The Help America Vote Act and Election
Administration: Overview and Issues

Kevin J. Coleman
Analyst in Elections
Eric A. Fischer

Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
February 3, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS20898


The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

Summary
The deadlocked November 2000 presidential election focused national attention on previously
obscure details of election administration. Even before the U.S. Supreme Court had resolved the
election in December, numerous bills to address the failings of the election system were
introduced in Congress and state legislatures. The response at the federal level was the Help
America Vote Act (HAVA; P.L. 107-252), enacted in 2002. HAVA created the Election Assistance
Commission (EAC), established a set of election administration requirements, and provided
federal funding, but did not supplant state and local control over election administration. Several
issues have arisen or persisted in the years since HAVA was enacted. This report provides
background information about HAVA and its provisions, the EAC, funding for the agency and for
state programs to improve elections, and a number of enduring election administration issues.
With respect to the EAC, some observers have criticized it for being too obtrusive, or for being
slow, ineffectual, or even unnecessary. Others believe that the agency is an important resource for
improving the administration of elections and has been hampered by budgetary constraints and
difficulties in the nomination process for commissioners. In terms of election administration,
HAVA promoted the use of electronic voting systems to facilitate voting by persons with
disabilities, which subsequently raised concerns about security and reliability and led many states
to require voter-verifiable paper ballot records. Similarly, HAVA’s voter-identification provisions
did not resolve the controversy over whether more stringent requirements are needed to prevent
voter fraud, or whether such requirements are more likely to disenfranchise legitimate voters.
Finally, while HAVA’s voter-registration requirement may have improved that process, some have
argued for more automated systems in the years since the requirement took effect.
Altogether, more than $3.5 billion of HAVA funds were appropriated through FY2013: about
$3.28 billion in election reform payments to states, $128 million for the EAC and its programs,
and $130 million in accessibility payments to states, administered by the Department of Health
and Human Services. Numerous bills to amend HAVA have been considered in Congress, but
none have been enacted. H.R. 3463 was passed in the House in December 2011 and would have
eliminated the EAC, transferred its responsibilities to the Federal Election Commission (FEC),
and terminated the program that provides taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns.
No further action occurred on the bill.
Thus far in the 113th Congress, two bills (H.R. 260 and H.R. 1994) have been introduced to
eliminate the EAC and two (H.R. 12 and H.R. 2017) have been introduced that would extend
authorization of the agency for five years. Other legislation introduced on election administration
issues includes omnibus bills that would make numerous changes to voting procedures, such as
H.R. 12 and S. 123; bills to reduce long voter lines on election day, such as H.R. 50, H.R. 97,
H.R. 289, S. 58, and S. 85; a bill, H.R. 280, to require same-day voter registration; a bill, H.R.
281, to prohibit state and local officials from requiring a photo identification to vote; a bill, H.R.
376, to establish a right to vote by mail; a bill, H.R. 653, to establish an EAC pilot program to
provide funds for initiatives to provide voter registration information to 12th graders; a bill, H.R.
936, to prohibit straight-party voting; a bill, H.R. 1018, to apply various federal voting laws to the
territories and Puerto Rico; a bill, H.R. 1280, to increase the penalty for voter registration fraud; a
bill, H.R. 1641, to establish weekend voting; a bill, S. 302, to make voting by an illegal alien an
aggravated felony and deportable offense; and bills that would institute changes for uniformed
services and overseas citizen voting, such as H.R. 1655, H.R. 2168, H.R. 3576, and S. 1728.


Congressional Research Service

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

Contents
The Help America Vote Act ............................................................................................................. 1
Voting Systems and Election Administration .................................................................................. 2
Voting Systems .......................................................................................................................... 2
Electronic Voting Machine Controversy ............................................................................. 3
Federal Funding ......................................................................................................................... 3
Election Assistance Commission ............................................................................................... 4
Efforts to Eliminate the EAC .............................................................................................. 4
Standards and Requirements ..................................................................................................... 6
Voter Identification .................................................................................................................... 6
Voter Registration ...................................................................................................................... 6
Voting by Members of the Uniformed Services and Overseas Voters ............................................. 7
Funding Under the Help America Vote Act ..................................................................................... 7
Appropriations ........................................................................................................................... 8
FY2003 ................................................................................................................................ 8
FY2004 ................................................................................................................................ 8
FY2005 ................................................................................................................................ 9
FY2006 ................................................................................................................................ 9
FY2007 ................................................................................................................................ 9
FY2008 ................................................................................................................................ 9
FY2009 .............................................................................................................................. 10
FY2010 .............................................................................................................................. 10
FY2011 .............................................................................................................................. 10
FY2012 .............................................................................................................................. 11
FY2013 .............................................................................................................................. 11
FY2014 .............................................................................................................................. 11
Legislative Action .......................................................................................................................... 14
112th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 14
113th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 14
Concluding Observations ............................................................................................................... 18

Tables
Table 1. Commissioners of the EAC Since Its Establishment ......................................................... 5
Table 2. Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Funding ........................................................................ 12

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

The Help America Vote Act
Even before the 2000 presidential election had been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in
December of that year, more than a dozen bills to reform the election process had been introduced
in the Congress. Legislative activity continued when the 107th Congress convened the following
month, along with the release of various independent reports and studies on election reform. In
December 2001, the House passed H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act. The Senate passed S.
565, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act, in early 2002, after
adopting 40 amendments. Following conference negotiations, the compromise bill, the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in October.
HAVA imposed a number of requirements on the states with respect to election administration,
provided payments to the states to meet the new requirements, created a new independent agency,
made changes to improve military and overseas voting, and authorized other election reform
activities. Among its major provisions, HAVA did the following:
• created the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent, bipartisan
agency to carry out grant programs, provide for testing and certification of voting
systems, study election issues, and assist election officials by issuing guidelines
and other guidance for voting systems and implementation of the act’s
requirements;
• established a number of payment and grant programs to
• help states meet the law’s requirements,
• replace punchcard and lever voting machines and make general election
improvements,
• promote accessibility in the electoral process,
• promote student participation, and
• support research and pilot programs;
• established requirements in the states to
• provide a provisional ballot to a voter who is not on the registration list or
whose registration is in question;
• post a sample ballot and voter information at polling places on election day;
• impose an identification standard for first-time voters who register by mail;
• provide for voter error correction on voting systems used in federal elections;
• provide for manual auditing of the voting system, alternative-language
accessibility, and at least one machine per voting place that can provide
disability access, and
• create and maintain a computerized, verified statewide voter registration list;
• required the EAC to develop voting system guidelines for computer hardware
and software for voluntary use by the states, and voluntary guidance to assist
states in meeting HAVA requirements;
• left methods of implementation to the states and prohibited rulemaking by the
EAC, leaving enforcement to the U.S. Attorney General while requiring states to
establish grievance procedures; and
• amended the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)
to make improvements to voting procedures for members of the military and
overseas citizens.
Congressional Research Service
1

