Updated June 30, 2020
Election Security: States’ Spending of FY2018 and FY2020
HAVA Payments
State and local systems have been targeted as part of efforts
highlighted by the FY2018 and FY2020 explanatory
to interfere with U.S. elections, and Congress has
statements. Some of the proposed spending included
responded in part with funding. The Consolidated
transitioning to voting systems that produce a voter-
Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141) provided $380
verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT), for example, or
million for payments to the 50 states, the District of
researching or conducting post-election audits. Many of the
Columbia (DC), American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and
spending plans also included training-related spending,
the U.S. Virgin Islands authorized under the Help America
such as hiring election security trainers or running tabletop
Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145), and
exercises that simulate real-world security incidents, or
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93)
spending on cybersecurity upgrades or best practices, such
included $425 million for HAVA payments to those
as conducting penetration tests of state election s ystems or
jurisdictions and the Commonwealth of the Northern
acquiring tools to protect those systems against distributed
Mariana Islands.
denial-of-service (DDoS) or ransomware attacks.
This In Focus offers an overview of spending of the
Other spending proposals included plans to fund other types
FY2018 and FY2020 HAVA payments to date. It starts by
of election security measures, such as improvements to the
summarizing how funding recipients initially proposed
physical security of election board facilities or grants to
using the funds, how the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
county election officials to address physical vulnerabilities.
has affected some of those plans, and how much of the
Some states also proposed spending on activities that may
funding recipients have reported spending to date. It then
not be focused specifically on securing elections, such as
introduces some issues related to the availability of funds
conducting general voter outreach, improving polling place
and the timing of spending and reporting.
accessibility, or implementing automatic or online voter
registration policies.
Information about spending of the FY2018 and FY2020
HAVA payments may be relevant both to Members who
Adjustments in Response to COVID-19
are interested in oversight of the FY2018 and FY2020
Some states have adjusted or considered adjusting their
funds and to Members who are considering further funding
spending plans in response to COVID-19. The onset of the
for similar purposes. It might help inform decisions about
COVID-19 pandemic introduced challenges for the
whether to provide additional funding, for example, and, if
administration of elections in the 2020 election cycle, such
so, whether or how to specify conditions for its us e.
as higher demand for mail voting and increased difficulty
recruiting poll workers for in-person voting.
Initial Spending Plans
Funding for the FY2018 and FY2020 payments was
Efforts to address such challenges can come with additional
appropriated under provisions of HAVA that authorized a
costs. Election officials may have to purchase new
program to provide payments for general improvements to
equipment to process the increased volume of mail ballots,
the administration of federal elections (52 U.S.C. §§20901,
for example, or upgrade their databases to enable voters to
20903-20904). The explanatory statements accompanying
request ballots online, hire more temporary workers to
the FY2018 and FY2020 spending bills highlighted five
process mail ballots and ballot requests, buy cleaning
specific election security-related uses to which recipients
supplies and protective equipment for polling places, or
may apply the funds:
offer additional poll worker training and voter education.
 replacing paperless voting systems;
Congress provided $400 million specifically for COVID-
 implementing post-election audits;
19-related election expenses in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
 updating election-related computer systems to address
and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136), but
cyber vulnerabilities;
the FY2018 and FY2020 HAVA payments can also be
 providing election officials with cybersecurity training;
applied to some of the new costs. According to guidance
and
from the EAC, the FY2018 and FY2020 HAVA funds —as
 instituting election cybersecurity best practices.
well as some other funds previously appropriated under
HAVA—can be used to cover certain elections expenses
Funding recipients were asked to submit plans for use of the
incurred as a result of the pandemic.
payments to the agency charged with administering the
funds, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Official data on updates to initial spending plans or the
Much of the planned spending they reported in those initial
specifics of how funds have been spent since the pandemic
submissions was on the specific election security measures
began do not appear to be publicly available at this time, so
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Election Security: States’ Spending of FY2018 and FY2020 HAVA Payments
it is unclear exactly how much of the funding provided for
interest to Members as they assess the need for further
FY2018 and FY2020 HAVA payments has been applied to
funding, evaluate pending funding proposals, or develop
COVID-19-related costs. However, at least some states
new proposals.
reportedly have redirected or planned to redirect some of
their funds. For example, according to media reports, at
Availability of Funds to Address Interference
least one state has used FY2018 HAVA funds to purchase
Congress appropriated the funding for the FY2018 and
polling place cleaning supplies, and others planned to use
FY2020 HAVA payments following attempts to interfere
funds to help meet increased demand for mail voting.
