who fail to answer the citizenship question that they did not answer the Require registrars to notify individuals who fail to answer the citizenship question that they did not answer the
question and provide them with an opportunity to complete the form.question and provide them with an opportunity to complete the form.
Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code. Notes: The requirements in this table apply to elections for federal office. The voting systems standards, for example, are for systems used in federal elections. a. Jurisdictions that use paper ballot, punch card, or central count voting systems can
Congressional Election Observersk
52 U.S.C. §21083a
—
|
Require states to provide designated congressional election observers full access to all election administration procedures for federal elections, including to areas where ballots are cast, processed, scanned, tabulated, canvassed, recounted, audited, or certified.
Prohibit congressional election observers from handling ballots or election equipment, advocating for positions or candidates, taking any action to reduce ballot secrecy or voter privacy, taking any action to interfere with the ability of voters to cast a ballot or election administrators to perform their duties, or otherwise interfering with the election administration process.
Authorize election officials to remove a congressional election observer if they have a reasonable basis to believe that the observer has engaged or will imminently engage in intimidation or deceptive practices prohibited by federal law or in disrupting the casting, processing, scanning, tabulating, canvassing, or recounting of ballots or the certification of election results.
Require election officials to notify the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, as applicable, of the removal of a congressional election observer and the reason for the removal within 24 hours.
Authorize the applicable chair or ranking minority member to replace a removed observer.
|
Source: CRS analysis based on review of the U.S. Code.
Notes: The requirements in this table apply to elections for federal office. For example, the voting systems standards apply to voting systems used in federal elections.
a. HAVA authorizes jurisdictions that use paper ballot, punch card, or central count voting systems to meet this requirement by creating a voter education program that informs voters meet this requirement by creating a voter education program that informs voters
of the effects of overvoting and providing of the effects of overvoting and providing
votersthem with instructions for correcting overvotes before their ballots are cast and counted. with instructions for correcting overvotes before their ballots are cast and counted.
b.
b. Voting systems purchased with requirements payments made available on or after January 1, 2007, are required to meet HAVAVoting systems purchased with requirements payments made available on or after January 1, 2007, are required to meet HAVA
’'s standards for disability access.s standards for disability access.
c. States
c. HAVA authorizes states that have not required voter registration on and since August 1, 1994, or that have permitted same-day registration on and since August 1, 1994, that have not required voter registration on and since August 1, 1994, or that have permitted same-day registration on and since August 1, 1994,
canto use use
their existing voter registration procedures to satisfy their existing voter registration procedures to satisfy
HAVA’the act's provisional voting requirements.s provisional voting requirements.
d.
d. HAVA also requires HAVA also requires
that individuals who do not meet its voter identification requirement individuals who do not meet its voter identification requirement
to be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. For more on that requirement, see be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. For more on that requirement, see
the the
“"Voter IdentificationVoter Identification
”" section of this table. section of this table.
e. HAVA’
e. HAVA's statewide voter registration database requirements do not apply to North Dakota, which does not require voter registration.s statewide voter registration database requirements do not apply to North Dakota, which does not require voter registration.
f. f.
HAVA provided for this deadline to be extended to January 1, 2006, for states or jurisdictions that certified to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) by HAVA provided for this deadline to be extended to January 1, 2006, for states or jurisdictions that certified to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) by
January 1, 2004, that they would not meet the original deadline for good cause.January 1, 2004, that they would not meet the original deadline for good cause.
g.
g. HAVA indicates that states that have not required voter registration on and since August 1, 1994, or that have permitted same-day registration on and since August HAVA indicates that states that have not required voter registration on and since August 1, 1994, or that have permitted same-day registration on and since August
1, 1994, should 1, 1994, should
fol owfollow their state laws for removing ineligible voters from their voter registration lists rather than the HAVA requirements. their state laws for removing ineligible voters from their voter registration lists rather than the HAVA requirements.
h. Compliance
h. HAVA indicates that compliance with this requirement and the above two requirements is optional for states that are permitted to use with this requirement and the above two requirements is optional for states that are permitted to use
Social Security numbers—and thatand provide for provide for
use of Social Security numbersuse of Social Security numbers
— on voter registration applications in accordance with Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579on voter registration applications in accordance with Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579
).
i. ).
i.
HAVA indicates that these requirements apply to any individual who registers on or after January 1, 2003.HAVA indicates that these requirements apply to any individual who registers on or after January 1, 2003.
j. j.
The relevant conditions are (1) registering to vote by mail under Section 6 of the NVRA and submitting a copy of acceptable identification with the registration; (2) The relevant conditions are (1) registering to vote by mail under Section 6 of the NVRA and submitting a copy of acceptable identification with the registration; (2)
registering to vote by mail under Section 6 of the NVRA, submitting a driverregistering to vote by mail under Section 6 of the NVRA, submitting a driver
’'s license number or at least the last four digits of a Social Security number with the s license number or at least the last four digits of a Social Security number with the
registration, and having the submitted information matched by an election official to an existing state identification record with the same number, name, and date of registration, and having the submitted information matched by an election official to an existing state identification record with the same number, name, and date of
birth; or (3) being entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) or to vote other than in birth; or (3) being entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) or to vote other than in
person under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 (VAEHA; P.L. 98-435) or any other federal law.person under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 (VAEHA; P.L. 98-435) or any other federal law.
CRS-6
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Voting information. Require election officials to post the following information at
the polls: a sample ballot, the date of the election, polling place hours, instructions for voting and for complying with HAVA’s requirements for mail registrants and first-time voters, and general information about voting rights and prohibitions on fraud and misrepresentation.
Statewide voter registration databases. Require states to implement centralized,
computerized statewide voter registration lists and follow specified procedures for maintaining them.17
Voter identification. Require certain first-time voters who register by mail to
provide one of a specified list of types of identification in order to cast a regular ballot.
Federal mail voter registration form. Require questions about citizenship and age
and statements about the new questions and HAVA’s voter ID requirement to be added to the federal mail voter registration form established by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA; P.L. 103-31; 52 U.S.C. §§20501-20511), and require election officials to offer voters who fail to answer the citizenship question an opportunity to complete the form.
HAVA left decisions about how to implement—and, to a certain extent, enforce—its Title III requirements to the states. The act directed the EAC to issue voluntary guidance for implementing the Title III requirements but left states discretion over exactly how to meet them.18 It assigned federal enforcement of the requirements to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) but routed action by individual voters on violations through state-based administrative complaint procedures19 rather than an explicit private right of action.20
Grant Programs
Complying with HAVA’
k. This requirement was added by the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act (COCOA) of 2024 (P.L. 118-106). Unlike the other requirements in the table, it applies to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Grant Programs
Complying with HAVA's Title III requirements involved significant financial investments for s Title III requirements involved significant financial investments for
many states and localities. There were also other post-2000 changes to election processes—not many states and localities. There were also other post-2000 changes to election processes—not
addressed by the HAVA requirements—that states and localities wanted or needed to make. addressed by the HAVA requirements—that states and localities wanted or needed to make.
Congress accounted for both of those circumstances, in HAVA, with a pair of general grant Congress accounted for both of those circumstances, in HAVA, with a pair of general grant
programs that were designed to help states meet HAVAprograms that were designed to help states meet HAVA
’'s Title III requirements and make certain s Title III requirements and make certain
general improvements to election administration.general improvements to election administration.
HAVA also authorized grant programs to facilitate or incentivize action on specific issues or HAVA also authorized grant programs to facilitate or incentivize action on specific issues or
policy proposals, such as replacing lever and punch card voting systems. Those more specialized policy proposals, such as replacing lever and punch card voting systems. Those more specialized
grant programs included programs related to voting technology, disability access, youth voter grant programs included programs related to voting technology, disability access, youth voter
participation, and poll worker recruitment.
17 For more on voter registration list maintenance, see CRS Report R46943, Voter Registration Records and List
Maintenance for Federal Elections, by Sarah J. Eckman.
18 52 U.S.C. §§21101-21102 and 52 U.S.C. §21085. 19 52 U.S.C. §§21111-21112. HAVA requires states that receive funding under any of its grant programs to establish a state-based administrative complaint procedure. That requirement applies to all states in practice because all have received HAVA funding.
20 Unlike some other federal statutes, such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), HAVA does not provide for an explicit private right to sue for violations of its requirements. The question of whether there is a private right of action for any of HAVA’s Title III requirements on other grounds has been the subject of litigation and academic debate. For a discussion of that issue, see Daniel P. Tokaji, “Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The Enforcement of Federal Election Laws,” Indiana Law Review, vol. 44, no. 113 (2010).
Congressional Research Service
7
link to page 12 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
participation, and poll worker recruitment.
Each of the grant programs authorized by HAVA is summarized below. Information about the Each of the grant programs authorized by HAVA is summarized below. Information about the
funding Congress has authorized and appropriated for each program as of this writing is available funding Congress has authorized and appropriated for each program as of this writing is available
inin Table 2. ForFor more on federal elections grant programs in general, see CRS Report R46646, more on federal elections grant programs in general, see CRS Report R46646,
Election Administration: Federal Grant FundingPrograms for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton., by Karen L. Shanton.
Requirements payments programRequirements payments program. Grants to states for meeting requirements for the Grants to states for meeting requirements for the
administration of federal elections. Administered by the EAC.administration of federal elections. Administered by the EAC.
2122 States are required States are required
by HAVA to provide a match for funding they receive under this program and a state by HAVA to provide a match for funding they receive under this program and a state
plan for use of the funds.plan for use of the funds.
2223 Funding was initially authorized for this grant program Funding was initially authorized for this grant program
primarily for helping states comply with HAVAprimarily for helping states comply with HAVA
’'s Title III requirements.s Title III requirements.
2324 The The
Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 amended HAVA to Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 amended HAVA to
authorize additional funding for the program to help states meet new requirements for authorize additional funding for the program to help states meet new requirements for
military and overseas voting military and overseas voting
and registration established by the MOVE Act.established by the MOVE Act.
24
General improvements grant program25
General improvements grant program. Grants to states for making certain general Grants to states for making certain general
improvements to election administration.improvements to election administration.
2526 Administered by the U.S. General Administered by the U.S. General
Services Administration (GSA) and the EAC.Services Administration (GSA) and the EAC.
26
Lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program27
Lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program. Grants to states . Grants to states
that used lever or punch card voting systems in the November 2000 election for that used lever or punch card voting systems in the November 2000 election for
replacing those systems. Administered by GSA and the EAC. States that accepted replacing those systems. Administered by GSA and the EAC. States that accepted
funding under this grant program were required to either replace all of their lever and funding under this grant program were required to either replace all of their lever and
punch card voting systems by a deadline specified by HAVA or repay a portion of the punch card voting systems by a deadline specified by HAVA or repay a portion of the
funds they received.27
Voting technology improvements research grant program. Grants for researching
and developing improvements to the quality, reliability, accuracy, accessibility,
21 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) authorized the U.S. General Services Administration (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 appointment of all members of the EAC.
22 52 U.S.C. §21003. The match amount is “5 percent of the total amount to be spent for [activities for which the requirements payment is made] (taking into account the requirements payment and the amount spent by the State).” 23 52 U.S.C. §21001. States could also use requirements payments for more general improvements to the administration of federal elections if they had already met the Title III requirements or limited their spending on such activities to a specified amount.
24 52 U.S.C. §21001. The MOVE Act was enacted as Subtitle H of Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84).
25 HAVA lists specific permissible uses of this grant funding. The listed uses are complying with HAVA’s Title III requirements; improving the administration of federal elections; educating voters about voting procedures, rights, and technology; training election officials and volunteers; developing the state plan for requirements payments; improving, acquiring, or modifying voting systems and technology and vote casting and counting methods; improving polling place accessibility and quantity; and establishing toll-free hotlines for reporting voting fraud and rights violations and accessing election information (52 U.S.C. §20901).
26 HAVA assigned initial responsibility for administering the general improvements and lever and punch card voting system replacement grant programs to GSA but authority for overseeing audits and repayments of the funds to the EAC (52 U.S.C. §§20901-20906 and 52 U.S.C. §21142). The EAC has also been charged with administering the funding Congress appropriated under the general improvements grant program for FY2018, FY2020, and FY2022 (P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-93; P.L. 116-136; and P.L. 117-103).
27 52 U.S.C. §20902. The deadline for replacing voting systems was originally the regularly scheduled federal general election in November 2004, with an optional waiver to the first federal election after January 1, 2006. Congress extended the waiver deadline twice (P.L. 110-28 and P.L. 111-8). The final deadline was the first federal election after November 1, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
8
link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
funds they received.28
Voting technology improvements research grant program. Grants for researching and developing improvements to the quality, reliability, accuracy, accessibility, affordability, and security of election systems. Administered by the EACaffordability, and security of election systems. Administered by the EAC
, with support with support
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
28
Voting technology pilot program grant program29
Voting technology pilot program grant program. Grants for conducting pilot Grants for conducting pilot
programs to test new voting technologies and implement them on a trial basis. programs to test new voting technologies and implement them on a trial basis.
Administered by the EACAdministered by the EAC
, with support from NIST. with support from NIST.
Polling place accessibility grant program
Polling place accessibility grant program. Grants to states and localities for Grants to states and localities for
improving the accessibility of polling places and sharing information about polling improving the accessibility of polling places and sharing information about polling
place accessibility. Administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human place accessibility. Administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).29
Protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant programServices (HHS).30
Protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant program. Grants to P&A systems— Grants to P&A systems—
state-level systems charged with empowering and advocating for individuals with state-level systems charged with empowering and advocating for individuals with
disabilities—for conducting activities related to electoral access for individuals with disabilities—for conducting activities related to electoral access for individuals with
disabilities. Administered by HHS.disabilities. Administered by HHS.
30
Mock elections grant program31
Mock elections grant program. Grants for conducting voter education activities for Grants for conducting voter education activities for
students and their parents. Administered by the EAC.students and their parents. Administered by the EAC.
Help America Vote College Program. Grant-making, among other program Grant-making, among other program
activities, for encouraging students at institutions of higher education to serve as poll activities, for encouraging students at institutions of higher education to serve as poll
workers and election officials to use their services. Administered by the EAC. HAVA workers and election officials to use their services. Administered by the EAC. HAVA
also authorized creation of a Help America Vote Foundation to perform a similar also authorized creation of a Help America Vote Foundation to perform a similar
function for secondary school students, although the actfunction for secondary school students, although the act
’'s description of the s description of the
foundation does not explicitly list grant-making among its authorized activities.foundation does not explicitly list grant-making among its authorized activities.