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

Although many bills have been introduced to amend HAVA since it became law, only a minor
change has been enacted. The National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 made numerous
amendments to UOCAVA and also amended HAVA to authorize appropriations to achieve
compliance on the new military and overseas voting requirements. In general, local election
officials (LEOs) have supported HAVA and its provisions, although some, such as the provisional
ballot requirement, were initially controversial.1
Voting Systems and Election Administration
While initial reactions after the 2000 election had tended to focus on technological fixes such as
eliminating punchcard and lever voting machines, a consensus emerged subsequently that the
issues, and the solutions needed, were more complex and often involved trade-offs among diverse
goals. HAVA reflects those developments—it funded replacement of punchcard and lever systems
but also broader improvements in election administration. But the act also stimulated controversy
about issues ranging from the security of electronic voting systems to the role and even the
continued existence of the EAC itself.
Voting Systems
Currently, most jurisdictions use one of two kinds of voting system:
optical scan, in which voters mark choices on paper ballots by hand or machine
and the ballots are read by an electronic counting device, or
direct recording electronic (DRE) systems, in which voters mark choices via a
computer interface and the voting machine records them directly to an electronic
memory.
There is no consensus on whether any one technology is best. For example, DRE systems can
provide high usability for voters and efficiency for vote counting, but many believe that they pose
a greater security risk than optical scan systems. Use of both kinds of systems increased after the
enactment of HAVA, and they are now used by 90% of voters. States have different practices and
requirements. HAVA does not require any particular voting system, but it sets requirements that
influence what systems election officials choose. Under HAVA, systems used in federal elections
must provide for error correction by voters, manual auditing, accessibility, alternative languages,
and error-rate standards. Systems must also maintain voter privacy and ballot confidentiality, and
states must adopt uniform standards for what constitutes a vote on each system.
Voting technologies are provided to election administrators by private-sector companies.
Variations in state and local requirements, the episodic nature of elections, the largely fixed
customer base, and uncertain funding for improvements make the market unusually fragmented,
uncertain, and resistant to innovation. Market consolidation since 2002 has led to a decrease in
the number of vendors, and in 2008 the top four vendors controlled about 70% of the market.
Further consolidation in 2010 led to the dissolution of the second-largest vendor, Premier Election
Systems. The attempted acquisition of Premier’s assets and customers by Election Systems &
Software (ES&S), the company with the largest market share, raised antitrust concerns that led
the Department of Justice to require a partial divestiture by ES&S.2 Dominion Voting, a Canadian

1 For more information about the views of LEOs, see CRS Report R41667, How Local Election Officials View Election
Reform: Results of Three National Surveys
, by Eric A. Fischer and Kevin J. Coleman.
2 Department of Justice, “Justice Department Requires Key Divestiture in Election Systems & Software/Premier
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

firm, acquired the divested resources, and later acquired what was then the third largest U.S.
vendor, Sequoia Voting Systems.
While the entrance of Dominion into the U.S. market caused little debate, other attempted
acquisitions and mergers involving foreign-owned companies have been more controversial, with
concerns raised about foreign influence in U.S. elections. An earlier attempt involving Sequoia
and a company with some ties to Venezuela was withdrawn following public outcry3 and the 2012
acquisition by a Spanish enterprise of a Florida company that provides some election-related
software also caused controversy. 4
Electronic Voting Machine Controversy
HAVA’s requirement for accessible voting systems (at least one per polling place) and other
factors drove some states to adopt DREs, but controversy exists about the security of those
systems. Some experts and advocates believe that the problem is serious enough to require that all
voting systems produce paper ballots that can be verified by voters and that will serve as the
official record of the votes for any recount. Others believe that other safeguards can make DREs
sufficiently safe from tampering, that use of printed paper ballots would create too many
problems, and that the controversy risks drawing attention away from the demonstrated utility of
DREs in addressing problems of access to and usability of voting systems. HAVA requires a paper
audit trail for the voting system, but not paper ballots. However, many states have instituted
paper-ballot-trail requirements.
Several bills introduced in recent Congresses would have addressed this issue. Most would have
required a specific design standard for paper ballots rather than setting a performance standard
that can be met in different ways, which was the approach taken by HAVA with respect to voting
system requirements. Proponents of paper ballots argue that a legislated design standard is the
only way to ensure that voting systems exhibit the desired level of verifiability and security.
Opponents argue that such a design standard freezes technology and stifles innovation, thereby
precluding the development and implementation of technologies with superior levels of
verifiability and security than is possible with current technology.5
Federal Funding
A central issue has been the role of the federal government in addressing concerns about voting
systems, particularly with respect to funding and standards. HAVA authorized $3.86 billion in
funding for programs to replace equipment, improve election administration, improve
accessibility, recruit pollworkers, and perform research and pilot studies. The amount