with the 2016 elections, and recipients initially planned to
use most of the funding to address related threats. With the
Reported Spending
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, some
After initially indicating that FY2018 and FY2020 HAVA
recipients have reportedly chosen to apply some of their
payments had to be spent within five years, the EAC issued
funds to COVID-19-related costs.
updated guidance that there is no deadline by which
One issue of potential interest to Congress might be how
recipients must spend the funds. Recipients are, however,
much of the funding provided for FY2018 and FY2020
expected to report on their spending. They are required to
HAVA payments has been redirected to COVID-19
file Federal Financial Reports for the payments each fiscal
preparedness and response and whether the remaining
year, and the EAC has asked them to submit unofficial
funding is sufficient to meet previously identified election
interim reports on a voluntary basis.
interference-related needs.
Official spending data for the FY2020 HAVA payments
Timing of Spending
were not available as of this writing because the FY2020
Some recipients reported using all of their FY2018 HAVA
reporting deadline had not yet passed. However, FY2018
funds by the end of FY2018, but most waited to spend some
and FY2019 data were available for the FY2018 payments.
or all of their shares. The spending plans they submitted to
According to Federal Financial Reports released by the
the EAC suggest at least three factors that may have
EAC, recipients spent approximately $90 million of the
influenced the timing of later spending: (1) some of the
$380 million appropriated for the FY2018 HAVA payments
costs associated with securing elections are ongoing, and
between the time funds became available on April 17, 2018,
some recipients planned to apply FY2018 HAVA funds to
and the end of FY2019 on September 30, 2019.
them in multiple fiscal years; (2) prior conditions, such as
state legislative approval, had to be met before recipients
Some recipients also reported spending from other funds,
could engage in some of their planned spending; and (3)
such as state matching funds or interest generated by
some proposed spending involved processes like
federal funds deposited in interest-bearing accounts, on
procurement that can take months or years to complete.
their Federal Financial Reports. The 50 states, DC, and
Puerto Rico are each required to provide a 5% match for the
Accounts of why recipients spend when they do might help
FY2018 HAVA funds and a 20% match for the FY2020
inform assessments of funding needs and, if further funding
payments. Twenty-one states reported supplying and
is proposed, decisions about how to structure such funding.
spending the full 5% match for the FY2018 funds by the
They might help Members identify trade-offs involved in
end of FY2019.
providing funding on a one-time versus an ongoing basis,
for example, and determine whether or how to set
Unofficial interim reports provided to CRS by the EAC,
conditions on how funding is used.
which have not been independently verified by CRS and
may include spending of both federal appropriations and
Timing of Reporting
other funds such as interest, indicate that recipients had
Federal Financial Reports for the FY2018 and FY2020
spent about $136 million in connection with the FY2018
HAVA payments are due once per fiscal year in December
HAVA payments as of March 31, 2020.
of the corresponding calendar year. The most recent official
spending data available to Members as they consider
Potential Considerations for Congress
appropriations may, therefore, be for a period that ended a
Proposals have been offered in the 116th Congress to
number of months earlier.
authorize or appropriate more election administration-
related funding for states, territories, and DC. For example,
Congress has set different reporting schedules for some
the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency
other payments, such as the elections-related payments
Solutions (HEROES) Act (H.R. 6800) would provide $3.6
funded by the CARES Act. Members might consider
billion for elections -related contingency planning,
whether they would similarly want official reporting on any
preparation, and resilience and authorize grants to help
future elections-related payments to be more frequent or
states, territories, and DC conduct risk-limiting audits and
closer to elections. If so, they might consider how to
meet proposed new federal requirements for election
balance that oversight need against other considerations,
administration. Other bills would authorize grant programs
such as concerns some have voiced about possible conflicts
for general election security-related purposes or specific
between compliance with the CARES Act’s reporting
security measures like replacing paperless voting systems
requirements and other election administration duties.
or conducting post-election audits.
Karen L. Shanton, Analyst in American National
The planned and reported spending of the FY2018 and
Government
FY2020 HAVA funds suggests some issues that may be of
IF11356
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Election Security: States’ Spending of FY2018 and FY2020 HAVA Payments


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 permissio n of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11356 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED

---