31 32To help ensure that grant funds are used as intended, HAVA provides for funding audits and examinations.33 It includes provisions for audits by the agencies that administer its grant programs, as well as both special audits of any HAVA funding upon a vote of the EAC commissioners and regular audits of funding provided under the requirements payments program.34
Table 2. Funding Authorized and Appropriated for HAVA Grant Programs
(as of the publication date of this report)
(as of September 30, 2025)
Grant Program
Amounts Authorized by HAVAa HAVAa
Amounts Appropriated
Requirements payments
FY2003: $1.4 bil ion
FY2003: $830.0 mil ion
program
FY2004: $1.0 bil ion
FY2004: $1.5 bil ionc
52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008
FY2005: $600.0 mil ion
FY2008: $115.0 mil ion
Requirements payments program
52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008
|
FY2003: $1.4 billion
FY2004: $1.0 billion
FY2005: $600.0 million
FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessaryb
FY2003: $830.0 million
FY2004: $1.5 billionc
FY2008: $115.0 million
FY2009: $100.0 million
FY2010: $70.0 million
FY2011:d
General improvements grant program
52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906
Lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program
52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906
|
$650.0 million (to be divided evenly between the two grant programs)
FY2003: $650.0 million (for combination of general improvements grant program and lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program)e
FY2018: $380.0 million (for general improvements grant program)f,g
FY2020: $825.0 million (for general improvements grant program)f,h,i,j
FY2022: $75 million (for general improvements grant program)i,j
FY2023: $75 million (for general improvements grant program)i,j
FY2024: $55 million (for general improvements grant program)i,j,k
FY2025: $15 million (for general improvements grant program)i,j,k
|
Voting technology improvements research grant program
52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043
|
FY2003: $20.0 million
|
FY2009: $5.0 million
FY2010: $3.0 million
|
|
Voting technology pilot program grant program
52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053
|
FY2003: $10.0 million
|
FY2009: $1.0 million
FY2010: $2.0 million
|
Polling place accessibility grant program
52 U.S.C. §§21021-21025
|
FY2003: $50.0 million
FY2004: $25.0 million
FY2005: $25.0 million
|
FY2003: $13.0 million
FY2004: $10.0 million
FY2005: $10.0 million
FY2006: $11.0 million
FY2007:l
FY2008: $12.4 million
FY2009: $12.2 million
FY2010: $12.2 million
FY2011:l
FY2014-FY2025:m
Protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant programn
52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062
FY2003: $10.0 million
FY2004: $10.0 million
FY2005: $10.0 million
FY2006: $10.0 million
Subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessary
|
FY2003: $2.0 million
FY2004: $5.0 million
FY2005: $5.0 million
FY2006: $4.9 million
FY2007:i
FY2008: $5.4 million
FY2009: $5.3 million
FY2010: $5.3 million
FY2011:i
FY2012: $5.2 million
FY2013: $5.2 million
FY2014-FY2025:m
Mock elections grant program
52 U.S.C. §§21071-21072
|
FY2003: $200,000
Subsequent six fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessary
|
FY2004: $200,000o
FY2005: $200,000o
FY2008: $200,000
FY2009: $300,000
FY2010: $300,000
Help America Vote College Programp
52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123
FY2003: $5.0 million
Subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessary
|
FY2003: $1.5 million
FY2004: $750,000o
FY2005: $200,000o
FY2006:q
FY2008: $750,000o
FY2009: $750,000
FY2010: $750,000
FY2023: $1.0 million
Source: CRS analysis based on review of the U.S. Code and relevant appropriations measures.
Notes: Figures are rounded and do not account for rescissions or sequestration reductions.
a. Authorized amounts are listed here as they are presented in statutory language.
b. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 indicated that appropriationsFY2010 and subsequent fiscal years:
FY2009: $100.0 mil ion
Such sums as may be necessaryb
FY2010: $70.0 mil ion FY2011:d
General improvements grant
FY2003: $650.0 mil ion (for
program
$650.0 mil ion (to be divided evenly
combination of general
between the two grant programs)
52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906
improvements grant program and
28 HAVA charged NIST with recommending topics for projects funded under this grant program and the voting technology pilot program grant program as well as reviewing grant applications for both grant programs and, on EAC request, monitoring grant activities (52 U.S.C. §21041 and 52 U.S.C. §21051).
29 As authorized, HAVA’s polling place accessibility grant program was available to localities. However, the appropriations acts that have funded the program have limited grant funds to states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7.
30 As initially authorized by HAVA, this grant program was available to the P&A systems serving the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The PAVA Program Inclusion Act extended eligibility for the program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium.
31 President George W. Bush named nominees to the Help America Vote Foundation’s board of directors on July 9, 2004. The White House, “Personnel Announcement,” press release, July 9, 2004, at https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/07/text/20040709-6.html. CRS has not been able to locate additional information about activities of the foundation.
Congressional Research Service
9
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 15 link to page 15 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Grant Program
Amounts Authorized by HAVAa
Amounts Appropriated
Lever and punch card voting
lever and punch card voting system
system replacement grant
replacement grant program)e
program
FY2018: $380.0 mil ion (for general
52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906
improvements grant program)f
FY2020: $825.0 mil ion (for general improvements grant program)f,g,h
FY2022: $75 mil ion (for general improvements grant program)h
Voting technology
FY2003: $20.0 mil ion
FY2009: $5.0 mil ion
improvements research grant
FY2010: $3.0 mil ion
program 52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043
Voting technology pilot program
FY2003: $10.0 mil ion
FY2009: $1.0 mil ion
grant program
FY2010: $2.0 mil ion
52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053
Pol ing place accessibility grant
FY2003: $50.0 mil ion
FY2003: $13.0 mil ion
program
FY2004: $25.0 mil ion
FY2004: $10.0 mil ion
52 U.S.C. §§21021-21025
FY2005: $25.0 mil ion
FY2005: $10.0 mil ion FY2006: $11.0 mil ion FY2007:i
FY2008: $12.4 mil ion FY2009: $12.2 mil ion FY2010: $12.2 mil ion FY2011:i FY2014-FY2022:j
Protection and advocacy (P&A)
FY2003: $10.0 mil ion
FY2003: $2.0 mil ion
system grant programk
FY2004: $10.0 mil ion
FY2004: $5.0 mil ion
52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062
FY2005: $10.0 mil ion
FY2005: $5.0 mil ion
FY2006: $10.0 mil ion
FY2006: $4.9 mil ion
Subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as
FY2007:i
may be necessary
FY2008: $5.4 mil ion FY2009: $5.3 mil ion FY2010: $5.3 mil ion FY2011:i FY2012: $5.2 mil ion FY2013: $5.2 mil ion FY2014-FY2022:j
Mock elections grant program
FY2003: $200,000
FY2004: $200,000l
52 U.S.C. §§21071-21072
Subsequent six fiscal years: Such sums FY2005: $200,000l as may be necessary
FY2008: $200,000 FY2009: $300,000 FY2010: $300,000
Congressional Research Service
10
link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Grant Program
Amounts Authorized by HAVAa
Amounts Appropriated
Help America Vote Col ege
FY2003: $5.0 mil ion
FY2003: $1.5 mil ion
Programm
Subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as
FY2004: $750,000l
52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123
may be necessary
FY2005: $200,000l FY2006:n
FY2008: $750,000l FY2009: $750,000 FY2010: $750,000
Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code and relevant appropriations measures. Notes: Figures are rounded and do not account for rescissions or sequestration reductions. a. Authorized amounts are listed here as they are presented in statutory language. b. Appropriations for the requirements payments program for FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years were
authorized only for the requirements payments program for FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years were to be used for complying with requirements established by for complying with requirements established by
the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009.
c. that act (52 U.S.C. §21001).
c. Report language accompanying the FY2004 appropriations act (H.Rept. 108-401Report language accompanying the FY2004 appropriations act (H.Rept. 108-401
; ; P.L. 108-199) indicated that 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 $750,000 of this funding was for the Help America Vote Foundation, $750,000 was for the Help America
Vote Vote
Col egeCollege Program, and $200,000 was for the National Student Parent Mock Election. Program, and $200,000 was for the National Student Parent Mock Election.
d.
d. HAVA required states that had not replaced all of their lever and punch card voting systems by the relevant HAVA required states that had not replaced all of their lever and punch card voting systems by the relevant
deadline to return some of the funds they received under this grant program and directed the U.S. Election deadline to return some of the funds they received under this grant program and directed the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) to redistribute the returned funds as requirements payments. The EAC Assistance Commission (EAC) to redistribute the returned funds as requirements payments. The EAC
made some funding for requirements payments available for FY2011 from returned funds. EAC, made some funding for requirements payments available for FY2011 from returned funds. EAC,
Memorandum Re: 2011 Requirements Payments Disbursements, May 13, 2014, , May 13, 2014,
at https://www.eac.gov/sites/https://www.eac.gov/sites/
default/files/eac_assets/default/files/eac_assets/
1/1/6/6/
Instructions_for_Requesting_FY_2011_Requirements_Payments_Memo.2014.pdfInstructions_for_Requesting_FY_2011_Requirements_Payments_Memo.2014.pdf
.
e. .
e. The FY2003 appropriations resolution (P.L. 108-7The FY2003 appropriations resolution (P.L. 108-7
) ) did not specify a distribution of appropriations between did not specify a distribution of appropriations between
these two grant programs. It indicated that some of the funding—not to exceed $500,000—was to be these two grant programs. It indicated that some of the funding—not to exceed $500,000—was to be
available to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) for expenses associated with administering the available to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) for expenses associated with administering the
funds.
f.
funds.
f. The $380 The $380
mil ionmillion appropriated under this program for FY2018 was provided by the Consolidated appropriated under this program for FY2018 was provided by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), and $425 Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), and $425
mil ionmillion of the $825 of the $825
mil ionmillion appropriated for FY2020 was appropriated for FY2020 was
provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93). Explanatory statements provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93). Explanatory statements
accompanying those two appropriations acts listed some election security-specific purposes for which the accompanying those two appropriations acts listed some election security-specific purposes for which the
funds may be used.funds may be used.
g. This figure includes $425 mil ion
g. The appropriations act that provided this funding included a requirement for recipients to provide a 5% match for the federal funds they received. Eligible territories other than Puerto Rico were exempted from the match requirement.
h. This figure includes $425 million from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and $400 from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and $400
mil ionmillion from from
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136). The CARES Act restricted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136). The CARES Act restricted
use of its HAVA funds to preventing, preparing for, and responding to coronavirus, domestically and use of its HAVA funds to preventing, preparing for, and responding to coronavirus, domestically and
internationally, internationally,
infor the 2020 federal election cycle. the 2020 federal election cycle.
h.
i. The appropriations The appropriations
actsact that provided this funding extended eligibility for the funding to the Commonwealth that provided this funding extended eligibility for the funding to the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
i.
j. The appropriations act that provided this funding included a requirement for recipients to provide a 20% match for the federal funds they received. Eligible territories other than Puerto Rico were exempted from the match requirement.
k. This funding was to be paid from unobligated balances in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. For more information about that fund, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
l. Appropriations for FY2007 and FY2011 for the HAVA grant programs administered by the U.S. Department Appropriations for FY2007 and FY2011 for the HAVA grant programs administered by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) were included in general budget authority for the Administration for of Health and Human Services (HHS) were included in general budget authority for the Administration for
Children and FamiliesChildren and Families
’' (ACF's) Children and Families Services programs. Information about the funding HHS Children and Families Services programs. Information about the funding HHS
reported awarding for grants for those fiscal years is available in congressional budget justifications from reported awarding for grants for those fiscal years is available in congressional budget justifications from
the
Administration for Children and Families. Administration for Children and Families, Archived Congressional
Budget Justifications FY 2012-2004, June 29, 2012, at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/archive/olab/resource/archived-congressional-budget-justifications-fy-2012-2004.
j.
ACF. ACF, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees: Fiscal Year 2009, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/olab/2009cj_comb.pdf; and ACF, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees: Fiscal Year 2013, https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/about-acl/2016-09/FY_2013_AIDD-congressional-justification%5B1%5D.pdf.
m. Starting with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), appropriations for new funding for Starting with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), appropriations for new funding for
HAVA grant programs administered by HHS have been included in general budget authority for the HAVA grant programs administered by HHS have been included in general budget authority for the
Administration for Community LivingAdministration for Community Living
’s's (ACL's) Aging and Disability Services programs. The appropriations acts Aging and Disability Services programs. The appropriations acts
reference both the reference both the
pol ingpolling place accessibility grant program and the P&A system grant program, but, place accessibility grant program and the P&A system grant program, but,
according to HHS, only the P&A system grant program has been funded during that period. The specific 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 system grants each year are available from totals HHS has reported awarding for P&A system grants each year are available from
the Administration for Community Living at ACL at https://acl.gov/about-acl/help-america-vote-act-havahttps://acl.gov/about-acl/help-america-vote-act-hava
.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
k. .
n. As initially authorized by HAVA, this grant program was available to the P&A systems serving the 50 states, As initially authorized by HAVA, this grant program was available to the P&A systems serving the 50 states,
DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Protection and Advocacy for DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Protection and Advocacy for
Voting Access (PAVA) Program Inclusion Act (P.L. 117-182) extended eligibility for the program to the P&A Voting Access (PAVA) Program Inclusion Act (P.L. 117-182) extended eligibility for the program to the P&A
systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium.systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium.
l.
o. These figures are from report language rather than appropriations These figures are from report language rather than appropriations
bil bill text. The report language indicated text. The report language indicated
that that
thesethe amounts were to be amounts were to be
appropriated from funds provided to an EAC account: theprovided from the EAC's Election Reform Election Reform
Programs account for FY2004 and Programs account for FY2004 and
theits Salaries and Expenses account for FY2005 and FY2008. Salaries and Expenses account for FY2005 and FY2008.
m.
p. The amounts listed here are for the Help America Vote The amounts listed here are for the Help America Vote
Col egeCollege Program as a whole. Grant-making is one Program as a whole. Grant-making is one
of a number of activities, including developing materials and sponsoring seminars and workshops, that of a number of activities, including developing materials and sponsoring seminars and workshops, that
HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct as part of the program (52 U.S.C. §21122).HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct as part of the program (52 U.S.C. §21122).
n.
q. The joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2006 appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-307The joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2006 appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-307
; ; P.L. 109-
115) stated that the confereesP.L. 109-115) encouraged the EAC to apply $250,000 of the funding it received for Salaries encouraged the EAC to apply $250,000 of the funding it received for Salaries
and Expenses to the Help America Vote and Expenses to the Help America Vote
Col egeCollege Program. Program.
To help ensure that grant funds are used as intended, HAVA provides for funding audits and repayments. It includes provisions for audits by the agencies that administer its grant programs, as well as regular audits of requirements payments and special audits of any HAVA funding on a vote of the Commissioners of the EAC.32 Grantees who are found to be out of compliance with the terms of their grant programs or to have received excess payments are required to repay corresponding portions of the grant funds they received.33
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Federal agency support for the general administration of elections was provided in 2000 by a Federal agency support for the general administration of elections was provided in 2000 by a
small office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) known as the Office of Election small office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) known as the Office of Election
Administration (OEA).Administration (OEA).
3435 The scope of the issues with the conduct of the 2000 elections prompted The scope of the issues with the conduct of the 2000 elections prompted
calls for an expanded federal agency role in election administration.calls for an expanded federal agency role in election administration.
Some proposed assigning any new responsibilities to the existing OEA, while others wanted to Some proposed assigning any new responsibilities to the existing OEA, while others wanted to
create a new agency that would be fully dedicated to election administration.create a new agency that would be fully dedicated to election administration.
3536 There was also There was also
debate among Members about whether a new elections agency should have the authority to issue debate among Members about whether a new elections agency should have the authority to issue
regulations.regulations.
36
37
Congress struck a balance in HAVA by providing for a new agency, the EAC, but positioning it as Congress struck a balance in HAVA by providing for a new agency, the EAC, but positioning it as
a support agency.a support agency.
3738 The EAC The EAC
’'s rulemaking authority is explicitly limited by the act to regulations s rulemaking authority is explicitly limited by the act to regulations
32 As enacted, HAVA also required an audit by the Comptroller General of all HAVA funds at least once during the lifetime of the corresponding grant program. That provision was repealed by the Government Reports Elimination Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-188).
33 52 U.S.C. §21142. Information about audits of HAVA funds conducted by the EAC is available on the agency’s website at https://www.eac.gov/inspector-general/hava-fund-audits.
34 EAC, History of the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/History%20of%20the%20National%20Clearinghouse%20on%20Election%20Administration.pdf. Support for military and overseas voting was provided at the time—and continues to be provided—by DOD’s FVAP. For more on FVAP, see CRS In Focus IF11642, Absentee Voting for Uniformed Services and Overseas Citizens: Roles and Process, In
Brief, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act:
Overview and Issues, by R. Sam Garrett.
35 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Help America Vote Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st sess., December 5, 2001, pp. 6-7; and The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and
Confidence in the Electoral Process, pp. 71-72.