(...continued)
Election Solutions Merger,” Press Release, March 8, 2010, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/March/10-at-235.html.
3 Tim Golden, “U.S. Investigates Voting Machines’ Venezuela Ties,” The New York Times, October 29, 2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/washington/29ballot.html?pagewanted=all; Zachary A. Goldfarb, “Voting
Machine Firm Denies Chavez Ties,” The Washington Post, October 31, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001224.html; John McCormick, “Cook County’s Voting Machine Supplier
for Sale,” Chicago Tribune, December 22, 2006, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-12-22/news/
0612220233_1_sequoia-and-smartmatic-foreign-ownership-voting-equipment.
4 Anthony Martin, “Digging Deeper into the 2012 Vote Count Controversy,” Examiner.com, April 12, 2012,
http://www.examiner.com/article/digging-deeper-into-the-2012-vote-count-controversy.
5 See CRS Report RL33190, The Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machine (DRE) Controversy: FAQs and
Misperceptions
.
Congressional Research Service
3

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

appropriated by Congress thus far is $3.54 billion. However, a proportion of the payments to
states reportedly remain unexpended, and as a result, the most recent Administration budget
requests have not included any additional funding for that program.
Election Assistance Commission
Before HAVA, federal activities relating to election administration were performed by the Office
of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Other than the
voluntary voting system standards, OEA performed clearinghouse functions and some
administrative activities under the National Voter Registration Act (P.L. 103-31). HAVA replaced
the OEA with the Election Assistance Commission (EAC, http://www.eac.gov), an independent,
bipartisan federal agency. The act also established two boards, with broad-based state and local
membership. The Standards Board was designed to have 55 state election officials and 55 local
election officials. The Board of Advisors was designed to have 37 members representing various
associations, such as the National Governors Association and National Association of State
Election Directors, as well as the Justice Department, the Federal Voting Assistance Program at
the Department of Defense, and a number of science and technology professionals recommended
by U.S. House and Senate leadership. HAVA also established the Technical Guidelines
Development Committee, chaired by the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), to address aspects of voting system standards and certification. The statute
also provides for technical support and participation by NIST (see http://vote.nist.gov/).
The EAC carries out grant programs, provides for testing and certification of voting systems,
studies election issues, and issues voluntary guidelines for voting systems and guidance for the
requirements in the act. The EAC has no rule-making authority (except for limited authority
under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the “motor-voter” law) and does not enforce
HAVA requirements. The act established two enforcement processes: the U.S. Attorney General
may bring civil action with respect to HAVA requirements, and states, as a condition for receipt of
funds, were required to establish administrative grievance procedures to handle complaints from
individuals.
Efforts to Eliminate the EAC
At the time HAVA was being debated in Congress, there was some dispute about whether it
should be a permanent agency. Some supporters contended that a permanent agency was
necessary to ensure the fairness and integrity of federal elections, whereas opponents were
concerned about a permanent federal role in what was historically a responsibility of state and
local governments. The outcome of the debate was that HAVA authorized appropriations for the
EAC for FY2003 through FY2005, but did not contain a sunset provision for the agency. Bills
have been introduced both to reauthorize the EAC and to eliminate it, but none has been enacted.
Since FY2005, the agency has continued to receive funding each year through the appropriations
process, pursuant to its enabling authorization. The agency has not had any commissioners since
December 2011, when the last of the four commissioners resigned. It has been without an
Executive Director since November 2011. Agency staff continue to work on tasks that do not
require input from commissioners, such as testing, certifying, and decertifying voting equipment.
Work that requires a quorum of at least three commissioners includes determining new EAC
policies, holding public hearings, issuing new advisory opinions, accrediting voting system
testing laboratories, and making changes to the voluntary voting system guidelines that the EAC
issues. The President sent nominations to the Senate for the two vacant Democratic seats on the
Congressional Research Service
4

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

EAC on June 7, 2013,6 and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a hearing on
the nominations on December 11, 2013.7 Filling Republican vacancies would require
recommendations to the President from party leaders. The Committee had previously held a
hearing on the same two Democratic nominees and one Republican nominee in 2011, but no
further action occurred in the 112th Congress.8
Table 1. Commissioners of the EAC Since Its Establishment
Commissioners
Years of Service
DeForest B. Soaries, Jr.
2003-2005
Ray Martinez, III
2003-2006
Paul S. DeGregorio
2003-2007
Gracia M. Hillman
2003-2010
Donetta L. Davidson
2005-2011
Rosemary E. Rodriquez
2007-2009
Caroline C. Hunter
2007-2008
Gineen Bresso
2008-2011
Source: Election Assistance Commission, at http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/
former_commissioners.aspx.
One of the agency’s prominent critics has been the National Association of Secretaries of State
(NASS). In most states, the secretary of state is the chief election official. NASS first called for
elimination of the EAC in a 2005 resolution encouraging Congress “not to reauthorize or fund the
EAC after the conclusion of the 2006 federal general election.”9 The association reaffirmed the
resolution at its July 20, 2010, summer conference.10 Local election officials appear to be more
supportive. Three surveys of local election officials taken in 2004, 2006, and 2008 all found that a
majority of officials believed that the creation of the EAC was an advantage than believed it a
disadvantage.11
With respect to legislation regarding the EAC, in the 112th Congress, H.R. 3463 was passed in the
House on December 1, 2011, on a 235-190 vote. The bill called for the termination of the EAC
and would have transferred its functions to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), but it would
not have affected the functions carried out under HAVA by NIST. No further action on the
legislation followed. In the 113th Congress, the Committee on House Administration approved

6 The White House press release may be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/07/presidential-
nominations-sent-senate-0.
7 The hearing may be found at http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeHearings&
ContentRecord_id=1f355e3b-3b70-4f72-95cc-bed1cae1f46e&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-
56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=1983a2a8-4fc3-4062-a50e-7997351c154b
8 The hearing may be found at http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeHearings&
ContentRecord_id=81d15dac-e004-436b-bb54-2ab3aa933417&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-
56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=1983a2a8-4fc3-4062-a50e-7997351c154b&YearDisplay=2011.
9 The resolution may be found at http://electiondefensealliance.org/NASS_resolution_EAC.
10 The resolution may be found at http://www.nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87&Itemid=
528.
11 CRS Report R41667, How Local Election Officials View Election Reform: Results of Three National Surveys, by
Eric A. Fischer and Kevin J. Coleman. The surveys were taken subsequent to the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. On
average half of the officials found the EAC an advantage and one in six a disadvantage. The remainder were neutral.
Congressional Research Service
5

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

H.R. 1994 on a voice vote on June 4, 2013, and reported the bill on December 12, 2013.12 The bill
would eliminate the EAC and transfer certain election administration functions to the FEC. In
addition, two bills that would reauthorize the EAC were introduced: H.R. 12 and H.R. 2017. (For
a more detailed discussion of legislation concerning the EAC, see the “Legislative Action”
section of this report.)
Standards and Requirements
In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-based voting systems. Most
states have now adopted those standards, which were updated in 2002. HAVA codifies the
development and regular updating of those standards, which it calls voluntary guidelines. The
EAC issued draft guidelines for public comment in June 2005. The final version took effect in
December 2007. A new, completely rewritten draft version was first released for public review in
October 2007.13 However, it has yet to be adopted, and no action can be taken on it by the EAC in
the absence of a quorum of commissioners.
HAVA also establishes federal requirements for voting systems, registration, provisional ballots,
and other aspects of election administration. It leaves the methods of implementation to the states
but requires the EAC to issue voluntary guidance.14
Voter Identification
The Help America Vote Act requires that certain voters who had registered by mail present a form
of identification from a list specified in the act. States vary greatly in what identification they
require voters to present, ranging from nothing beyond the federal requirement to photographic
identification for all voters. A number of states enacted laws in recent years to require photo ID to
vote, which resulted in a series of state court challenges and rulings.15 In the 109th Congress, the
House passed legislation to require photo identification and proof of citizenship when voting in
federal elections, but no further action followed. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld an Indiana
statute requiring photo identification for voting.16 The degree of restrictiveness and kinds of
identification accepted have been controversial in some cases, with debate focusing on the degree
to which voter fraud is a significant issue that such ID requirements can address, and the proper
balance between protecting against such fraud and minimizing the risk that otherwise qualified
voters would be disenfranchised by the requirements.
Voter Registration
With the passage of HAVA, Congress attempted to address voter registration problems by
requiring computerization and integration of voter registration systems and placing primary
responsibility at the state level of government. That requirement went into effect in January 2006.
The absence of a clear national standard for the HAVA-required statewide systems has led to

12 The report is available at http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp113:FLD010:@1(hr293):.
13 See CRS Report RS21156, Federal Voting Systems Standards and Guidelines: Congressional Deliberations; and
CRS Report RL33146, Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines: Summary and Analysis of Issues.
14 See CRS Report RL32685, Election Reform: The Help America Vote Act and Issues for Congress.
15 See CRS Report R42806, Photo ID Requirements for Voting: Background and Legal Issues, by Kevin J. Coleman,
Eric A. Fischer, and L. Paige Whitaker.
16 See CRS Report RS22882, The Constitutionality of Requiring Photo Identification for Voting: An Analysis of
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
, by L. Paige Whitaker.
Congressional Research Service
6

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

uncertainties about how states should develop them and even whether states will be able to meet
the requirements. Given the problems some states have had, the increase in new-voter registration
in recent elections, and recent closely contested presidential elections, issues associated with
voter registration systems have become more prominent. Among them are questions about the
integrity and accuracy of the statewide systems, the validity of new registrations, concerns about
various kinds of fraud and abuse, and the impacts of attempts to challenge the validity of voters’
registrations at polling places.
Voting by Members of the Uniformed Services and
Overseas Voters
Members of the uniformed services and U.S. citizens who live abroad are eligible to register and
vote absentee in federal elections under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act (UOCAVA, P.L. 99-410) of 1986. The law is administered by the Secretary of Defense, who
delegates that responsibility to the director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program at the
Department of Defense (DOD). The law was amended following the 2000 Presidential election
because of controversy surrounding ballots received in Florida from uniformed services and
overseas voters. Both the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) and the
Help America Vote Act (P.L. 107-252) included various provisions concerning uniformed
services and overseas voting. Minor revisions to the law were made again in 2005 and 2007. In
the 111th Congress, a major overhaul of UOCAVA was approved when the President signed the
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-84) on October 28. It included an
amendment (S.Amdt. 1764) that contained the provisions of S. 1415, the Military and Overseas
Voter Empowerment Act. Most of the provisions of the MOVE Act were in effect for the 2010
election.17 For a discussion of current legislation related to uniformed services and overseas
voting, see the “Legislative Action” section of this report.
Funding Under the Help America Vote Act
States and territories were eligible to receive $2.3 billion in federal requirements payments under
HAVA, once each jurisdiction had published a “state plan” in the Federal Register, followed by a
45-day public comment period and the filing of a certification with the EAC. The state plans were
published on March 24, 2004. The $2.3 billion included funds appropriated in FY2003 and
FY2004, which could not be allocated until establishment of the EAC and publication of the state
plans. The EAC distributed all of that funding to states by December 2005; no additional funding
for requirements payments was appropriated until FY2008, when $115 million was appropriated.
An additional $100 million was appropriated for FY2009. Payments have been distributed to
states and territories to meet the new HAVA requirements and can be used for general election
administration improvements once the requirements have been met.
HAVA established the following payment and grant programs (see Table 2 for authorized and
appropriated amounts).
Election Administration Improvements. Provided expedited, one-time formula
payments for general election administration improvements to states that applied,

17 See CRS Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues, by
Kevin J. Coleman.
Congressional Research Service
7