36 See, for example, Daniel J. Palazzolo and Fiona R. McCarthy, “State and Local Government Organizations and the Formation of the Help America Vote Act,” Publius, vol. 35, no. 4 (Fall 2005), p. 533; and Sarah F. Liebschutz and Daniel J. Palazzolo, “HAVA and the States,” Publius, vol. 35, no. 4 (Autumn 2005), p. 505. 37 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Mark up of H.R. 3295, the Help
Congressional Research Service
12
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
about two responsibilities it inherited from the FEC—maintaining the federal mail voter about two responsibilities it inherited from the FEC—maintaining the federal mail voter
registration form established by the NVRA and reporting to Congress about the impact of the registration form established by the NVRA and reporting to Congress about the impact of the
NVRA on the administration of federal NVRA on the administration of federal
elections38elections39—and its other duties are assistance-oriented. —and its other duties are assistance-oriented.
Those duties includeThose duties include
the following: Administering grant programs. The EAC has been charged with administering most of the The EAC has been charged with administering most of the
grant programs authorized by HAVA, as well as other grant funding Congress has provided grant programs authorized by HAVA, as well as other grant funding Congress has provided
for improving the collection of election data.for improving the collection of election data.
3940 The agency The agency
’'s grants administration s grants administration
responsibilities have included responsibilities have included
dispersingdistributing funds to grantees, responding to inquiries about use funds to grantees, responding to inquiries about use
of the funds, collecting and reconciling required grant reporting, negotiating indirect cost of the funds, collecting and reconciling required grant reporting, negotiating indirect cost
rates, and auditing grant spending.rates, and auditing grant spending.
40
41
Overseeing the voluntary federal voting system testing and certification program. The The
FEC issued voluntary federal guidelines for voting systems in 1990 and 2002, and the FEC issued voluntary federal guidelines for voting systems in 1990 and 2002, and the
National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) National Association of State Election Directors (NASED)
operateddeveloped a program to test and a program to test and
qualify voting systems to the FEC guidelines.qualify voting systems to the FEC guidelines.
4142 HAVA reassigned both of those sets of tasks HAVA reassigned both of those sets of tasks
to the EAC. The EACto the EAC. The EAC
—, with assistance from NIST and the EAC advisory with assistance from NIST and the EAC advisory
bodiesboards described described
below—below, is charged with developing federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) and is charged with developing federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) and
overseeing a program to test and certify voting systemsoverseeing a program to test and certify voting systems
for conformance to them. to them.
4243 The agency The agency
’s Commissioners's commissioners have adopted three versions of the guidelines have adopted three versions of the guidelines
to dateas of this writing: VVSG 1.0 in 2005, : VVSG 1.0 in 2005,
VVSG 1.1 in 2015, and VVSG 2.0 in 2021.VVSG 1.1 in 2015, and VVSG 2.0 in 2021.
43
44
Issuing voluntary guidance for implementing HAVA’'s Title III requirements. HAVA left HAVA left
discretion over how to meet its Title III requirements to the states but directed the EAC to discretion over how to meet its Title III requirements to the states but directed the EAC to
offer voluntary guidance about implementation. It charged the agency with issuing guidance offer voluntary guidance about implementation. It charged the agency with issuing guidance
for implementing HAVAfor implementing HAVA
’'s voting systems standards by January 1, 2004, and the other Title s voting systems standards by January 1, 2004, and the other Title
III requirements by October 1, 2003.III requirements by October 1, 2003.
44
45
Conducting research and sharing best practices. HAVA grants the EAC broad authority to HAVA grants the EAC broad authority to
conduct research and issue best practices on elections topics.conduct research and issue best practices on elections topics.
4546 It also directed the agency to It also directed the agency to
America Vote Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st sess., November 15, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003), p. 2.
38 52 U.S.C. §20929. 39 52 U.S.C. §20981 note. For more on the election data collection grant program, see CRS Report R46646, Election
Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton.
40 See, for example, EAC, Grants Management and Oversight, at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/grants-management-and-oversight.
41 Federal Election Commission (FEC), Performance and Test Standards for Punchcard, Marksense, and Direct
Recording Electronic Voting Systems, January 1990, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/FEC_1990_Voting_System_Standards1.pdf; EAC, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, at https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines/; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Voting
Technology Standards Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 2275, 107th Cong., 1st sess., October 31, 2001, H.Rept. 107-263 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001).
42 52 U.S.C. §20922; 52 U.S.C. §§20961-20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20971. 43 EAC, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. For more on the adoption of VVSG 2.0, see CRS Insight IN11592, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG): An Overview, by Karen L. Shanton.
44 52 U.S.C. §§21101-21102. Delays in establishing the EAC prevented it from meeting those statutory deadlines. Nominees for the Commission were not confirmed to their seats until December 9, 2003.
45 The agency produces parts of its biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) under this authority. The EAVS includes general research on election administration data and policies, in addition to congressionally mandated reporting on the NVRA that the EAC inherited from the FEC and on military and overseas voters that it conducts as part of a Memorandum of Understanding with FVAP. For more on the EAVS, see CRS In Focus IF11266, The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and 2018 Findings, by Karen L. Shanton.
Congressional Research Service
13
link to page 10 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
produce studies on the following topics: facilitating military and overseas voting (in produce studies on the following topics: facilitating military and overseas voting (in
consultation with DOD); human factor research (in consultation with NIST); mail registration consultation with DOD); human factor research (in consultation with NIST); mail registration
and use of Social Security informationand use of Social Security information
(in consultation with the U.S. Social Security Administration [SSA]); electronic voting and the electoral process; and free ; electronic voting and the electoral process; and free
absentee ballot postage absentee ballot postage
[(in consultation with the in consultation with the
United StatesU.S. Postal Service Postal Service
(USPS)].46
Operating[USPS]).47
Establishing the Help America Vote College Program. HAVA charged the EAC with HAVA charged the EAC with
establishing and overseeingestablishing a program to encourage students at institutions of higher a program to encourage students at institutions of higher
education to serve as poll workers and election officials to use their services. In addition to education to serve as poll workers and election officials to use their services. In addition to
the grant-making described in the the grant-making described in the
"“Grant Programs” " section of this report, the agency is section of this report, the agency is
authorized to conduct activities like developing materials and sponsoring seminars and authorized to conduct activities like developing materials and sponsoring seminars and
workshops as part of workshops as part of
thisthe program. program.
47
48The structure of the EAC also reflects its positioning as a support agency. The EACThe structure of the EAC also reflects its positioning as a support agency. The EAC
’'s four-s four-
member member
Commissioncommission, Office of Inspector General, and professional staff were paired by HAVA , Office of Inspector General, and professional staff were paired by HAVA
with three advisory with three advisory
bodies—boards (described belowdescribed below
—) that are designed to play a central role in the that are designed to play a central role in the
direction and functioning of the agency. The memberships of those advisory direction and functioning of the agency. The memberships of those advisory
bodiesboards include state include state
and local election officials and a range of other elections stakeholders.and local election officials and a range of other elections stakeholders.
Board of Advisors. 35 members representing a range of election administration 35 members representing a range of election administration
stakeholders,48stakeholders,49 including state and local officials, federal agencies, science and technology including state and local officials, federal agencies, science and technology
experts, and voters.experts, and voters.
4950 The Board of Advisors is responsible for reviewing voluntary guidance The Board of Advisors is responsible for reviewing voluntary guidance
and draft VVSG before they are presented to the EACand draft VVSG before they are presented to the EAC
’s Commissioners's commissioners for a vote on for a vote on
adoption; appointing a search committee in the event of a vacancy for adoption; appointing a search committee in the event of a vacancy for
Executive Directorexecutive director of of
the agency; and consulting on the EACthe agency; and consulting on the EAC
’'s research efforts, program goals, and long-term s research efforts, program goals, and long-term
planning and planning and
NIST’on NIST's monitoring and review of laboratories accredited by the EAC to test s monitoring and review of laboratories accredited by the EAC to test
voting systems to the VVSG.voting systems to the VVSG.
50
Standards Board51
Standards Board. 110 members, with one state official and one local official from each of 110 members, with one state official and one local official from each of
the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands and a the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands and a
nine-member Executive Board chosen by the Standards Board from among its membership.51
46 52 U.S.C. §§20982-20986. For studies the EAC has published on these and other topics, see EAC, Other Topics¸ https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/other-topics; and EAC, Archives - Other Topics, https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/archives-other-topics.
47 The agency has tended to use the funding Congress has provided for this program for grant-making. For more on grant funding provided under the program, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding
for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton.
48 The Board of Advisors initially had 37 members, but its membership was reduced to 35 with the 2016 merger of two of the organizations responsible for appointing members. The National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks and the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers merged to form the International Association of Government Officials. Doug Chapin, “Fewer Letters in the Alphabet Soup: NACRC, IACREOT to Merge,” Election Academy, July 7, 2015, at http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/07/07/fewer-letters-in-the-alphabet-soup-nacrc-iacreot-to-merge/.
49 The membership of the Board of Advisors includes the Director of FVAP; the chiefs or designees of the chiefs of DOJ’s Office of Public Integrity and Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section; four members representing science and technology professionals; eight members representing voter interests; and two members appointed by each of the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Secretaries of State, National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), National Association of Counties, United States Conference of Mayors, Election Center, United States Commission on Civil Rights, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance (Access) Board, and International Association of Government Officials (52 U.S.C. §20944).
50 52 U.S.C. §20924; 52 U.S.C. §20942; 52 U.S.C. §20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20971. 51 According to HAVA, the Standards Board members serving as local officials for the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are to be selected by the local election officials of the corresponding state or territory. The members serving as local officials for DC, American Samoa, and Guam are to be selected according to a procedure established
Congressional Research Service
14
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
nine-member Executive Board chosen by the Standards Board from among its members.52 Like the Board of Advisors, the Standards Board or its Executive Board is responsible for Like the Board of Advisors, the Standards Board or its Executive Board is responsible for
reviewing voluntary guidance and draft VVSG before they are presented to the EACreviewing voluntary guidance and draft VVSG before they are presented to the EAC
’s Commissioners's commissioners for a vote on adoption; appointing a search committee in the event of a for a vote on adoption; appointing a search committee in the event of a
vacancy for vacancy for
Executive Directorexecutive director of the agency; and consulting on the EAC of the agency; and consulting on the EAC
’'s research efforts, s research efforts,
program goals, and long-term planning and program goals, and long-term planning and
NIST’on NIST's monitoring and review of laboratories s monitoring and review of laboratories
accredited by the EAC to test voting systems to the VVSG.accredited by the EAC to test voting systems to the VVSG.
52
53
Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC). 15 members, with the 15 members, with the
Directordirector of of
NIST as chair and 14 other members representing a range of election administration NIST as chair and 14 other members representing a range of election administration
stakeholders, including state and local officials, individuals with disabilities, and science and stakeholders, including state and local officials, individuals with disabilities, and science and
technology experts.technology experts.
5354 The TGDC is responsible for assisting the The TGDC is responsible for assisting the
Executive Directorexecutive director of the of the
EAC with developing draft VVSG for consideration by the agencyEAC with developing draft VVSG for consideration by the agency
’s Commissioners.54
's commissioners.55In 2021, the EAC used its authority to establish a fourth advisory In 2021, the EAC used its authority to establish a fourth advisory
bodyboard, the Local Leadership , the Local Leadership
Council, to offer the agency advice and recommendations and help it carry out its responsibilities. Council, to help build its relationships with local election officials and offer them more opportunities for input into the agency's work. The Local Leadership Council consists of two local election officials from each of the 50 states The Local Leadership Council consists of two local election officials from each of the 50 states
who are appointed by the EAC and, if applicable, serve or have served in a leadership role in a who are appointed by the EAC and, if applicable, serve or have served in a leadership role in a
professional association for election officials in their state.professional association for election officials in their state.
55
For more on the duties and structure of the EAC, see CRS Report R45770, The U.S. Election
Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton. 56
Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy
No new federal election laws as multifaceted as HAVA have been enacted since 2002, as of this No new federal election laws as multifaceted as HAVA have been enacted since 2002, as of this
writing. Congress has also made only relatively minor changes to HAVAwriting. Congress has also made only relatively minor changes to HAVA
itself, extending the deadline , extending the deadline
for replacing voting systems under the actfor replacing voting systems under the act
’'s lever and punch card voting system replacement s lever and punch card voting system replacement
grant program, authorizing new funding for the requirements payments program, grant program, authorizing new funding for the requirements payments program,
eliminating certain grant program audits, revising provisions related to the contents of and public notice about states’revising provisions for public notice of states' plans for use of requirements payments, plans for use of requirements payments,
andeliminating certain grant program audits, extending eligibility for the P&A system grant extending eligibility for the P&A system grant
program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortiumprogram to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium
.56
, and addressing Congress's authority to send designees to observe states' federal election processes.57
New developments and continuing concerns have combined, however, to ensure ongoing New developments and continuing concerns have combined, however, to ensure ongoing
congressional interest in election administration. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic congressional interest in election administration. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
introduced novel complications for administration of introduced novel complications for administration of
elections in the 2020 the 2020
electionselection cycle, for example, and foreign , for example, and foreign
interference in 2016 efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections drew attention to the challenges of securing election systems. There are also drew attention to the challenges of securing election systems. There are also
long-standing efforts among Members to ensure that eligible voters have access to the ballot and long-standing efforts among Members to ensure that eligible voters have access to the ballot and
ineligible voters do not.
by the corresponding jurisdiction’s chief election official (52 U.S.C. §20943).
52 52 U.S.C. §20924; 52 U.S.C. §20942; 52 U.S.C. §20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20971. 53 In addition to the Director of NIST, the members of the TGDC include an equal number of members of the Access Board, Board of Advisors, and Standards Board; representatives of the American National Standards Institute and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; two representatives of NASED who are not members of the Board of Advisors or Standards Board; and other individuals with technical and scientific expertise relating to voting systems and equipment (52 U.S.C. §20961).
54 52 U.S.C. §§20961-20962. 55 For more on the Local Leadership Council, see EAC, Local Leadership Council, at https://www.eac.gov/about-eac/local-leadership-council.
56 P.L. 110-28; P.L. 111-8; P.L. 111-84; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-188; and P.L. 117-182.
Congressional Research Service
15
link to page 5 link to page 33 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
ineligible voters do not.
HAVA and the agency it created have played a role in much of that congressional activity. The HAVA and the agency it created have played a role in much of that congressional activity. The
EAC-administered HAVA funds Congress provided in response to foreign EAC-administered HAVA funds Congress provided in response to foreign
interferenceefforts to interfere in the in the
2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycle offer some notable 2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycle offer some notable
recent examples. Members have also introduced proposals to revisit HAVA or the EAC or to recent examples. Members have also introduced proposals to revisit HAVA or the EAC or to
extend them to extend them to
otheraddress new aspects of election administration. new aspects of election administration.
Proposals to Revisit HAVA or the EAC
There was broad agreement among Members, during the HAVA debate, that Congress should There was broad agreement among Members, during the HAVA debate, that Congress should
consider a legislative response to the consider a legislative response to the
problemsissues with the administration of the 2000 elections. with the administration of the 2000 elections.
57 58 Members disagreed, however, about exactly what that legislative response should look like. The Members disagreed, however, about exactly what that legislative response should look like. The
HAVA debate highlighted disagreements about which issues should be addressed in election HAVA debate highlighted disagreements about which issues should be addressed in election
administration legislation and how they should be addressed.administration legislation and how they should be addressed.
58
59
The enacted legislation reflects compromises on some of those disagreements. Some of HAVAThe enacted legislation reflects compromises on some of those disagreements. Some of HAVA
’s 's provisions reflect compromises about the treatment of particular elections topics. provisions reflect compromises about the treatment of particular elections topics.