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for this and the
replacement program (see next paragraph). Administered by General Services
Administration (GSA). (§101.)
Replacement of Punchcard and Lever Machine Systems. Provided expedited,
one-time formula payments to replace punchcard systems and lever machines in
qualifying states, with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for this
and the improvements program, summarized above. Administered by GSA.
(§102.)
Payments to Meet Election Requirements. Provides annual formula payments to
states to meet the act’s requirements. Requires a 5% match and submission of a
state plan. Administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) created
in the act. (§§251-258.)
Payments to Assure Accessibility. Provides payments to states to make polling
places accessible to persons with disabilities. Requires application. Administered
by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (§§265-265.)
Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems. Provides payments to state
protection and advocacy systems to ensure electoral participation by persons with
disabilities. Requires application. Administered by HHS. (§§291-292.)
Grants for Research and Pilot Programs. Provides grants for research to improve
voting technology (§§271-273) and for pilot programs to test new voting
technology (§§281-283). Requires application. Administered by EAC.
Student Programs. Establishes three programs, one to recruit college students as
pollworkers (§§501-503), one to recruit high school students (§601), and one to
provide grants for the National Student and Parent Mock Election (§§295-296).
Appropriations
FY2003
The FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2, H.Rept. 108-10, P.L. 108-7), signed into
law on February 20, 2003, contained $1.5 billion for election reform programs authorized by
HAVA, including $650 million combined for the election administration improvement and voting
system replacement payments to be administered by GSA (with no specific allocation designated
for either program and a maximum of $500,000 for administrative costs). GSA disbursed all of
these funds to states in June 2003. All states and territories received payments for election
administration improvements, based on a formula using each state’s voting-age population, and
payments to replace punch card and lever voting systems were made to all states that applied.
Also included was $830 million for requirements payments (with a maximum of 0.1% to be paid
to any territory), and $20 million for other programs—$13 million for accessibility payments, $2
million for protection and advocacy programs, $1.5 million each for the college and high school
programs, and $2 million for the EAC. P.L. 108-7 also included a $15 million appropriation to
GSA for one-time payments to certain states that had obtained optical scan or electronic voting
systems prior to the November 2000 election.
FY2004
The President’s budget request for FY2004 included $500 million, one-half the amount
authorized, to fund EAC requirements payments and administration. No funds were specifically
Congressional Research Service
8

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

requested for the other programs described above. The final omnibus appropriations bill, H.R.
2673, signed into law on January 23, 2004 (P.L. 108-199), contained just over $1.5 billion for
election reform, including $1.0 billion for requirements payments, $500 million for election
reform programs, $10 million for accessibility payments, $5 million for protection and advocacy
systems, and $1.2 million for the EAC.
FY2005
For FY2005, the President’s budget request included $65 million for election reform, of which
$40 million was additional funding for requirements payments and $10 million was for EAC
administrative expenses. The request also included $5 million for protection and advocacy
programs and $10 million for accessibility payments. The omnibus appropriations bill for
FY2005, H.R. 4818, was signed into law on December 8, 2004, and included $14 million for the
EAC, of which $2.8 million was to be transferred to NIST, and $15 million for disability voting
access, with $5 million of that amount to apply to protection and advocacy systems. Also
included was $200,000 for the student parent mock election program and $200,000 for the Help
America Vote College Program.
FY2006
The President’s FY2006 budget request included $17.6 million for the EAC (of which $2.8
million is for NIST), as well as $5 million for protection and advocacy programs and $9.9 million
for accessibility payments administered by HHS. The final appropriation (P.L. 109-115) contained
$14.2 million, including $2.8 million for NIST, with $13.5 million and $8.6 million, respectively,
for the HHS programs, and $250,000 “encouraged” to be spent on the Help America Vote College
Program.
FY2007
The FY2007 request included $16.9 million for the EAC ($5 million for NIST), $4.83 million for
protection and advocacy programs, and $10.89 million for accessibility payments administered by
HHS. The 109th Congress adjourned without enacting an appropriations measure, providing
instead temporary funding until February 15, 2007, via a continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 102).
Continued funding through September 30 for FY2007 was subsequently provided via another
continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 20, which was signed by the President on February 15 (P.L. 110-
5). It provided $16.24 million for the EAC, of which $4.95 million was for NIST, $4.83 million
for protection and advocacy programs, and $10.89 million for disability access.
FY2008
The FY2008 request included $15.5 million for the EAC ($3.25 million for NIST), and $4.83
million for protection and advocacy programs and $10.89 million for accessibility payments
administered by HHS. From the start of FY2008 until December 31, 2007, continued funding for
the EAC was provided by a series of continuing resolutions. Ultimately, FY2008 funding was
provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008, enacted on December 16, 2007 (P.L.
110-161). It provided $16.53 million for the EAC, of which $3.25 million is for NIST, and
$200,000 is for the student and parent mock election program. It also provided $115 million for
requirements payments, $10 million for data collection grants to selected states, $4.83 million for
protection and advocacy programs, and $12.37 million for disability access.
Congressional Research Service
9

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

FY2009
The FY2009 request included $16.68 million for the EAC (with $4 million for NIST), as well as
$5.26 million for protection and advocacy programs and $12.15 million for accessibility
payments administered by HHS. The FY2009 appropriations were provided initially in a
continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329), which provided the same funding levels as FY2008, and
then in an omnibus bill (P.L. 111-8) that was passed on March 11, 2009. The omnibus provided
$18 million for the EAC, with $4 million of that to be transferred to NIST, $750,000 for the
College Program, and $300,000 for the high school mock election program. It also provided
funding for requirements payments to the states in the amount of $100 million, with an additional
$5 million for grants for research on voting technology improvements and $1 million for a pilot
program for grants to states and localities to test voting systems before and after elections.
Finally, the omnibus provided $12.2 million for disability access and $5.3 million for protection
and advocacy programs.
FY2010
For FY2010, the President’s budget request included $16.5 million for the Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) and $106 million for election reform payments to states, with $5.26 million
for protection and advocacy programs and $12.15 million for accessibility payments administered
by HHS, as in FY2009. The House and Senate bills (H.R. 3170, S. 1432) would have provided
about the same amount for the EAC. The House bill would have provided nearly the same
amount for election payments, while the Senate bill called for $52 million in election payments.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117) that was signed into law on December
16, 2009, includes $18.0 million for the EAC, of which $3.5 million is to be transferred to NIST,
$750,000 is for the Help America Vote College Program, and $300,000 is for a competitive grant
program to support student and parent mock elections. It also includes $75 million for election
reform programs, with $70 million of that amount for requirements payments, $3 million for
research grants to improve voting technology with respect to disability access, and $2 million for
grants to states and localities for voting system logic and accuracy testing. Also, the omnibus
provided $12.15 million for disability access and $5.26 million for protection and advocacy
programs.
FY2011
For FY2011, the President’s budget request included $16.8 million for the EAC, of which $3.25
million is to be transferred to NIST. It also included $5.26 million for protection and advocacy
programs and $12.15 million for accessibility payments administered by HHS. It included EAC
“election reform grants” among programs to be terminated, and therefore provided no funding for
requirements payments, research and pilot program grants, the college program, and mock
elections. As justification, it pointed out that about $1 billion in EAC payments to states remained
unspent, and claimed that states had accrued $763 million in interest on previously appropriated
payments. The EAC, in contrast, listed accrued interest through 2008 as totaling $279 million.
The cause of this discrepancy is not clear. Funding for federal agencies, including the EAC, was
provided at FY2010 levels according to a series of seven continuing resolutions between
September 30, 2010, and April 15, 2011. On that date, a continuing resolution was enacted to
fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year. H.R. 1473, the Department of Defense
and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, provided $16.3 million for the EAC, of
which $3.25 million is to be transferred to NIST. It provides no new funding for election reform
programs.
Congressional Research Service
10