TheFor example, the requirement requirement
that certain first-time voters who register by mail provide identification in order to cast a regular that certain first-time voters who register by mail provide identification in order to cast a regular
ballot was a compromiseballot was a compromise
, for example, between Members who preferred a more expansive voter between Members who preferred a more expansive voter
ID requirement and Members who opposed requiring any voters to show ID.ID requirement and Members who opposed requiring any voters to show ID.
59
60
Another compromise is built into the structure of the act. Some Members favored limiting federal Another compromise is built into the structure of the act. Some Members favored limiting federal
involvement in the response to the 2000 elections to voluntary guidelines and grant programs, involvement in the response to the 2000 elections to voluntary guidelines and grant programs,
while others wanted a regulatory agency and binding national standards.while others wanted a regulatory agency and binding national standards.
6061 As noted in the As noted in the
"“Overview of Major Provisions” " section of this report, HAVA ended up setting some standards in section of this report, HAVA ended up setting some standards in
its Title III but leaving many decisions about how to implement and enforce them to the states. It its Title III but leaving many decisions about how to implement and enforce them to the states. It
created a new federal agency but strictly limited its regulatory authority and gave states and created a new federal agency but strictly limited its regulatory authority and gave states and
localities input into its work.localities input into its work.
The compromises struck in HAVA did not necessarily resolve the underlying disagreements that The compromises struck in HAVA did not necessarily resolve the underlying disagreements that
prompted them, however. New developments since 2002—both due to HAVA and independently prompted them, however. New developments since 2002—both due to HAVA and independently
of it—have also changed the election administration landscape.of it—have also changed the election administration landscape.
As a result, some Members have proposed revisiting the act or the agency it created. Some of As a result, some Members have proposed revisiting the act or the agency it created. Some of
those post-HAVA proposals would revise the actthose post-HAVA proposals would revise the act
’'s treatment of particular elections topics, while s treatment of particular elections topics, while
others would others would
reviserevisit the structure of HAVA or the EAC. Examples of proposals to revise HAVA the structure of HAVA or the EAC. Examples of proposals to revise HAVA
’s 's treatment of particular elections topics include bills that wouldtreatment of particular elections topics include bills that would
: Expand or limit voter identification requirements. The voter ID debate is often The voter ID debate is often
characterized as a debate about how to balance ensuring access to the ballot for eligible voters characterized as a debate about how to balance ensuring access to the ballot for eligible voters
against preventing access by ineligible voters. Proponents of ID laws argue that they help against preventing access by ineligible voters. Proponents of ID laws argue that they help
guard against voter fraud, while opponents say that they can disenfranchise eligible voters.
57 Close to 100 election administration bills were introduced between the November 2000 general election in the 106th Congress and the enactment of HAVA in the 107th Congress, according to a CRS review of data from Congress.gov.
58 For a timeline of congressional deliberations about election administration between the November 2000 general election and the enactment of HAVA in October 2002, see Appendix C.
59 52 U.S.C. §21083(b). See, for example, Sarah F. Liebschutz and Daniel J. Palazzolo, “HAVA and the States,” pp. 501, 505; and Sen. Christopher Dodd, “Help America Vote Act of 2002—Conference Report,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 136 (October 16, 2002), p. S20854.
60 See, for example, Rep. Robert Ney, Comments, Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 172 (December 12, 2001), p. H9287; and Daniel J. Palazzolo and Fiona R. McCarthy, “State and Local Government Organizations and the Formation of the Help America Vote Act,” p. 533.
Congressional Research Service
16
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
guard against voter fraud, while opponents say that they can disenfranchise eligible voters. Disagreements about how to prioritize those two considerations persisted after HAVA was Disagreements about how to prioritize those two considerations persisted after HAVA was
enacted, and there have been proposals both to expand the actenacted, and there have been proposals both to expand the act
’'s ID requirement and to set s ID requirement and to set
federal limits on ID laws. federal limits on ID laws.
For example, Members have introduced legislation to require Members have introduced legislation to require
all voters to show voters to show
ID, for example, as well as photo ID and documentary proof of citizenship, as well as proposals to require states to accept to require states to accept
sworn written statements as ID forstudent ID cards as voter voter
ID purposesID or submit proposed ID or submit proposed ID
or documentation laws for federal preclearance. laws for federal preclearance.
61
62
Establish standards for matching voter registration data. HAVA directs certain officials to HAVA directs certain officials to
enter into database-matching agreements for purposes of verifying voter registration data.enter into database-matching agreements for purposes of verifying voter registration data.
62 63 As election law professor Daniel P. Tokaji has argued, however, the wording of the relevant As election law professor Daniel P. Tokaji has argued, however, the wording of the relevant
provisions leaves open questions about exactly how voter registration data matching should provisions leaves open questions about exactly how voter registration data matching should
work and what the consequences of a failed match should be.work and what the consequences of a failed match should be.
6364 Those questions could have Those questions could have
significant practical implications—Tokaji notes that different answers could affect who significant practical implications—Tokaji notes that different answers could affect who
appears on the voter rolls and which ballots are counted—and some have proposed offering appears on the voter rolls and which ballots are counted—and some have proposed offering
more definitive guidance. more definitive guidance.
For example, Members have introduced bills to prohibit rejecting voter Members have introduced bills to prohibit rejecting voter
registration applications solely on the basis of a failed matchregistration applications solely on the basis of a failed match
, for example, or and to set (or direct a set (or direct a
federal agency to set) standards for matching registration data.federal agency to set) standards for matching registration data.
64
65
Set specifics for the manually auditable paper records voting systems produce. Voting Voting
systems used in federal elections are required, under HAVA, to produce manually auditable systems used in federal elections are required, under HAVA, to produce manually auditable
permanent paper records.permanent paper records.
6566 As those provisions have been interpreted and implemented, they As those provisions have been interpreted and implemented, they
do not specifically require production of individual paper records that voters can verify before do not specifically require production of individual paper records that voters can verify before
casting their ballots.casting their ballots.
6667 Technology experts raised concerns during the HAVA debate about Technology experts raised concerns during the HAVA debate about
voting machines that do not produce voter-verifiable paper records, however, and subsequent voting machines that do not produce voter-verifiable paper records, however, and subsequent
events and reporting have drawn further attention to events and reporting have drawn further attention to
theirthe machines' potential for technical faults and potential for technical faults and
security vulnerabilities.security vulnerabilities.
6768 Research since 2002 has also produced new methodologies for Research since 2002 has also produced new methodologies for
auditing election outcomes, such as risk-limiting audits.auditing election outcomes, such as risk-limiting audits.
6869 Some have responded to such Some have responded to such
developments by proposing more specific versions of HAVAdevelopments by proposing more specific versions of HAVA
’'s audit and paper record provisions. For example,s audit and paper record
61 See, for example, the Promoting Election Integrity by Proving Voter Identity Act (117th Congress, S. 1130), the America Votes Act of 2021 (H.R. 1059), and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (H.R. 4/S. 4).
62 52 U.S.C. §21083. 63 Daniel P. Tokaji, “Voter Registration and Institutional Reform: Lessons from a Historic Election,” Harvard Law and
Policy Review Online, vol. 3 (January 22, 2009). For more on voter registration data-matching procedures, see CRS Report R46406, Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by Sarah J. Eckman.
64 See, for example, the Count Every Vote Act of 2007 (H.R. 1381/S. 804), the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2005 (H.R. 533/S. 17), and the Protection Against Wrongful Voter Purges Act (111th Congress, H.R. 3835).
65 52 U.S.C. §21081. 66 See, for example, EAC, EAC Advisory 2005-004: How to Determine if a Voting System is Compliant with Section
301(a) - A Gap Analysis Between 2002 Voting System Standards and the Requirements of Section 301(a), July 20, 2005, https://web.archive.org/web/20051225131913/http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Advisory%2005-004%20(%204%20page%20fit%20).pdf; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Hearing on
Oversight of HAVA Implementation, 109th Cong., 1st sess., February 9, 2005 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2006).
67 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Improving Voting Technologies: The Role of
Standards, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001); Tadayoshi Kohno, Adam Stubblefield, Aviel D. Rubin, et al., “Analysis of an Electronic Voting System,” Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute
Technical Report TR-2003-19, July 23, 2003; Maryland Department of Legislative Services, A Review of Issues
Relating to the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting System in Maryland, January 2004; and The Pew Center on the States, Back to Paper: A Case Study, Washington, DC, February 2008, https://web.archive.org/web/20080306020841/http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/EB21Brief.pdf.
68 See, for example, Mark Lindeman and Philip B. Stark, “A Gentle Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits,” IEEE
Security and Privacy, Special Issue on Electronic Voting, March 16, 2012. For more on risk-limiting audits, see CRS In Focus IF11873, Election Administration: An Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits, by Karen L. Shanton.
Congressional Research Service
17
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
provisions. Members have introduced legislation to require voting systems to produce voter- Members have introduced legislation to require voting systems to produce voter-
verifiable paper recordsverifiable paper records
, for example, and to require, facilitate, or incentivize use of certain and to require, facilitate, or incentivize use of certain
types of post-election types of post-election
audit.69
audits.70Examples of proposals to revisit the structure of HAVA or the EAC include bills that wouldExamples of proposals to revisit the structure of HAVA or the EAC include bills that would
: Terminate the EAC the EAC or expand its authority. The National Association of The National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS) adopted in 2005—and renewed in 2010 and 2015—a Secretaries of State (NASS) adopted in 2005—and renewed in 2010 and 2015—a
resolution it described as aimed at preventing the EAC from evolving into a resolution it described as aimed at preventing the EAC from evolving into a
regulatory agency.regulatory agency.
7071 That resolution, which asked Congress not to reauthorize or fund That resolution, which asked Congress not to reauthorize or fund
the agency, was one of the rationales cited for proposals to terminate the EAC in the the agency, was one of the rationales cited for proposals to terminate the EAC in the
112th through 115th Congresses.71112th through 115th Congresses.72
Reinforce or expand the EAC's authority: Members have also introduced bills that would take Members have also introduced bills that would take
the opposite approach, intentionally expanding the agency’s regulatory role. HAVA’s the opposite of the above approach, reinforcing or expanding the EAC's role. Some of those proposals would designate the agency as the federal lead on election administration, giving it primary federal jurisdiction over issues related to the administration of federal elections where not otherwise specified in law and prohibiting other federal entities from making payments to states for purposes of administering federal elections.73 Other proposals would expand the agency's regulatory authority. HAVA's explicit restriction on EAC rulemaking means that the agency has limited authority explicit restriction on EAC rulemaking means that the agency has limited authority
beyond voluntary guidance to clarify ambiguities in the act, such as the open beyond voluntary guidance to clarify ambiguities in the act, such as the open
questions about voter registration data matching described above, or questions about voter registration data matching described above, or
to fill in details of fill in details of
future federal elections policies that Congress might not want to enshrine in future federal elections policies that Congress might not want to enshrine in
statutory textstatute. As a result, some have proposed lifting the restriction in certain contexts or . As a result, some have proposed lifting the restriction in certain contexts or
repealing it entirely.repealing it entirely.
72
Revisit HAVA’74
Revisit HAVA's enforcement mechanisms. The limit on EAC rulemaking has also The limit on EAC rulemaking has also
been cited by some as a reason to revisit HAVAbeen cited by some as a reason to revisit HAVA
’'s enforcement mechanisms.s enforcement mechanisms.
73 75 Without the option of agency regulations—and barring new federal legislation—the Without the option of agency regulations—and barring new federal legislation—the
primary federal forum for resolving ambiguities in HAVA is the courts.primary federal forum for resolving ambiguities in HAVA is the courts.
7476 HAVA HAVA
expressly authorizes DOJ to bring civil action under certain provisions of the law, expressly authorizes DOJ to bring civil action under certain provisions of the law,
and some have proposed also explicitly authorizing individuals to bring suitand some have proposed also explicitly authorizing individuals to bring suit
for relief under the act.. For example, Members have introduced bills to add an explicit private right of action Members have introduced bills to add an explicit private right of action
for existing HAVA requirementsfor existing HAVA requirements
, for example, or for new requirements that would be or for new requirements that would be
established by amendments to the act.75
69 The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 (H.R. 2239/S. 1980), for example, would have required voter-verifiable paper ballots. A version of that bill has been introduced in every Congress since its initial introduction in the 108th Congress, including as part of the Freedom to Vote Act (117th Congress, S. 2747), the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act (H.R. 5746), and the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093). For more on legislation related to risk-limiting audits, see CRS In Focus IF11873, Election Administration: An Introduction to
Risk-Limiting Audits, by Karen L. Shanton.
70 National Association of Secretaries of State, Resolution Reaffirming the NASS Position on Funding and
Authorization of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, July 2015, at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/resolutions/2015/nass-resolution-eac-summer15-_0.pdf. The resolution does not appear to have been renewed since its expiration in 2020.
71 See, for example, the Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act (112th Congress, H.R. 672) and the Election Assistance Commission Termination Act (115th Congress, H.R. 634). For more on proposals to terminate the EAC, see CRS Report R45770, The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton.
72 See, for example, the Polling Place Protection Act of 2019 (S. 955), the Early Voting Act (116th Congress, S. 957), and the Election Integrity Act of 2016 (H.R. 6072).
73 See, for example, Daniel P. Tokaji, “Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The Enforcement of Federal Election Laws.”
74 Daniel P. Tokaji, “Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The Enforcement of Federal Election Laws.” 75 See, for example, the Streamlined and Improved Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting Act of 2019 (H.R. 118), the Count the Vote Act (116th Congress, H.R. 1513), the People Over Long Lines (POLL) Act (117th Congress, S. 2117), the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093), and the Voter Empowerment Act of 2021 (H.R. 2358/S. 954).
Congressional Research Service
18
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Proposals to Extend HAVA or the EAC
established by amendments to the act.77
Address EAC operations. HAVA authorized up to $10 million in operational funding for the EAC for each of FY2003 through FY2005. Congress has continued to fund EAC operations in subsequent fiscal years, and bills have been introduced to explicitly reauthorize—and raise or remove the limit on—the agency's funding.78 Those bills have also tended to propose changes to other aspects of EAC operations, such as budget requests, commissioner compensation, advisory body support or membership, contracting authority, and staffing levels at the EAC or its Office of Inspector General.79Proposals to Extend HAVA or the EAC
HAVA marked a departure from previous federal elections statutes in at least two ways: (1) it was HAVA marked a departure from previous federal elections statutes in at least two ways: (1) it was
more wide-ranging in the topics it aimed to address than elections measures Congress had tended more wide-ranging in the topics it aimed to address than elections measures Congress had tended
to approve in the recent past, with (2) a greater emphasis on federal assistance for states and to approve in the recent past, with (2) a greater emphasis on federal assistance for states and
localities. Other recent federal election laws had tended primarily to set requirements and to focus localities. Other recent federal election laws had tended primarily to set requirements and to focus
on particular aspects of election administration or the accessibility of the electoral process to on particular aspects of election administration or the accessibility of the electoral process to
particular groups of voters.particular groups of voters.
7680 HAVA, by contrast, spans multiple issues and voter groups—from HAVA, by contrast, spans multiple issues and voter groups—from
voter registration to voting information and voters with disabilities to young voters—and pairs its voter registration to voting information and voters with disabilities to young voters—and pairs its
requirements with grant programs and the assistance-oriented EAC.requirements with grant programs and the assistance-oriented EAC.
Those Those
two features have made HAVA and the agency it created common choices of vehicles for features have made HAVA and the agency it created common choices of vehicles for
congressional congressional
proposalsefforts to engage with elections issues. First, the broad scope of the act has made to engage with elections issues. First, the broad scope of the act has made
it a common choice it a common choice
of vehicle for proposals to set requirements for aspects of election administration that for proposals to set requirements for aspects of election administration that
are not addressed by other, more specialized federal election laws. New HAVA requirements have are not addressed by other, more specialized federal election laws. New HAVA requirements have
been proposed in response to developments in particular election cycles. Following the onset of been proposed in response to developments in particular election cycles. Following the onset of
the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycle, for example, some Members proposed amending the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycle, for example, some Members proposed amending
HAVA to require states and localities to offer no-excuse absentee voting and registration during HAVA to require states and localities to offer no-excuse absentee voting and registration during
emergencies, to require election officials to conduct public education campaigns about election emergencies, to require election officials to conduct public education campaigns about election
changes due to emergencies, or to require states to conduct their 2020 elections entirely by mail.changes due to emergencies, or to require states to conduct their 2020 elections entirely by mail.
77
81
Members have also proposed new HAVA requirements as part of broader efforts to advance Members have also proposed new HAVA requirements as part of broader efforts to advance
general objectives for election administration. For example, proposals to amend HAVA to general objectives for election administration. For example, proposals to amend HAVA to
require states to offer early voting and permit observation of ballot tabulationset federal standards for the number of election resources states provide at polling places and for the way states conduct mail voting and report election results have been presented as have been presented as
ways of increasingways to increase access to the ballot for eligible voters and access to the ballot for eligible voters and
securingto secure the integrity of the the integrity of the
electoral process, respectively.electoral process, respectively.
78
82
Second, HAVASecond, HAVA
’'s emphasis on assistance has made it and the EAC common vehicles for s emphasis on assistance has made it and the EAC common vehicles for
proposals efforts to provide new federal support for election administration, as well as efforts to condition access to federal funding on use of specified elections policies. Members have proposed authorizing HAVA or EAC grant programs to help to provide new federal support for election administration. Congress has appropriated funding for existing EAC-administered HAVA grant programs to help address new election administration challenges. For example, it provided funding for HAVA’s general improvements grant program in response to foreign interference in the 2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 election cycle.79
Members have also introduced bills to authorize new EAC grant programs or other new agency activities. Grant programs have been proposed to help states meet new federal requirements, such meet new federal requirements, such
as a proposed requirement to as a proposed requirement to
use independent commissions for congressional redistricting, and to implement automatic voter registration; to facilitate or incentivize voluntary policies, such as use of electronic poll books; and to provide states with ongoing financial support for election administration.83 They have also proposed directing the EAC to offer other, nonfinancial support for election administration, such as research into barriers to voting by individuals who are homeless and voluntary guidance about the use and risks of artificial intelligence in election administration.84
Congress has appropriated funding for existing EAC-administered HAVA grant programs to help address new election administration challenges. For example, it provided funding for HAVA's general improvements grant program in response to foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 election cycle.85
Existing EAC and HAVA grant programs have also been invoked in proposals to condition state or local access to federal funding on use of certain elections policies. Members have proposed withholding EAC or HAVA funds from states or localities that do not adopt specified policies, such as using nonpartisan independent commissions for state legislative redistricting, extending the existing prohibition on noncitizen voting in federal elections to state and local contests, or conducting post-election audits of voting systems.86
Potential Considerations for Congress
As noted in the "Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy" facilitate or incentivize voluntary policies, such as limits on third-party ballot collection.80 Other
76 The NVRA sets requirements for voter registration, for example, and the VRA, as amended, primarily addresses the accessibility of the electoral process to members of racial and language minority groups. For more on those statutes, see CRS Report R45030, Federal Role in Voter Registration: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and Subsequent
Developments, by Sarah J. Eckman; and CRS Testimony TE10033, History and Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, by L. Paige Whitaker, respectively.
77 See, for example, the Resilient Elections During Quarantines and Natural Disasters Act of 2020 (H.R. 6202/S. 3440), the Vote From Home America Act of 2020 (H.R. 7118), and the Voter Notice Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6512).
78 See, for example, the Expanding Access to Early Voting Act of 2021 (H.R. 640) and the Save Democracy Act (117th Congress, H.R. 322/S. 459).
79 P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-93; and P.L. 116-136. 80 See, for example, the John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (117th Congress, H.R. 80/H.R. 4307) and the Election Protection Act of 2021 (H.R. 2844).
Congressional Research Service
19
link to page 18 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
legislation would direct the EAC to offer nonfinancial support for election administration, such as ballot design research or cybersecurity best practices for voting system vendors.81
Potential Considerations for Congress
As noted in the “Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy” section of this report, no new section of this report, no new
federal election laws as multifaceted as HAVA have been enacted as of this writing. As that might federal election laws as multifaceted as HAVA have been enacted as of this writing. As that might
suggest, Congress has generally tended to defer to state and local officials on policy responses to suggest, Congress has generally tended to defer to state and local officials on policy responses to
election administration issues. The enactment of HAVA and other federal election laws and the election administration issues. The enactment of HAVA and other federal election laws and the
ongoing introduction of new election administration bills demonstrate, however, that Members ongoing introduction of new election administration bills demonstrate, however, that Members
sometimes also see a role in elections policy for the federal government.sometimes also see a role in elections policy for the federal government.
HAVA and the EAC offer potential vehicles for any future federal involvement in election HAVA and the EAC offer potential vehicles for any future federal involvement in election
administration policymaking. HAVA is perhaps the closest thing in federal law to a general administration policymaking. HAVA is perhaps the closest thing in federal law to a general
elections statute, and the EAC has subject matter expertise in election administration, existing elections statute, and the EAC has subject matter expertise in election administration, existing
relationships with state and local election officials, and experience administering elections grant relationships with state and local election officials, and experience administering elections grant
programs.programs.
There are also other possible vehicles, however, as well as various ways Congress might structure There are also other possible vehicles, however, as well as various ways Congress might structure
federal involvement in election administration through HAVA or the EAC. The following issues federal involvement in election administration through HAVA or the EAC. The following issues
might be might be
relevantof interest to Members who are weighing whether or how to engage with election to Members who are weighing whether or how to engage with election
administration policyadministration policy
. :Prioritization of considerations. The HAVA debate was framed by many of its The HAVA debate was framed by many of its
participants as about making it participants as about making it
“"easier to vote and harder to cheat,easier to vote and harder to cheat,
”" or ensuring or ensuring
access to the ballot for eligible voters on one hand and preventing fraud in elections access to the ballot for eligible voters on one hand and preventing fraud in elections
on the other.on the other.
82 Foreign interference87 Foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections highlighted another possible in the 2016 elections highlighted another possible
consideration for elections policymaking—security—and state and local experiences consideration for elections policymaking—security—and state and local experiences
suggest others. For example, state and local officials factored considerations like suggest others. For example, state and local officials factored considerations like
accessibility, ease of administration, and cost-effectiveness into their post-HAVA accessibility, ease of administration, and cost-effectiveness into their post-HAVA
decisions about voting systems. As debates over issues like voter ID requirements decisions about voting systems. As debates over issues like voter ID requirements
illustrate, different choices about how to prioritize such considerations can produce illustrate, different choices about how to prioritize such considerations can produce
different policy preferences. An initial step in elections policymaking might, different policy preferences. An initial step in elections policymaking might,
therefore, be to determine which considerations to factor into policy decisions and therefore, be to determine which considerations to factor into policy decisions and
how to prioritize them.how to prioritize them.
Choice of agencyagency. As the only federal agency dedicated to As the only federal agency dedicated to
helping improve the general administration the general administration
of elections, the EAC might often be a logical choice for new federal agency work on of elections, the EAC might often be a logical choice for new federal agency work on
electionselection administration. However, some features of the agency, such as its limited rulemaking . However, some features of the agency, such as its limited rulemaking
authority and current size and funding level, could introduce challenges for certain authority and current size and funding level, could introduce challenges for certain
types of work. Other agencies might also have or acquire expertise that is particularly types of work. Other agencies might also have or acquire expertise that is particularly
relevant to certain aspects of election administration. HHS has subject matter relevant to certain aspects of election administration. HHS has subject matter
expertise in disability access, for example, and NIST has subject matter expertise in expertise in disability access, for example, and NIST has subject matter expertise in
standards and technology. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has
81 See, for example, the Protect our Elections Act (116th Congress, H.R. 4777) and the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093).
82 See, for example, David Nather, “Election Overhaul May Have to Wait in Line Behind Other ‘Crisis’ Issues,” CQ
Weekly, July 27, 2002; Sen. Kit Bond, “Help America Vote Act of 2002—Conference Report,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 136 (October 16, 2002), p. S10488; and Sen. Christopher Dodd, “Help America Vote Act of 2002—Conference Report,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 136 (October 16, 2002), p. S10505.
Congressional Research Service
20
link to page 19 link to page 19 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
also takenstandards and technology. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also took on new election security responsibilities on new election security responsibilities
since designatingfollowing its designation of election systems election systems
as critical infrastructure in January 2017.as critical infrastructure in January 2017.
8388 Congress might choose to delegate new Congress might choose to delegate new
elections tasks to the EAC—either with or without changing some of its features—or elections tasks to the EAC—either with or without changing some of its features—or
to assign them to other agencies instead of or in conjunction with the EAC.to assign them to other agencies instead of or in conjunction with the EAC.
Choice of legislative approachlegislative approach. Like the EAC, HAVA might often be a logical Like the EAC, HAVA might often be a logical
choice of vehicle for congressional engagement with election administration policy. choice of vehicle for congressional engagement with election administration policy.
Also like the EAC, it might have some Also like the EAC, it might have some
featurescharacteristics that are less logical fits for certain that are less logical fits for certain
purposes. Members have sometimes chosen to address such purposes. Members have sometimes chosen to address such
featurescharacteristics by proposing by proposing
amendments to HAVA or, in the case of grant programs in particular, including amendments to HAVA or, in the case of grant programs in particular, including
funding conditions in appropriations language.funding conditions in appropriations language.
8489 Members might also choose to Members might also choose to
create new law with featuresdevelop new legislation with characteristics that are better suited to their purposes or to amend that are better suited to their purposes or to amend
existing laws others than HAVA. For example, some election security and youth voter existing laws others than HAVA. For example, some election security and youth voter
participation bills would participation bills would
amendhave amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA; P.L. 107- the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA; P.L. 107-
296) and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329), respectively.296) and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329), respectively.
85
Balance of statute and regulation90
Balance of statute and regulation. As noted in the As noted in the
"“Proposals to Revisit HAVA or
the EAC” the EAC" section of this report, the wording of HAVAsection of this report, the wording of HAVA
’'s voter registration data-s voter registration data-
matching provisions left some open questions about how data matching should work. matching provisions left some open questions about how data matching should work.
Legislative proposals to provide more definitive guidance illustrate two of the options Legislative proposals to provide more definitive guidance illustrate two of the options
available for federal policymaking: (1) specifying policy details in statute, and (2) available for federal policymaking: (1) specifying policy details in statute, and (2)
delegating details to a federal agency. Some delegating details to a federal agency. Some
of those bills would amend the text of HAVAbills would amend the text of HAVA
’s 's data-matching provisions to add more specifics, for example, while others would data-matching provisions to add more specifics, for example, while others would
direct a federal agency to set datadirect a federal agency to set data
-matching standards. Either of those two options—matching standards. Either of those two options—
or a combination of both—might be a better fit in certain circumstances. or a combination of both—might be a better fit in certain circumstances.
Specifying For example, specifying policy details in statute might be a better fit for cases in which Congress knows policy details in statute might be a better fit for cases in which Congress knows
exactly how it wants a policy to be implementedexactly how it wants a policy to be implemented
, for example, while delegating , while delegating
details to an agency might better fit cases in which new developments are likely to details to an agency might better fit cases in which new developments are likely to
change the policy landscape or more information or expertise is required to determine change the policy landscape or more information or expertise is required to determine
how best to implement the policy.how best to implement the policy.
Balance of federal action and state or local action
Balance of federal action and state or local action. The structure of HAVA The structure of HAVA
highlights a third option for federal policymaking, in addition to specifying policy highlights a third option for federal policymaking, in addition to specifying policy
details in statute and delegating them to a federal agency: deferring on some policy details in statute and delegating them to a federal agency: deferring on some policy
details to states and localities. HAVA set requirements for the administration of details to states and localities. HAVA set requirements for the administration of
federal elections, for example, but left states significant discretion over exactly how federal elections, for example, but left states significant discretion over exactly how
to implement them. It established a federal elections agency but limited its authority to implement them. It established a federal elections agency but limited its authority
to set regulations for states and localities and provided for state and local input into
83 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election Infrastructure as a Critical Infrastructure Subsector,” press release, January 6, 2017, at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical. For more on the critical infrastructure designation and Election Infrastructure Subsector, see CRS In Focus IF10677, The Designation of Election Systems as
Critical Infrastructure, by Brian E. Humphreys; and CRS In Focus IF11445, The Election Infrastructure Subsector:
Development and Challenges, by Brian E. Humphreys and Karen L. Shanton.
84 See, for example, the proposals to revisit HAVA’s enforcement mechanisms in the Streamlined and Improved Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting Act of 2019 (H.R. 118), the Count the Vote Act (116th Congress, H.R. 1513), the People Over Long Lines (POLL) Act (117th Congress, S. 2117), and the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093). See also the new match requirements for funding under HAVA’s general improvements grant program set by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93); and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103).
85 See, for example, the Election Protection Act of 2021 (H.R. 2844), the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093), and the Help Students Vote Act (117th Congress, H.R. 2232/S. 992).
Congressional Research Service
21
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
to set regulations for states and localities and provided for state and local input into its work. Members who are interested in engaging with elections issues might its work. Members who are interested in engaging with elections issues might
similarly consider howsimilarly consider how
they seek to distribute decisionmaking among federal, state, to distribute decisionmaking among federal, state,
and local officials. States and localities have primary responsibility for administering and local officials. States and localities have primary responsibility for administering
elections in the United States, so state and local officials might often be particularly elections in the United States, so state and local officials might often be particularly
well positioned to identify the best policy options for their jurisdictions. On the other well positioned to identify the best policy options for their jurisdictions. On the other
hand, deferring to states and localities on policy details might contribute, in some hand, deferring to states and localities on policy details might contribute, in some
cases, to variations in the effectiveness of a policy across states or policy choices that cases, to variations in the effectiveness of a policy across states or policy choices that
are at odds with congressional objectives.are at odds with congressional objectives.
Congressional Research Service
22
link to page 30 link to page 30 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Appendix A. Appendix A.