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

FY2012
For FY2012, the President’s budget request included $13.7 million for the EAC, of which $3.25
million was to be transferred to NIST, resulting in a 23% reduction in operating funds for the
EAC from the FY2011 request and a 28% reduction from the FY2010 appropriation. The budget
request also included no funding for the HAVA-authorized protection and advocacy programs and
accessibility payments administered by HHS. P.L. 112-74 provided $11.5 million for the EAC, of
which $2.75 million was for NIST and $1.25 million was for the Office of the Inspector General.
FY2013
For FY2013, the President’s budget request included $11.5 million for the EAC, of which $2.75
million was to be transferred to NIST and $1.3 million was for the Office of the Inspector
General. Funding was provided under a continuing resolution, P.L. 112-175, until March 2013,
when it was superseded by P.L. 113-6, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2013. Under the President’s sequester order, appropriations under the law were reduced for
all federal agencies, although the specific amounts of the reductions are not known. The House
and Senate reports for FY2014 appropriations for Financial Services and General Government
both note that the FY2013 appropriation for the EAC was $11.5 million before the sequester
reduction.
FY2014
For FY2014, the President’s budget request includes $11.0 million for the EAC, with $2.75
million of that amount to be transferred to NIST for its work on testing guidelines for voting
system hardware and software. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended
eliminating the EAC and provides no funding for the agency; the Senate Committee on
Appropriations would have provided $11.0 million for the EAC, with $2.75 million to be
transferred to NIST. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (H.R. 3547) provides $10.0
million for the EAC, including $1.9 million for NIST.
Congressional Research Service
11


Table 2. Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Funding
($ millions)



Appropriations
HAVA
Budget Item
Auth.a
2003
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2012
2013
2014 Total
Payments to States
Election Administration
325











Improvement
650c
650
Punchcard/Lever Machine
325
Replacement











HAVA
Requirements
3,000 830
1,498

115
100
70

2,613
One-Time Paymentd
15
15
Total Paymentse
3,650
1,495
1,498

115
100
70

3,278
Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Generalf
30.00
2.00 2.00 10.71 11.29 11.29 23.08g 14.00 13.41 13.02
7.50
7.50
8.10 122.20
NIST


2.78 2.77 4.95 3.25 4.00 3.50 3.24 2.75
2.75 1.90 31.89
Col ege Program
5.00h 1.50
0.75
0.20
0.00i 0.80
0.75 n/a n/a
n/a
4.00
High School Program
5.00h 1.50
0.75

2.25
Mock Election
0.20h
0.20 0.20
0.20 0.30 0.30 n/a
n/a
n/a
1.20
Research
20.00
5.00
3.00

5.00
Pilot
Programs
10.00
1.00
2.00

1.00
Inspector
General

1.25 1.25 2.50
Total EAC
70.20
16.27 11.50 11.50 10.00
175.04
5.00 3.70 13.88 14.06 16.24 26.53 25.10 22.96

Health and Human Services (HHS)
Accessibility
100.00 13.00 10.00 10.00 10.90 10.90 12.40 12.20 12.15 n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a 91.55
CRS-12





Appropriations
HAVA
Budget Item
Auth.a
2003
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2012
2013
2014 Total
Protection and Advocacy
40.00h 2.00 5.00 4.96 4.83 4.83 5.35 5.30 5.26 n/a
5.24
n/a
n/a 37.52
Total
HHS
140.00 15.00 15.00 14.96 15.73 15.73 17.75
17.50
17.41
n/a n/a n/a n/a
129.08
Total
HAVA
3,860 1,515
1,517 29 30 32 159 143 110 16 15
10 10 3,582
Source: CRS, from HAVA and relevant appropriations acts.
Notes: All figures are in millions of current (nominal) dollars of budget authority as authorized or appropriated and are rounded where necessary. Figures for FY2005
and FY2006 include rescissions. n/a means that specific information was not available for that fiscal year. The EAC was authorized in HAVA for FY2003-FY2005 and has
been reauthorized through the appropriations process on a year-to-year basis since then.
a. Authorization amounts in HAVA.
b. Amounts do not include sequester reductions (see text).
c. Appropriated amount did not specify the distribution of funds between the two budget items.
d. For payments to states that had obtained optical scan or DRE voting systems prior to the November 2000 election. The funds were appropriated in the General
Government and Appropriations Act of 2003, whereas payments to states authorized under HAVA were appropriated in the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act of
2003; both acts were included as divisions of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations act, P.L. 108-7.
e. The total payment appropriated includes the one-time payment in FY2003 and is therefore $15 million greater than the total appropriated from funds authorized by
HAVA. See note c.
f.
Figures in this row are funds remaining in EAC line items after amounts for other specific items (such as NIST) are subtracted.
g. This includes $10 million for grants of $2 million each to five states to improve the collection of election data.
h. Listed amounts plus sums necessary for subsequent years beyond the initial authorization period.
i.
Congress appropriated no funds for this in FY2006 but “encouraged” the EAC to spend $250,000 on it.