Major Provisions of HAVA by Issue
Area Area
Table A-1. Major Provisions of HAVA by Issue Area
Issue Area
Corresponding Section of Reporta
Provisionb
Reporta
Provisionb
Absentee VotingAbsentee Voting
U.S. Election Assistance Commission U.S. Election Assistance Commission
(EAC)
Study and report on electronic voting and Study and report on electronic voting and
(EAC)
the electoral processthe electoral process
52 U.S.C. §2098552 U.S.C. §20985
EAC
|
EAC
Study and report on free absentee ballot Study and report on free absentee ballot
postage postage52 U.S.C. §2098652 U.S.C. §20986
Individuals with
Requirements
Accessibility for individuals with disabilities
Disabilities and Older
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(3)
Individuals
Requirements
Individuals with Disabilities and Older Individuals
|
Requirements
|
Accessibility for individuals with disabilities52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(3)
RequirementsEAC
Adoption of voluntary guidance by commission52 U.S.C. §21101
Grant Programs
|
Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission 52 U.S.C. §§21101
Grant Programs
Process for development and filing of planProcess for development and filing of plan
52 U.S.C. §2100552 U.S.C. §21005
Grant ProgramsGrant Programs
Payments to states and units of local Payments to states and units of local
government to assure access to individuals government to assure access to individuals
with disabilitieswith disabilities
52 U.S.C. §§21021-2102552 U.S.C. §§21021-21025
Grant ProgramsGrant Programs
Grants for research on voting technology Grants for research on voting technology
improvements improvements52 U.S.C. §§21041-2104352 U.S.C. §§21041-21043
Grant Programs
|
Grant Programs
Pilot program for testing of equipment and Pilot program for testing of equipment and
technology technology52 U.S.C. §§21051-2105352 U.S.C. §§21051-21053
Grant ProgramsGrant Programs
Payments for protection and advocacy Payments for protection and advocacy
systems systems52 U.S.C. §§21061-2106252 U.S.C. §§21061-21062
EAC
|
EAC
Membership of Board of AdvisorsMembership of Board of Advisors
52 U.S.C. §2094452 U.S.C. §20944
EAC
EAC
|
Technical Guidelines Development Technical Guidelines Development
Committee (TGDC)Committee (TGDC)
52 U.S.C. §2096152 U.S.C. §20961
EAC
EAC
|
Report on human factor researchReport on human factor research
52 U.S.C. §2098352 U.S.C. §20983
EAC
EAC
|
Study and report on free absentee ballot Study and report on free absentee ballot
postage postage52 U.S.C. §2098652 U.S.C. §20986
Individuals with Limited
Requirements
Alternative language accessibility
English Proficiency
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(4)
Requirements
Individuals with Limited English Proficiency
|
Requirements
|
Alternative language accessibility52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(4)
RequirementsEAC
Adoption of voluntary guidance by commission52 U.S.C. §21101
Grant Programs
|
Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission 52 U.S.C. §§21101
Congressional Research Service
23
link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Issue Area
Corresponding Section of Reporta
Provisionb
Grant Programs
Grants for research on voting technology improvements Grants for research on voting technology improvements52 U.S.C. §§21041-2104352 U.S.C. §§21041-21043
Grant Programs
|
Grant Programs
Pilot program for testing of equipment and Pilot program for testing of equipment and
technology technology52 U.S.C. §§21051-2105352 U.S.C. §§21051-21053
EAC
EAC
|
Report on human factor researchReport on human factor research
52 U.S.C. §20983
Military and Overseas
Requirements
Voting assistance programs
Citizens
Appendix Bc
10 U.S.C. §1566
Requirements
52 U.S.C. §20983
Military and Overseas Citizens
|
RequirementsAppendix Bc
Voting assistance programs10 U.S.C. §1566
RequirementsAppendix Bc
Designation of single state office to provide Designation of single state office to provide
Appendix Bc
information on registration and absentee information on registration and absentee
ballots for all voters in stateballots for all voters in state
52 U.S.C. §20302(b)52 U.S.C. §20302(b)
Requirements
RequirementsAppendix Bc
Report on absentee ballots transmitted and Report on absentee ballots transmitted and
Appendix Bc
received after general electionsreceived after general elections
52 U.S.C. §52 U.S.C. §
§20302(c), note20302(c), note
Requirements
RequirementsAppendix Bc
Extension of period covered by single Extension of period covered by single
Appendix Bc
absentee ballot applicationabsentee ballot application
52 U.S.C. §52 U.S.C. §
20306d
Requirements
20306d
RequirementsAppendix Bc
Additional duties of Presidential Designee Additional duties of Presidential Designee
Appendix Bc
under Uniformed and Overseas Citizens under Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting ActAbsentee Voting Act
52 U.S.C. §§20301-2030252 U.S.C. §§20301-20302
Requirements
RequirementsAppendix Bc
Prohibition of refusal of voter registration Prohibition of refusal of voter registration
Appendix Bc
and absentee ballot applications on grounds and absentee ballot applications on grounds
of early submissionof early submission
52 U.S.C. §20306
Requirements
Other requirements to promote
Appendix Bc
52 U.S.C. §20306
RequirementsAppendix Bc
Other requirements to promote participation of overseas and absent participation of overseas and absent
uniformed services votersuniformed services voters
52 U.S.C. §20302(d)52 U.S.C. §20302(d)
Grant ProgramsGrant Programs
Authorization of appropriations for Authorization of appropriations for
requirements paymentsrequirements payments
52 U.S.C. §21007(a)(452 U.S.C. §21007(a)(4
)e
EAC
)e
EAC
|
Membership of Board of AdvisorsMembership of Board of Advisors
52 U.S.C. §2094452 U.S.C. §20944
EAC
EAC
|
Study, report, and recommendations on best Study, report, and recommendations on best
practices for facilitating military and overseas practices for facilitating military and overseas
voting voting52 U.S.C. §2098252 U.S.C. §20982
Pol Workers
Grant Programs
State plan 52 U.S.C. §21004
Grant Programs
Help America Vote Foundation 36 U.S.C. §§90101-90112
Grant Programs
Help America Vote Col ege Program
EAC
52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123
Provisional Voting
Requirements
Provisional voting requirements 52 U.S.C. §21082(a)
Congressional Research Service
24
link to page 30 link to page 30 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Issue Area
Corresponding Section of Reporta
Provisionb
Requirements
Voters who vote after the polls close 52 U.S.C. §21082(c)
Requirements
Fail-safe voting
Poll Workers and Election Observers
|
Requirements
|
Access to federal election processes by designated congressional election observers52 U.S.C. §21083a
Grant Programs
|
State plan52 U.S.C. §21004
Grant Programs
|
Help America Vote Foundation36 U.S.C. §§90101-90112
Grant ProgramsEAC
Help America Vote College Program52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123
Provisional Voting
|
Requirements
|
Provisional voting requirements52 U.S.C. §21082(a)
Requirements
|
Voters who vote after the polls close52 U.S.C. §21082(c)
Requirements
|
Fail-safe voting52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(2)(B)
RequirementsEAC
52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(2)(B)
Requirements
Adoption of voluntary guidance by Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission commission52 U.S.C. §52 U.S.C. §
§21101
Voter Identification
Requirements
21101
Voter Identification
|
Requirements
|
Requirements for voters who register by Requirements for voters who register by
mail mail52 U.S.C. §52 U.S.C. §
§21083(b)(1)-(3)21083(b)(1)-(3)
Requirements
RequirementsEAC
Adoption of voluntary guidance by Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission commission52 U.S.C. §52 U.S.C. §
§21101
EAC
21101
EAC
|
Study and report on voters who register by Study and report on voters who register by
mail and use of Social Security informationmail and use of Social Security information
52 U.S.C. §2098452 U.S.C. §20984
Voter Registration
Requirements
Voter Registration
|
Requirements
|
Computerized statewide voter registration Computerized statewide voter registration
list requirements implementationlist requirements implementation
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(1)52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(1)
Requirements
|
Requirements
Computerized list maintenanceComputerized list maintenance
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(2)52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(2)
Requirements
|
Requirements
Technological security of computerized listTechnological security of computerized list
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(3)52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(3)
Requirements
Requirements
|
Minimum standard for accuracy of State Minimum standard for accuracy of State
voter registration recordsvoter registration records
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(4)52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(4)
Requirements
Requirements
|
Verification of voter registration informationVerification of voter registration information
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(5)52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(5)
Requirements
Requirements
|
Requirements for voters who register by Requirements for voters who register by
mail mail52 U.S.C. §52 U.S.C. §
§21083(b)(1)-(3)21083(b)(1)-(3)
Requirements
Requirements
|
Contents of mail-in registration formContents of mail-in registration form
52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(4)52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(4)
Requirements
RequirementsEAC
Adoption of voluntary guidance by Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission commission52 U.S.C. §52 U.S.C. §
§21101
EAC
21101
EAC
|
Study and report on voters who register by Study and report on voters who register by
mail and use of Social Security informationmail and use of Social Security information
52 U.S.C. §2098452 U.S.C. §20984
EAC
EAC
|
Study and report on electronic voting and Study and report on electronic voting and
the electoral processthe electoral process
52 U.S.C. §2098552 U.S.C. §20985
Voting InformationVoting Information
Requirements
Requirements
|
Voting information requirementsVoting information requirements
52 U.S.C. §21082(b)52 U.S.C. §21082(b)
Requirements
RequirementsEAC
Adoption of voluntary guidance by Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission commission52 U.S.C. §21101
Grant Programs
|
State plan52 U.S.C. §21004
EAC
|
52 U.S.C. §§21101
Congressional Research Service
25
link to page 30 link to page 30 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Issue Area
Corresponding Section of Reporta
Provisionb
Grant Programs
State plan 52 U.S.C. §21004
EAC
Study and report on electronic voting and Study and report on electronic voting and
the electoral processthe electoral process
52 U.S.C. §2098552 U.S.C. §20985
Voting Systems
Requirements
Voting Systems
|
Requirements
|
Voting systems standards requirements in Voting systems standards requirements in
general general52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(1)52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(1)
Requirements
Requirements
|
Audit capacityAudit capacity
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(2)52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(2)
Requirements
|
Requirements
Accessibility for individuals with disabilitiesAccessibility for individuals with disabilities
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(3)52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(3)
Requirements
Requirements
|
Alternative language accessibilityAlternative language accessibility
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(4)52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(4)
Requirements
Error rates
Requirements
|
Error rates52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(5)52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(5)
Requirements
Requirements
|
Uniform definition of what constitutes a Uniform definition of what constitutes a
vote vote52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(6)52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(6)
Requirements
RequirementsEAC
Adoption of voluntary guidance by Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission commission52 U.S.C. §52 U.S.C. §
§21101
21101
Grant ProgramsGrant Programs
State planState plan
52 U.S.C. §2100452 U.S.C. §21004
Grant ProgramsGrant Programs
Payments to states for replacement of punch Payments to states for replacement of punch
card and lever voting card and lever voting
machines systems52 U.S.C. §§20902-2090652 U.S.C. §§20902-20906
Grant ProgramsGrant Programs
Grants for research on voting technology Grants for research on voting technology
improvements improvements52 U.S.C. §§21041-2104352 U.S.C. §§21041-21043
Grant ProgramsGrant Programs
Pilot program for testing of equipment and Pilot program for testing of equipment and
technology technology52 U.S.C. §§21051-2105352 U.S.C. §§21051-21053
EAC
EAC
|
Technical Guidelines Development Technical Guidelines Development
Committee (TGDC)Committee (TGDC)
52 U.S.C. §2096152 U.S.C. §20961
EAC
|
EAC
Process for adoption of Voluntary Voting Process for adoption of Voluntary Voting
System Guidelines (VVSG)System Guidelines (VVSG)
52 U.S.C. §2096252 U.S.C. §20962
EAC
EAC
|
Certification and testing of voting systemsCertification and testing of voting systems
52 U.S.C. §2097152 U.S.C. §20971
EAC
EAC
|
Report on human factor researchReport on human factor research
52 U.S.C. §2098352 U.S.C. §20983
EAC
|
EAC
Study and report on electronic voting and Study and report on electronic voting and
the electoral processthe electoral process
52 U.S.C. §2098552 U.S.C. §20985
Young Voters
Young Voters
|
Grant ProgramsGrant Programs
National Student and Parent Mock ElectionNational Student and Parent Mock Election
52 U.S.C. §§21071-2107252 U.S.C. §§21071-21072
Congressional Research Service
26
link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 6 link to page 31 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Issue Area
Corresponding Section of Reporta
Provisionb
Grant Programs
Grant Programs
|
Help America Vote FoundationHelp America Vote Foundation
36 U.S.C. §§90101-9011236 U.S.C. §§90101-90112
Grant ProgramsEAC
Help America Vote College ProgramGrant Programs
Help America Vote Col ege Program
EAC
52 U.S.C. §§21121-2112352 U.S.C. §§21121-21123
Source: CRSCRS
, analysis based on review of the based on review of the
U.S. Code..
Notes: Provisions of HAVA that relate to election administration generally—such as the actProvisions of HAVA that relate to election administration generally—such as the act
’'s enforcement s enforcement
mechanisms, its general improvements grant program, most aspects of its requirements payments program, and mechanisms, its general improvements grant program, most aspects of its requirements payments program, and
the EACthe EAC
’'s general research authority—are not included in this table. Provisions that address more than one s general research authority—are not included in this table. Provisions that address more than one
issue area are listed for all of the issue areas they address.issue area are listed for all of the issue areas they address.
a.
a. Provisions are categorized here as they appear in the text of this report. For more on a given provision, see Provisions are categorized here as they appear in the text of this report. For more on a given provision, see
the corresponding section of the report.the corresponding section of the report.
b.
b. Provisions are generally listed here as they are presented in statutory language.Provisions are generally listed here as they are presented in statutory language.
c.
c. These provisions amended existing law on military and overseas voting. They are discussed briefly in the These provisions amended existing law on military and overseas voting. They are discussed briefly in the
“Requirements” section"Requirements" section of this report and of this report and
summarized inin more detail in Appendix B.
d.
d. This provision was repealed by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009, which This provision was repealed by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009, which
was enacted as Subtitle H of Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. was enacted as Subtitle H of Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L.
111-84111-84
).
e. ).
e. The MOVE Act amended HAVA to authorize funding for the requirements payments program for FY2010 The MOVE Act amended HAVA to authorize funding for the requirements payments program for FY2010
and subsequent fiscal years. The funding was authorized to meet new requirements for military and and subsequent fiscal years. The funding was authorized to meet new requirements for military and
overseas voting established by the MOVE Act.overseas voting established by the MOVE Act.
Congressional Research Service
27
link to page 32 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Appendix B.
HAVA Amendments to Military and
Overseas Voting Processes
Table B-1. HAVA Amendments to Military and Overseas Voting Processes
Summary of Changes
Voting Assistance Programs
Voting Assistance Programs
10 U.S.C. §1566
|
Require voting assistance officers to be given sufficient time and Require voting assistance officers to be given sufficient time and
10 U.S.C. §1566
resources to perform specified voting assistance dutiesresources to perform specified voting assistance duties
.
Direct the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to implement and Direct the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to implement and
report on measures to ensure that postmarks or other official proofs report on measures to ensure that postmarks or other official proofs
of mailing date are provided for absentee ballots that are of mailing date are provided for absentee ballots that are
col ected collected overseas or at seaoverseas or at sea
.
Direct the Secretary of each military department to provide notice of Direct the Secretary of each military department to provide notice of
absentee ballot mailing deadlines; information about requirements and absentee ballot mailing deadlines; information about requirements and
deadlines for voter registration and absentee ballot applications and deadlines for voter registration and absentee ballot applications and
the availability of voting assistance officers; and federal voter the availability of voting assistance officers; and federal voter
registration formsregistration forms
.
Require designation of day(s) for providing information at military Require designation of day(s) for providing information at military
installations about election timing, registration requirements, and installations about election timing, registration requirements, and
voting proceduresvoting procedures
Designation of Single State Office to
.
Designation of Single State Office to Provide Information on Registration and Absentee Ballots for All Voters in State
52 U.S.C. §20302(b)
|
Require each state to designate a single state office to provide Require each state to designate a single state office to provide
Provide Information on Registration and
information about the voting and registration processes available to information about the voting and registration processes available to
Absentee Ballots for All Voters in State
military and overseas votersmilitary and overseas voters
52 U.S.C. §20302(b)
.
Recommend that the designated office carry out the stateRecommend that the designated office carry out the state
’s 's responsibilities under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee responsibilities under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act (UOCAVA)Voting Act (UOCAVA)
Report on Absentee Ballots Transmitted
.
Report on Absentee Ballots Transmitted and Received After General Elections
52 U.S.C. §20302(c), note
|
Require states and localities to report to the U.S. Election Assistance Require states and localities to report to the U.S. Election Assistance
and Received After General Elections
Commission (EAC) and the public after each regular federal general Commission (EAC) and the public after each regular federal general
52 U.S.C. §§20302(c), note
election on the number of absentee ballots transmitted to and election on the number of absentee ballots transmitted to and
received from military and overseas votersreceived from military and overseas voters
.
Direct the EAC and its Board of Advisors and Standards Board to Direct the EAC and its Board of Advisors and Standards Board to
develop a standardized format for the reports and make the develop a standardized format for the reports and make the
standardized format available to states and localitiesstandardized format available to states and localities
.
Extension of Period Covered by Single Extension of Period Covered by Single
Absentee Ballot Application
52 U.S.C. §20306
Extend the period covered by absentee ballot applications submitted Extend the period covered by absentee ballot applications submitted
Absentee Ballot Application
by military and overseas voters to the by military and overseas voters to the
fol owingfollowing two regular federal two regular federal
52 U.S.C. §20306
general electionsa
Additional Duties of Presidential
general elections.a
Additional Duties of Presidential Designee Under Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
52 U.S.C. §§20301-20302
|
Direct the Presidential Designee under UOCAVA to ensure that Direct the Presidential Designee under UOCAVA to ensure that
Designee Under Uniformed and
election officials are aware of the actelection officials are aware of the act
’'s requirements, develop a s requirements, develop a
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
standard oath affirming potential penalty of perjury for material standard oath affirming potential penalty of perjury for material
52 U.S.C. §§20301-20302
misstatements of fact on UOCAVA documents, and provide statistical misstatements of fact on UOCAVA documents, and provide statistical
analysis of voter participation by overseas votersanalysis of voter participation by overseas voters
.
Require states that require oaths or affirmations for UOCAVA Require states that require oaths or affirmations for UOCAVA
documents to use the standard oath developed by the Presidential documents to use the standard oath developed by the Presidential
Designee
Prohibition of Refusal of Voter
Designee.
Prohibition of Refusal of Voter Registration and Absentee Ballot Applications on Grounds of Early Submission
52 U.S.C. §20306
|
Prohibit states from refusing to accept or process an otherwise valid Prohibit states from refusing to accept or process an otherwise valid
Registration and Absentee Ballot
voter registration or absentee voter registration or absentee
bal otballot application from a military voter application from a military voter
Applications on Grounds of Early
on the grounds that the application was submitted before the first on the grounds that the application was submitted before the first
Submission
date on which the state otherwise accepts or processes such date on which the state otherwise accepts or processes such
52 U.S.C. §20306
applications
Congressional Research Service
28
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Summary of Changes
Other Requirements to Promote
applications.
Other Requirements to Promote Participation of Overseas and Absent Uniformed Services Voters
52 U.S.C. §20302(d)
|
Require states to provide military and overseas voters with reasons Require states to provide military and overseas voters with reasons
Participation of Overseas and Absent
for rejecting their voter registration or absentee ballot applicationsfor rejecting their voter registration or absentee ballot applications
Uniformed Services Voters 52 U.S.C. §20302(d) .
Source: CRSCRS
, analysis based on review of the based on review of the
U.S. Code..
Notes: The requirements in this table generally apply to elections for federal office.The requirements in this table generally apply to elections for federal office.
a.
a. This provision was repealed by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009, which This provision was repealed by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009, which
was enacted as Subtitle H of Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. was enacted as Subtitle H of Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L.
111-84111-84
).
Appendix C.
).
Congressional Research Service
29
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
Appendix C. Timeline of Congressional
Deliberations on Election Administration
Table C-1. Timeline of Congressional Deliberations on Election Administration
(from the November 2000 general election to the enactment of HAVA in October 2002)(from the November 2000 general election to the enactment of HAVA in October 2002)
Date
Action
|
Date
|
Action
|
November 7, 2000November 7, 2000
November 2000 regular federal general elections are held.November 2000 regular federal general elections are held.
December 12, 2000December 12, 2000
U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in
Bush v. Gore..
February 14, 2001February 14, 2001
House Committee on Energy and Commerce holds hearing on House Committee on Energy and Commerce holds hearing on
“"Election Night Election Night
Coverage by the Networks.Coverage by the Networks.
”
"
March 7, 2001March 7, 2001
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation holds hearing on Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation holds hearing on
“"Election Reform.Election Reform.
”
"
March 14, 2001March 14, 2001
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds hearing on Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds hearing on
“"Election Election
Reform.Reform.
”
"
March 19, 2001March 19, 2001
Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act (S. 565) is introduced in Senate.Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act (S. 565) is introduced in Senate.
March 22, 2001March 22, 2001
Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act (H.R. 1170) is introduced in House of Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act (H.R. 1170) is introduced in House of
Representatives.Representatives.
May 3, 2001May 3, 2001
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs holds hearing on Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs holds hearing on
“"Federal Election Federal Election
Practices and Procedures.Practices and Procedures.
”
"
May 8, 2001May 8, 2001
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation holds hearing on Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation holds hearing on
“"S. 368 and Election Reform.S. 368 and Election Reform.
”
"
May 9, 2001May 9, 2001
House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel holds House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel holds
hearing on hearing on
“"Department of Defense Voting Assistance and Military Absentee Ballot Department of Defense Voting Assistance and Military Absentee Ballot
Issues.Issues.
” "
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs holds hearing on Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs holds hearing on
“"Federal Election Federal Election
Practices and Procedures.Practices and Procedures.
”
"
May 10, 2001May 10, 2001
House Committee on House Administration holds hearing on House Committee on House Administration holds hearing on
“"Federal Election Federal Election
Reform.Reform.
”
"
May 17, 2001May 17, 2001
House Committee on House Administration holds House Committee on House Administration holds
“"Voting Technology Hearing.Voting Technology Hearing.
”
"
May 22, 2001May 22, 2001
House Committee on Science holds hearing on House Committee on Science holds hearing on
“"Improving Voting Technologies: Improving Voting Technologies:
The Role of Standards.The Role of Standards.
”
"
May 24, 2001May 24, 2001
Bipartisan Federal Election Reform Act (S. 953) is introduced in Senate.Bipartisan Federal Election Reform Act (S. 953) is introduced in Senate.
House Committee on House Administration holds House Committee on House Administration holds
“"Hearing on Technology and Hearing on Technology and
the Voting Process.the Voting Process.
”
"
June 27, 2001June 27, 2001
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds hearing on Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds hearing on
“"Report of the Report of the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the November 2000 Election and on Election U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the November 2000 Election and on Election
Reform Issues.Reform Issues.
”
"
June 28, 2001June 28, 2001
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds hearing on Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds hearing on
“"Members of the Members of the
House of Representatives on Election Reform Issues.House of Representatives on Election Reform Issues.
”
July 23, 2001
"
July 23, 2001
|
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds
“"Field Hearing in Atlanta, Field Hearing in Atlanta,
Georgia on Election Reform Issues.Georgia on Election Reform Issues.
”
"
November 14, 2001November 14, 2001
Help America Vote Act (H.R. 3295) is introduced in House of Representatives.Help America Vote Act (H.R. 3295) is introduced in House of Representatives.
November 15, 2001November 15, 2001
House Committee on House Administration holds House Committee on House Administration holds
“"Mark Up of H.R. 3295, the Mark Up of H.R. 3295, the
Help America Vote Act of 2001.Help America Vote Act of 2001.
”
Congressional Research Service
30
The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role
"
November 28, 2001November 28, 2001
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration reports S. 565Senate Committee on Rules and Administration reports S. 565
to full to ful Senate.Senate.
December 5, 2001December 5, 2001
House Committee on the Judiciary holds hearing on House Committee on the Judiciary holds hearing on
“"Help America Vote Act of Help America Vote Act of
2001.2001.
”
"
December 10, 2001December 10, 2001
House Committee on House Administration reports H.R. 3295House Committee on House Administration reports H.R. 3295
to full to ful House of House of
Representatives.Representatives.
December 12, 2001December 12, 2001
House of Representatives passes H.R. 3295 362-63.House of Representatives passes H.R. 3295 362-63.
February 13-15, 2002February 13-15, 2002
Senate considers S. 565Senate considers S. 565
.
.
February 25-27, 2002February 25-27, 2002
Senate considers S. 565Senate considers S. 565
.
.
March 1, 2002March 1, 2002
Senate considers S. 565Senate considers S. 565
.
.
March 4, 2002March 4, 2002
Senate considers S. 565Senate considers S. 565
.
.
April 10, 2002April 10, 2002
Senate considers S. 565Senate considers S. 565
.
.
April 11, 2002April 11, 2002
Senate passes S. 565 99-1, amends text of H.R. 3295 with text of S. 565, and Senate passes S. 565 99-1, amends text of H.R. 3295 with text of S. 565, and
requests conference with House of Representatives.requests conference with House of Representatives.
May 1, 2002May 1, 2002
Senate appoints conferees.Senate appoints conferees.
May 16, 2002
May 16, 2002
|
House of Representatives appoints conferees.House of Representatives appoints conferees.
October 8, 2002October 8, 2002
Conference report on H.R. 3295Conference report on H.R. 3295
( (H.Rept. 107-730) is filed.H.Rept. 107-730) is filed.
October 10, 2002October 10, 2002
Conference report on H.R. 3295 is agreed to in House of Representatives 357-48.Conference report on H.R. 3295 is agreed to in House of Representatives 357-48.
October 16, 2002October 16, 2002
Conference report on H.R. 3295 is agreed to in Senate 92-2.Conference report on H.R. 3295 is agreed to in Senate 92-2.
October 29, 2002October 29, 2002
H.R. 3295 is signed by President George W. Bush and becomes P.L. 107-252H.R. 3295 is signed by President George W. Bush and becomes P.L. 107-252
. .
Source: CRSCRS
, analysis based on review of data from Congress.gov, the based on review of data from Congress.gov, the
Congressional Record, and the U.S. Government , and the U.S. Government
Publishing Office.
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
R46949 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED
31 Publishing Office.
Footnotes
| 1.
|
See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, July 2001, https://vote.caltech.edu/reports/1; The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, August 2001, https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/NCFER_2001.pdf; and U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation, GAO-02-3, October 2001, https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d023.pdf.
|
| 2.
|
See, for example, P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-93; and P.L. 116-136.
|
| 3.
|
52 U.S.C. §21141. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) was not included in the Help America Vote Act of 2002's (HAVA's) definition of "state" because it did not hold federal elections when HAVA was enacted in 2002. 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 Other Territories, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 28, 2020, p. 2.
|
4.
|
For more on these appropriations acts, see Table 2 of this report and CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Programs for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton.
| 5.
|
See, for example, Robert Rosenberg, "'I Had to Examine Every Disputed Ballot': George W Bush v Al Gore, Florida, 2000," The Guardian, July 1, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jul/01/disputed-ballot-george-w-bush-al-gore-florida-recount-2000.
|
| 6.
|
See, for example, Samantha Levine, "Hanging Chads: As the Florida Recount Implodes, the Supreme Court Decides Bush v. Gore," January 17, 2008, https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/the-legacy-of-hanging-chads.
|
| 7.
|
See, for example, The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, p. 18; and GAO, Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation, pp. 24-25.
|
| 8.
|
See, for example, Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, p. 6.
|
| 9.
|
See, for example, Alan Agresti and Brett Presnell, "Misvotes, Undervotes and Overvotes: The 2000 Presidential Election in Florida," Statistical Science, vol. 17, no. 4 (2002), pp. 438-439.
|
| 10.
|
See, for example, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election, June 2001, https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Federal Election Practices and Procedures, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 2001.
|
| 11.
|
See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Department of Defense Voting Assistance and Military Absentee Ballot Issues, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 9, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001); and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Election Reform, hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-1036 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003).
|
12.
|
The following three subsections of this report provide an overview of major provisions of the act by type of provision. For an overview of major provisions of HAVA by issue area, see Appendix A.
| 13.
|
See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, S. 368 and Election Reform, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), pp. 40-41; and Electionline, Election Reform: What's Changed, What Hasn't and Why, 2000-2006, February 2006, p. 19, https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/election_reform/electionline022006pdf.pdf.
|
| 14.
|
See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Help America Vote Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 3295, 107th Cong., 1st sess., December 10, 2001, H.Rept. 107-329 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), pp. 37-39; and Electionline, Election Reform: What's Changed, What Hasn't and Why, 2000-2006, p. 32. For more on voter registration list maintenance, see CRS Report R46943, Voter Registration Records and List Maintenance for Federal Elections, by Sarah J. Eckman.
|
| 15.
|
See, for example, Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, p. 24; Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform, Revitalizing Our Nation's Election System, pp. 79-80, https://web.archive.org/web/20011108222052/http:/housedemocrats.house.gov/documents/electionreformreport.pdf; The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, pp. 42-43; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Department of Defense Voting Assistance and Military Absentee Ballot Issues.
|
| 16.
|
For more on military and overseas voting in general, see CRS In Focus IF11642, Absentee Voting for Uniformed Services and Overseas Citizens: Roles and Process, In Brief, by R. Sam Garrett.
|
| 17.
|
For more on voter registration list maintenance, see CRS Report R46943, Voter Registration Records and List Maintenance for Federal Elections, by Sarah J. Eckman.
|
| 18.
|
52 U.S.C. §21083a. This requirement was added by the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act (COCOA) of 2024 (P.L. 118-106). Unlike the other Title III requirements, it applies to CNMI.
|
| 19.
|
52 U.S.C. §§21101-21102 and 52 U.S.C. §21085.
|
| 20.
|
52 U.S.C. §§21111-21112. HAVA requires states that receive funding under any of its grant programs to establish a state-based administrative complaint procedure. That requirement applies to all states in practice because all have received HAVA funding.
|
| 21.
|
Unlike some other federal statutes, such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), HAVA does not provide for an explicit private right to sue for violations of its requirements. The question of whether there is a private right of action for any of HAVA's Title III requirements on other grounds has been the subject of litigation and academic debate. For discussion of that issue, see Daniel P. Tokaji, "Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The Enforcement of Federal Election Laws," Indiana Law Review, vol. 44, no. 113 (2010).
|
| 22.
|
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) authorized the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) to make requirements payments while the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (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 appointment of all members of the EAC.
|
| 23.
|
52 U.S.C. §21003. The match amount is "5 percent of the total amount to be spent for [activities for which the requirements payment is made] (taking into account the requirements payment and the amount spent by the State)." According to the EAC, this match requirement has been waived for eligible territories other than Puerto Rico. EAC, Election Assistance Commission FY2008/2009/2010/2011 Requirements Payment Schedule, https://web.archive.org/web/20191227211147/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/4699.PDF.
|
| 24.
|
52 U.S.C. §21001. States could also use requirements payments for more general improvements to the administration of federal elections if they had already met the Title III requirements or limited their spending on such activities to a specified amount.
|
| 25.
|
52 U.S.C. §21001. The MOVE Act was enacted as Subtitle H of Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84).
|
| 26.
|
HAVA lists specific permissible uses of this grant funding. The listed uses are complying with HAVA's Title III requirements; improving the administration of federal elections; educating voters about voting procedures, rights, and technology; training election officials and volunteers; developing the state plan for requirements payments; improving, acquiring, or modifying voting systems and technology and vote casting and counting methods; improving polling place accessibility and quantity; and establishing toll-free hotlines for reporting voting fraud and rights violations and accessing election information (52 U.S.C. §20901).
|
| 27.
|
HAVA assigned initial responsibility for administering the general improvements and lever and punch card voting system replacement grant programs to GSA but authority for overseeing audits and repayments of the funds to the EAC (52 U.S.C. §§20901-20906 and 52 U.S.C. §21142). The EAC has also been charged with administering the funding Congress appropriated under the general improvements grant program for FY2018, FY2020, and FY2022 through FY2025 (P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-93; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 117-103; P.L. 117-328; P.L. 118-47; and P.L. 119-4).
|
| 28.
|
52 U.S.C. §20902. The deadline for replacing voting systems was originally the regularly scheduled federal general election in November 2004, with an optional waiver to the first federal election after January 1, 2006. Congress extended the waiver deadline twice (P.L. 110-28 and P.L. 111-8). The final deadline was the first federal election after November 1, 2010.
|
| 29.
|
HAVA charged the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with recommending topics for projects funded under this grant program and the voting technology pilot program grant program, as well as reviewing grant applications for both grant programs and, on EAC request, monitoring grant activities (52 U.S.C. §21041 and 52 U.S.C. §21051).
|
| 30.
|
As authorized, HAVA's polling place accessibility grant program was available to localities. However, the appropriations acts that have funded the program have limited grant funds to states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7.
|
| 31.