CRS-13

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

Legislative Action
112th Congress
Three bills were introduced in the 112th Congress to eliminate the EAC. The EAC was authorized
for FY2003-FY2005. H.R. 235 would have terminated the EAC and its authority to make
requirements payments to the states and would have rescinded unobligated requirements
payments. No amounts could have been expended after enactment, except to terminate ongoing
projects and activities that used requirements payments or those necessary to terminate
commission activities and projects. H.R. 672 would have terminated the EAC, transferred to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology the functions for voting system testing and
certification, and transferred various other functions of the agency to the Federal Election
Commission. (An amendment to eliminate the EAC was offered, but not adopted, in the 111th
Congress: S.Amdt. 4764 to the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III (H.R. 4853)).
The Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on House Administration held a hearing on
April 14, 2011 on H.R. 672. The full committee marked up the bill on May 25, when it approved
an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and passed the bill on a voice vote. The bill was
reported on June 2 (H.Rept. 112-100) and scheduled for a floor vote. The House took up H.R. 672
on June 21 under suspension of the rules. On June 22, a vote on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill failed on a strict party-line vote of 235 to 187, with nine not voting. The measure
needed a two-thirds majority for passage. (Also see discussion of H.R. 3463 below.)
H.R. 1937 was introduced on May 23. In contrast to H.R. 235 and H.R. 672, it would have
extended authorization for the EAC through FY2016 and provided the EAC a status similar to
that of the FEC with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act. It would also have required states to
participate in the election-administration surveys conducted by the EAC after every federal
election, and required a series of surveys on access to polling places by voters with disabilities. It
would have created an EAC revolving fund to make payments to accredited laboratories for
testing of voting systems, and would have made additional modifications to the EAC’s
certification program. It would also have required the EAC to perform a study on ways to reduce
election administration costs, and the Government Accountability Office to analyze ways of
improving EAC administrative operations.
Representative Harper introduced H.R. 3463 on November 17, 2011, a nearly identical bill to
H.R. 672, that would have eliminated the EAC, but which also included a provision to terminate
taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns. The bill was referred to the Committee on
House Administration and the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill was taken up by the
House on December 1 under a closed rule and passed on a 235 to 190 vote.
113th Congress
In the 113th Congress, two bills have been introduced to eliminate the EAC and two have been
introduced to reauthorize the agency. Representative Harper introduced both bills to eliminate the
EAC: H.R. 260 (January 15, 2013) and H.R. 1994 (May 15, 2013). H.R. 260 would terminate the
program that provides taxpayer financing of presidential elections, terminate the EAC and its
Standards Board and Board of Advisors, transfer election administration functions to the FEC,
and establish a Guidelines Review Board to review voluntary voting system guidelines. H.R.
1994 would terminate the EAC, its Standards Board, and Board of Advisors, and transfer its
election administration functions to the FEC; it was passed by the committee on a voice vote on
Congressional Research Service
14

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

June 4, 2013. H.R. 12 and H.R. 2017 would reauthorize the EAC for FY2013-FY2017 and
FY2014-FY2018, respectively.
On election administration issues, H.R. 12 and S. 123, which are identical, include numerous
provisions that would
• require online and same day voter registration;
• promote access to voter registration and voting for the disabled;
• amend the criminal code to include prohibitions of certain activities that interfere
with voting;
• prohibit states from denying the vote because of a criminal conviction unless the
individual is serving a sentence for a felony conviction;
• amend HAVA to require a permanent paper record for voting systems;
• require the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to make grants to
study, test, and develop voting equipment to enhance accessibility of paper ballot
voting for the disabled, voters with limited English proficiency, and those with
difficulties in literacy;
• prescribe requirements for poll tapes, early and absentee ballots, provisional
ballots;
• prescribe requirements and prohibitions for laboratories testing voting system
hardware and software;
• require the Director of the NSF to make grants for research on election-dedicated
voting system software;
• require each state to conduct random precinct audits of voter-verified paper
ballots except where the winning candidate had no opponent or received 80% or
more of the vote;
• require the Election Auditor of a state to submit audit results to the EAC for
publication as soon as practicable;
• prohibit certification of election results until audits are complete;
• amend HAVA to include requirements for counting provisional ballots and to
require each state to allow early voting and facilitate vote by mail;
• amend the Servicemembers Relief Act to guarantee voting residency to family
members of absent military personnel;
• amend UOCAVA with respect to reports on pre-election ballot availability and
transmission of ballots, to revise the 45-day ballot transmission rule, and to
permit the use of a single absentee ballot application for subsequent elections;
• provide leave for a federal employee to serve as a poll worker;
• direct the EAC to make grants for state poll worker recruitment and training and
to develop materials for a model poll worker training program;
• amend HAVA to provide for an option to file a complaint with the Attorney
General for a violation of the law’s requirements or pursue a private right of
action for enforcement;
• amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit a chief state
election official from actively participating in a federal political campaign unless
he, she, or a family member is a candidate;
Congressional Research Service
15

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

• amend the National Voter Registration Act to treat universities as voter
registration agencies;
• amend HAVA to establish notification requirements for voters affected by polling
place changes;
• direct the Attorney General to establish a state-based system to respond to
questions and complaints from voter registrants and voters, to establish a toll-free
telephone service connected to the response system, and to appoint a Voter
Hotline Task Force;
• apply the requirements of National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and HAVA to
the Northern Mariana Islands; and
• amend HAVA to reauthorize the EAC and repeal its exemption from certain
government contracting requirements.
Other bills would aim to reduce long voter lines on Election Day, such as H.R. 50, H.R. 289, and
S. 58.
H.R. 50 would require each state to implement an early voting period; provide for a
sufficient number of voting systems, poll workers, and other resources to ensure fair and
equitable waiting times for all voters; develop a contingency plan to provide additional
resources at any polling place with a wait time that exceeds one hour; and require reports
on the impact of the act’s provisions.
H.R. 97 and S. 85 (identical) would direct the Attorney General to establish a grants
program to enable states to invest in practices and technology to expedite polling place
voting and simplify voter registration and to require grantees to establish performance
measures and targets.
H.R. 289 would require each state to implement online voter registration, authorize
initiatives to promote registration such as same day registration, and set forth
requirements for maintenance, privacy, and security of registration lists; amend HAVA to
require standards for minimum numbers of voting systems, poll workers, and resources
for each voting site; require each state to submit a written plan to the EAC describing
how it will ensure an equitable waiting time for all voters and a waiting time of less than
an hour at any single polling place; establish a remedial state plan to provide for effective
allocation of election resources where the EAC determines that a substantial number of
voters waited more than 90 minutes to vote in a federal election; require emergency paper
ballots in the event of unreasonable voting delays; and require early voting according to
standards established by the EAC.
S. 58 would amend HAVA to require standards for minimum numbers of voting
systems, poll workers, and resources for each voting site; would direct the Attorney
General, in coordination with the EAC, to issue standards for the distribution of voting
systems, workers, and resources to voting sites, taking in the number of disabled voters
and those with limited English proficiency; would require that the standards provide for
an equal waiting time for all voters, to the extent possible, and prevent a waiting time of
over one hour at any polling place; and would require jurisdictions where a substantial
number of voters waited more than 90 minutes to vote in a federal election to comply
with a remedial plan to minimize waiting times.
Other election administration bills would require changes to the voting process regarding voter
registration, photo identification, mail voting, and other areas as follows:
H.R. 280 would require states that register voters to make available same-day voter
registration on Election Day and during early voting.
Congressional Research Service
16

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

H.R. 281 would amend HAVA to prohibit a state or local election official from requiring
a photo identification to vote or to require that a voter who lacks a photo ID to cast a
provisional ballot and to prohibit such officials from requiring a photo ID as a condition
of registering to vote in an election for federal office.
H.R. 376 would amend HAVA to prohibit a state from imposing additional conditions or
requirements on a voter’s eligibility to cast a vote in federal elections by mail, except
with respect to deadlines for requesting and returning the ballot.
H.R. 653 would direct the EAC to carry out a pilot program to provide funds to local
education agencies, in consultation with local election officials, for initiatives to provide
12th graders with voter registration information.
H.R. 936 would amend HAVA to prohibit a state from providing voters in federal
elections with the opportunity to indicate the selection of a political party as a
representation of the selection of an individual candidate, thereby prohibiting straight-
party voting.
H.R. 1018 would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to specifically apply it to
American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands;
amend the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) to cover these territories and Puerto
Rico; amend HAVA to cover the Northern Mariana Islands; and apply to such
jurisdictions criminal penalties relating to voter intimidation, interference by government
employees, and voting by aliens.
H.R. 1280 would amend NVRA to increase the penalties for criminal activities involving
intimidation or fraud in connection with voter registration and voting, prohibit an
individual involved in such activities from voting in future federal elections, and require
the use of tagging and tracking services for voter registration cards and absentee ballots.
H.R. 1641 would amend the Revised Statutes to establish the first Saturday and Sunday
after the first Friday in November as Election Day for federal elections.
S. 302 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make voting in a federal
election by an alien unlawfully in the U.S. an aggravated felony and deportable offense.
Legislation that would institute changes for uniformed services and overseas citizen voting
includes H.R. 12 and S. 123 (the relevant provisions concern amending the Servicemembers
Relief Act and UOCAVA and are described above), H.R. 1655, H.R. 2168, H.R. 3576, and S.
1728. H.R. 1655 would prohibit a state from certifying general election results until ballots from
uniformed services voters had been counted. H.R. 2168 would require notification of the
appropriate election official of a change of address for a service member who is deployed on
active duty for more than 30 days or who has been redeployed, would repeal the waiver from the
45-day ballot availability deadline, would require express delivery for a failure to meet the
deadline, would require establishing procedures to process military and overseas ballots in the
event of a major disaster, and would prohibit a state from accepting a voter registration and
absentee ballot application from an overseas voter because of early submission.
Finally, H.R. 3576 and S. 1728 are identical and would
• require states to submit a pre-election report on whether absentee ballots were
sent by the 45-day deadline before an election;
• repeal the waiver from the 45-day ballot availability deadline, would require
express delivery for a failure to meet the deadline;
• permit the use of a single absentee ballot application for subsequent elections;
• prohibit a state from accepting a voter registration and absentee ballot application
from an overseas voter because of early submission;
Congressional Research Service
17

The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Issues

• apply UOCAVA to the Northern Mariana Islands;
• require a biennial report on the performance of the Federal Voting Assistance
Program, to be reviewed by the Comptroller General with a report to the
oversight committees for election years 2014 through 2020;
• require providing active assistance to active duty members of the armed forces
through an online system to facilitate voter registration, updating the voter
registration record, and requesting an absentee ballot;
• repeal the voting demonstration project authorized by the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2002; and
• extend a guarantee of residency to family members of absent military personnel.
Concluding Observations
Several of the issues discussed herein are likely to continue to be relevant with respect to HAVA,
particularly the status of the EAC and funding for programs to support election administration
activities in the states. No funds for election administration programs have been provided to the
states since FY2010; future appropriations seem unlikely until all previously appropriated HAVA
funds have been expended. The EAC has not had any commissioners since 2011 and while
agency work continues, tasks that require commissioner approval, such as adopting revisions to
HAVA guidance and voting system guidelines, holding public hearings, and issuing new advisory
opinions, cannot be performed. Legislation to either eliminate or reauthorize the EAC has been
introduced in the past two Congresses. The EAC has been criticized by some for exceeding its
authority, or for being slow, ineffectual, or even unnecessary. Others believe that the agency is a
necessary federal resource for improving election administration and has been hampered by
budgetary constraints and difficulties in the nomination process for commissioners.


Author Contact Information

Kevin J. Coleman
Eric A. Fischer
Analyst in Elections
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
kcoleman@crs.loc.gov, 7-7878
efischer@crs.loc.gov, 7-7071


Congressional Research Service
18