|
As initially authorized by HAVA, this grant program was available to the protection and advocacy (P&A) systems serving the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) Program Inclusion Act extended eligibility for the program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and Native Americans in the Four Corners region of the country (the American Indian consortium).
|
| 32.
|
President George W. Bush named nominees to the Help America Vote Foundation's board of directors on July 9, 2004. The White House, "Personnel Announcement," press release, July 9, 2004, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/07/text/20040709-6.html. CRS has not been able to locate additional information about activities of the foundation.
|
| 33.
|
52 U.S.C. §21142. Information about audits of HAVA funds conducted by the EAC is available on the agency's website at https://www.eac.gov/inspector-general/hava-fund-audits.
|
| 34.
|
As enacted, HAVA also required GAO to audit all HAVA funds at least once during the lifetime of each grant program. That requirement was repealed by the Government Reports Elimination Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-188). HAVA provided for recoupment of funds in response to GAO audits conducted prior to enactment of that act that found that (1) a grantee was not in compliance with the requirements of the grant program under which the funds were provided, or (2) the grantee received an excess payment under the grant program [52 U.S.C. §21142(c)].
|
| 35.
|
EAC, History of the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, https://web.archive.org/web/20191228001136/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/History%20of%20the%20National%20Clearinghouse%20on%20Election%20Administration.pdf. Support for military and overseas voting and registration was provided at the time—and continues to be provided—by the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD's) Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). For more on FVAP, see CRS In Focus IF11642, Absentee Voting for Uniformed Services and Overseas Citizens: Roles and Process, In Brief, by R. Sam Garrett.
|
| 36.
|
See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Help America Vote Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st sess., December 5, 2001, pp. 6-7; and The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, pp. 71-72.
|
| 37.
|
See, for example, Daniel J. Palazzolo and Fiona R. McCarthy, "State and Local Government Organizations and the Formation of the Help America Vote Act," Publius, vol. 35, no. 4 (Fall 2005), p. 533; and Sarah F. Liebschutz and Daniel J. Palazzolo, "HAVA and the States," Publius, vol. 35, no. 4 (Autumn 2005), p. 505.
|
| 38.
|
See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Mark up of H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st sess., November 15, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003), p. 2.
|
| 39.
|
52 U.S.C. §20929. For more on the federal mail voter registration form and required reporting on the impact of the NVRA, see CRS Report R45030, Federal Role in Voter Registration: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and Subsequent Developments, by Sarah J. Eckman; and CRS In Focus IF13056, The Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS): Overview and 2024 Findings, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
| 40.
|
52 U.S.C. §20981 note. For more on the election data collection grant program, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Programs for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
| 41.
|
See, for example, EAC, Grants Management and Oversight, https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/grants-management-and-oversight.
|
42.
|
Federal Election Commission (FEC), Performance and Test Standards for Punchcard, Marksense, and Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems, January 1990, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/FEC_1990_Voting_System_Standards1.pdf; EAC, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines/; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 2275, 107th Cong., 1st sess., October 31, 2001, H.Rept. 107-263 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001).
| 43.
|
52 U.S.C. §20922; 52 U.S.C. §§20961-20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20971.
|
| 44.
|
EAC, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. For more on federal voting system guidelines, testing, and certification, see CRS Report R47592, Federal Standards and Guidelines for Voting Systems: Overview and Potential Considerations for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS Report WPD00099, Elections Podcast: Federal Standards and Guidelines for Voting Systems, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
| 45.
|
52 U.S.C. §§21101-21102. Delays in establishing the EAC prevented it from meeting those statutory deadlines. The first commissioners were not confirmed until December 2003.
|
| 46.
|
The agency produces parts of its biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) under this authority. The EAVS includes general reporting on election administration data and policies, in addition to congressionally mandated reporting on the NVRA that the EAC inherited from the FEC and on military and overseas voters that it conducts as part of a Memorandum of Understanding with FVAP. For more on the EAVS, see CRS In Focus IF13056, The Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS): Overview and 2024 Findings, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
| 47.
|
52 U.S.C. §§20982-20986. For studies the EAC has published on these and other topics, see EAC, Other Topics, https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/other-topics; and EAC, Archives - Other Topics, https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/archives-other-topics.
|
| 48.
|
The agency has tended to use the funding Congress has provided for this program for grant-making. For more on grant funding provided under the program, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Programs for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
49.
|
The Board of Advisors initially had 37 members, but its membership dropped to 35 with the 2016 merger of two of the organizations responsible for appointing members. The National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials, and Clerks (NACRC) and the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers (IACREOT) merged to form the International Association of Government Officials (iGO). Doug Chapin, "Fewer Letters in the Alphabet Soup: NACRC, IACREOT to Merge," Election Academy, July 7, 2015, http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/07/07/fewer-letters-in-the-alphabet-soup-nacrc-iacreot-to-merge/.
| 50.
|
The membership of the Board of Advisors includes the director of FVAP; the chiefs or designees of the chiefs of the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Office of Public Integrity and Civil Rights Division's Voting Section; four members representing science and technology professionals; eight members representing voter interests; and two members appointed by each of the National Governors Association (NGA), National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), National Association of Counties (NACo), United States Conference of Mayors, Election Center, USCCR, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance (Access) Board, and iGO (52 U.S.C. §20944).
|
| 51.
|
52 U.S.C. §20924; 52 U.S.C. §20942; 52 U.S.C. §20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20971.
|
| 52.
|
According to HAVA, state election officials are chosen for membership on the Standards Board by their state's chief election official, and local officials are selected according to a process overseen by the chief state election official (52 U.S.C. §20943).
|
| 53.
|
52 U.S.C. §20924; 52 U.S.C. §20942; 52 U.S.C. §20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20971.
|
| 54.
|
In addition to the director of NIST, the members of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) include an equal number of members of the Access Board, Board of Advisors, and Standards Board; representatives of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); two representatives of NASED who do not serve on the Board of Advisors or Standards Board and do not share a political party; and other individuals with technical and scientific expertise relating to voting systems and equipment (52 U.S.C. §20961).
|
| 55.
|
52 U.S.C. §§20961-20962.
|
| 56.
|
For more on the Local Leadership Council, see EAC, Local Leadership Council, https://www.eac.gov/about-eac/local-leadership-council. For more on the duties and structure of the EAC in general, see CRS Report R45770, The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
| 57.
|
P.L. 110-28; P.L. 111-8; P.L. 111-84; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-188; P.L. 117-182; and P.L. 118-106.
|
| 58.
|
Close to 100 election administration bills were introduced between the November 2000 general election in the 106th Congress and the enactment of HAVA in the 107th Congress, according to a CRS review of data from Congress.gov.
|
59.
|
For a timeline of congressional deliberations about election administration between the November 2000 general election and the enactment of HAVA in October 2002, see Appendix C.
| 60.
|
52 U.S.C. §21083(b). See, for example, Liebschutz and Palazzolo, "HAVA and the States," pp. 501, 505; and Sen. Christopher Dodd, "Help America Vote Act of 2002—Conference Report," Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 136 (October 16, 2002), p. S20854.
|
| 61.
|
See, for example, Rep. Robert Ney, Comments, Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 172 (December 12, 2001), p. H9287; and Palazzolo and McCarthy, "State and Local Government Organizations and the Formation of the Help America Vote Act," p. 533.
|
| 62.
|
See, for example, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025 (H.R. 14/S. 2523), the Making America Great Again Act (119th Congress, H.R. 4798), the Securing our Elections Act of 2025 (H.R. 156), and the Youth Voting Rights Act (119th Congress, H.R. 4916).
|
| 63.
|
52 U.S.C. §21083.
|
| 64.
|
Daniel P. Tokaji, "Voter Registration and Institutional Reform: Lessons from a Historic Election," Harvard Law and Policy Review Online, vol. 3 (January 22, 2009). For more on voter registration data-matching procedures, see CRS Report R46406, Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by Sarah J. Eckman.
|
| 65.
|
See, for example, the Count Every Vote Act of 2007 (H.R. 1381/S. 804), the Protection Against Wrongful Voter Purges Act (111th Congress, H.R. 3835), and the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2005 (H.R. 533/S. 17).
|
| 66.
|
52 U.S.C. §21081.
|
| 67.
|
See, for example, EAC, EAC Advisory 2005-004: How to Determine if a Voting System is Compliant with Section 301(a) - A Gap Analysis Between 2002 Voting System Standards and the Requirements of Section 301(a), July 20, 2005, https://web.archive.org/web/20051225131913/http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Advisory%2005-004%20(%204%20page%20fit%20).pdf; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Hearing on Oversight of HAVA Implementation, 109th Cong., 1st sess., February 9, 2005 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2006).
|
| 68.
|
See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Improving Voting Technologies: The Role of Standards, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001); Tadayoshi Kohno, Adam Stubblefield, Aviel D. Rubin, et al., "Analysis of an Electronic Voting System," Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute Technical Report TR-2003-19, July 23, 2003; Maryland Department of Legislative Services, A Review of Issues Relating to the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting System in Maryland, January 2004; and The Pew Center on the States, Back to Paper: A Case Study, Washington, DC, February 2008, https://web.archive.org/web/20080306020841/http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/EB21Brief.pdf.
|
| 69.
|
See, for example, Mark Lindeman and Philip B. Stark, "A Gentle Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits," IEEE Security and Privacy, Special Issue on Electronic Voting, March 16, 2012. For more on risk-limiting audits, see CRS In Focus IF11873, Election Administration: An Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
| 70.
|
For example, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 (H.R. 2239/S. 1980) would have required voting systems used in federal elections to produce voter-verifiable paper ballots. A version of that bill was introduced in every Congress from its initial introduction in the 108th Congress through the 118th Congress, including as part of the Freedom to Vote Act (118th Congress, H.R. 11/S. 1/S. 2344) and the Voter Empowerment Act of 2024 (H.R. 9727/S. 5151). For more on legislation related to risk-limiting audits, see CRS In Focus IF11873, Election Administration: An Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
| 71.
|
NASS, Resolution Reaffirming the NASS Position on Funding and Authorization of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, July 2015, https://web.archive.org/web/20250212041305/https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/resolutions/2015/nass-resolution-eac-summer15-_0.pdf. The resolution does not appear to have been renewed since its expiration in 2020.
|
| 72.
|
See, for example, the Election Assistance Commission Termination Act (115th Congress, H.R. 634) and the Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act (112th Congress, H.R. 672). For more on proposals to terminate the EAC, see CRS Report R45770, The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
| 73.
|
See, for example, the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act (118th Congress, H.R. 4563), the Ensuring Faith in Our Elections Act (118th Congress, H.R. 4494), and the Positioning the Election Assistance Commission for the Future Act of 2023 (H.R. 4479).
|
| 74.
|
See, for example, the Early Voting Act (116th Congress, S. 957), the Election Integrity Act of 2016 (H.R. 6072), and the Polling Place Protection Act of 2019 (S. 955).
|
| 75.
|
See, for example, Tokaji, "Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The Enforcement of Federal Election Laws."
|
| 76.
|
Tokaji, "Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The Enforcement of Federal Election Laws."
|
| 77.
|
See, for example, the Count the Vote Act (116th Congress, H.R. 1513), the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093), the People Over Long Lines (POLL) Act (119th Congress, H.R. 4911), the Streamlined and Improved Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting Act of 2019 (H.R. 118), and the Voter Empowerment Act of 2024 (H.R. 9727/S. 5151).
|
| 78.
|
See, for example, the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act (118th Congress, H.R. 4563), the Freedom to Vote Act (118th Congress, H.R. 11/S. 1/S. 2344), the Positioning the Election Assistance Commission for the Future Act of 2023 (H.R. 4479), and the Voter Empowerment Act of 2024 (H.R. 9727/S. 5151). Congress has appropriated more funding for EAC operations in some fiscal years than the $10 million specified in HAVA. For more on operational funding for the EAC, see CRS Report R45770, The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
| 79.
|
See, for example, the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act (118th Congress, H.R. 4563), the Freedom to Vote Act (118th Congress, H.R. 11/S. 1/S. 2344), the Positioning the Election Assistance Commission for the Future Act of 2023 (H.R. 4479), and the Voter Empowerment Act of 2024 (H.R. 9727/S. 5151).
|
| 80.
|
For example, the NVRA sets requirements for voter registration, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), as amended, primarily addresses the accessibility of the electoral process to members of racial and language minority groups. For more on those statutes, see CRS Report R45030, Federal Role in Voter Registration: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and Subsequent Developments, by Sarah J. Eckman; CRS Report R47520, The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Testimony TE10033, History and Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, by L. Paige Whitaker.
|
| 81.
|
See, for example, the Resilient Elections During Quarantines and Natural Disasters Act of 2020 (H.R. 6202/S. 3440), the Vote From Home America Act of 2020 (H.R. 7118), and the Voter Notice Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6512).
|
| 82.
|
See, for example, the People Over Long Lines (POLL) Act (119th Congress, H.R. 4911) and the Restoring Faith in Elections Act (119th Congress, H.R. 160).
|
| 83.
|
See, for example, the Restoring Faith in Elections Act (119th Congress, H.R. 160). the Supplying Wait-time Information to Facilitate Timely Voting with Operational and Technology Enhancements (SWIFT VOTE) Act (119th Congress, H.R. 4881), and S.Amdt. 2850 to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (119th Congress, H.R. 1).
|
| 84.
|
See, for example, the Housing Is a Human Right Act of 2025 (H.R. 4457) and the Preparing Election Administrators for AI Act (119th Congress, S. 2346).
|
| 85.
|
See, for example, P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-93; and P.L. 116-136.
|
| 86.
|
See, for example, the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act (118th Congress, H.R. 4563), the Citizen Legislature Anti-Corruption Reform of Elections (CLEAN Elections) Act (119th Congress, H.R. 158), and the Protect Election Integrity Act of 2020 (H.R. 8753/S. 4893). For more on proposals to condition federal funding on elections policies, see CRS In Focus IF13013, Conditioning Federal Funding on Elections Policies: Options and Considerations for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton.
|
| 87.
|
See, for example, David Nather, "Election Overhaul May Have to Wait in Line Behind Other 'Crisis' Issues," CQ Weekly, July 27, 2002; Sen. Kit Bond, "Help America Vote Act of 2002—Conference Report," Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 136 (October 16, 2002), p. S10488; and Sen. Christopher Dodd, "Help America Vote Act of 2002—Conference Report," p. S10505.
|
| 88.
|
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), "Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election Infrastructure as a Critical Infrastructure Subsector," press release, January 6, 2017, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical. For more on the critical infrastructure designation, see CRS In Focus IF10677, The Designation of Election Systems as Critical Infrastructure, by Brian E. Humphreys. DHS has reportedly subsequently paused or discontinued much of its election security work. See, for example, Brenna Nelson, As Federal Support for Elections Evolves, States Adapt to Close Emerging Gaps, National Conference of State Legislatures, July 31, 2025, https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/as-federal-support-for-elections-evolves-states-adapt-to-close-emerging-gaps; and Christina A. Cassidy, "US Cyber Agency Puts Election Security Staffers Who Worked With the States on Leave," Associated Press, February 10, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/election-security-cisa-kristi-noem-cybersecurity-5bac8ce416c46b4fbe44c94ae5874b39.
|
| 89.
|
See, for example, the proposals to revisit HAVA's enforcement mechanisms in the Count the Vote Act (116th Congress, H.R. 1513), the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093), the People Over Long Lines (POLL) Act (119th Congress, H.R. 4911), the Streamlined and Improved Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting Act of 2019 (H.R. 118), and the Voter Empowerment Act of 2024 (H.R. 9727/S. 5151). See also the new match requirements for funding under HAVA's general improvements grant program set by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328), and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-47).
|
| 90.
|
See, for example, the Election Protection Act of 2021 (H.R. 2844), the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093), and the Help Students Vote Act (117th Congress, H.R. 2232/S. 992).
|