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

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

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

link to page 46 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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

Congressional Research Service

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

650.0a
Lever and punch card voting system replacement grant

program
Voting system replacement reimbursement grant program
15.0

Requirements payments program
830.0
1500.0b

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

5.0
3.0

Voting technology pilot program grant program

1.0
2.0

Mock elections grant program

0.2
0.2

0.2
0.3
0.3

Help America Vote Col ege Programe
1.5
0.8
0.2
f

0.8
0.8
0.8

Election data col ection grant program

10.0

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

link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 8 link to page 16
d. Appropriations for FY2007 and FY2011 for the HAVA grant programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv ices (HHS) were included in
general budget authority for the Administration for Children and Families’ 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 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.
e. The amounts listed here are for the Help America Vote Col ege Program as a whole. Grant-making is one 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).
f.
The joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2006 appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-307; P.L. 109-115) stated that the conferees encouraged the EAC to
apply $250,000 of the funding it received for Salaries and Expenses to the Help America Vote Col ege Program.

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

380.0

825.0b
Pol ing place accessibility grant program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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

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

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

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

award amounts

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

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

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

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

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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

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

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

As described in the “General Improvements Grant Program” section of this report, Congress
responded to those chal enges, in part, by providing $380 mil ion for HAVA grant funds for
FY2018, $425 mil ion for FY2020 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and $400
mil ion for FY2020 in the CARES Act. Congress has also considered further HAVA grant funding
for FY2020 and FY2021. The House passed a version of the Heroes Act (H.R. 6800; passed 208-
199) that would make $3.6 bil ion available for FY2020 for elections contingency planning,
preparation, and resilience, for example, and an FY2021 consolidated appropriations bil (H.R.
7617; passed 217-197) that included $500 mil ion for replacing direct-recording electronic (DRE)
voting machines and other elections-related purposes.33
Some Members have also proposed legislation to establish new elections grant programs for
states or localities. Some of those proposals, like some of the grant programs in the 116th
Congress’s Securing America’s Federal Elections (SAFE) Act (H.R. 2722; S. 2053; S. 2238) and
Emergency Assistance for Safe Elections (EASE) Act (H.R. 7905), are directed specifical y to
election interference- or COVID-19-related chal enges. Others would address other election
administration issues. The Ranked Choice Voting Act (H.R. 4464) would authorize a grant
program to help states implement ranked choice voting, for example, and the Voter Empowerment
Act of 2019 (H.R. 1275/S. 549) would, among other purposes, establish a grant program to help
states meet proposed voter registration requirements. For more on legislation related to elections
grant programs in the 116th Congress, see Appendix A.34
The increased prominence of state and local elections grant programs since the 2016 election
cycle might suggest questions about what role, if any, such programs could play in future federal
election administration policy. The following subsections introduce some issues that may be of
interest to Members who are considering whether or how to propose a role for similar grant
programs and to Members who are weighing whether to support, oppose, or amend such
proposals.
Role of Federal Grant Programs
A central debate in election administration is over the proper role of the federal government.
Some say that Congress should facilitate or mandate changes in the way elections are conducted
in order to advance certain objectives, such as ensuring that al eligible voters have access to the
bal ot or protecting the integrity of the electoral process.35 Others see a more limited role for the
federal government, suggesting that the state and local officials who are primarily responsible for
administering elections are best positioned to identify and implement the right election
administration policies for their jurisdictions.36
That debate has carried over to some discussions of state and local elections grant programs.
Federalism considerations have informed some deliberations about how to structure election
administration-related grant programs for states and localities (see the “Options for Legislative
Proposals” section of this report for selected examples). Such considerations have also prompted
some to question whether to authorize or fund such grant programs at al . Some have opposed

33 T he House also passed another version of the Heroes Act (H.R. 8406) on October 1, 2020, as an amendment to the
Senate amendment to H.R. 925 (passed 214-207).
34 Some of the proposals in this more general category have also been introduced in previous Congresses. T he Voter
Empowerment Act, for example, has been introduced in similar form in each Congress since the 112 th.
35 See, for example, Brennan Center for Justice, “ Voting Reform,” at https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-
every-american-can-vote/voting-reform.
36 See, for example, Hans von Spakovsky, “Leave Electio ns up to the States,” USA Today, November 26, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
15

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

elections grant programs for states or localities on the grounds either that such programs would
constitute federal overreach in and of themselves or that they could lead to such overreach.37
In addition to such general objections, some have voiced opposition to individual proposals to
authorize or fund elections grant programs on more specific grounds. They have noted that some
states stil have funding remaining from previous appropriations for the grant program a given
appropriations bil would fund, for example, or suggested that Congress does not yet have enough
information to determine whether further funding for the program is warranted.38 Some Members
might also disagree with the objectives of a proposed grant program or think that other
congressional tools, such as federal requirements or nonfinancial assistance from federal
agencies, would be better equipped to achieve them.
Given the nature of its subject, this report tends to focus on how election administration-related
grant programs for states and localities have played or might play a role in federal election
administration policy. As the above discussion suggests, however, a prior question in any given
case might be whether they should play such a role. Either as a general principle or in specific
instances, Congress might choose not to authorize election administration-related grant programs
for states and localities or not to provide funding for them.
Options for Legislative Proposals
The “Role of Federal Grant Programs” section of this report describes some cases in which
Members might oppose proposals to authorize or fund election administration-related grant
programs for states or localities. There are also some circumstances in which Members might
favor such proposals. State or local elections grant programs might appeal to Members who are
hesitant to set federal requirements for election administration, for example, or who want to
engage with aspects of election administration for which Congress’s authority to set requirements
is limited.39 Grant programs might also appeal to Members who believe that funding is the best
way to achieve certain election administration objectives or that states and localities either cannot
or should not be solely responsible for financing certain aspects of election administration.
Most of the funding Congress has made available to states and localities for election
administration-related purposes to date has been appropriated under grant programs authorized by
HAVA. Members who are interested in proposing further elections grant funding for states or
localities might consider whether to continue appropriating funding under existing grant
programs or to establish new grant programs that are tailored more specifical y to current needs.40
In either case, Members might also consider exactly how to structure the grant programs. Choices
about how grant programs are structured—whether they are made in authorizing legislation like
HAVA or substantive provisions of appropriations acts like Division B of the CARES Act—can
help determine how effective the programs are at achieving their intended purposes and what, if
any, unintended consequences they might have. Information about the options available for

37 See, for example, Maggie Miller, “Election Security Funds Caught in Crosshairs of Spending Debate,” The Hill,
September 17, 2019.
38 See, for example, Maggie Miller, “New Federal Funds for Election Security Garner Mixed Reactions on Capitol
Hill,” The Hill, December 17, 2019.
39 For more on Congress’s authority to set requirements for election administration, see CRS Report RL30747,
Congressional Authority to Direct How States Adm inister Elections, by Kenneth R. T homas.
40 For more on the relationship between establishing federal programs and appropriating funding for them, see CRS
Report R42098, Authorization of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues, coordinated by Edward C. Liu; CRS
Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, coordinated by James V. Saturno; and
CRS Report RS20371, Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process, by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 43 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

structuring grant programs might, therefore, be of interest both to Members who are considering
proposing new grant programs or funding and to Members who are weighing whether to support,
oppose, or amend such proposals.
Previous legislative proposals suggest some possible questions about how to structure election
administration-related grant programs for states and localities, some options available for
answering them, and some of the considerations that have informed choices among such options
in the past. The following subsections introduce some of those questions, options, and
considerations (for examples of how the options have been implemented in previous legislative
proposals, see Appendix B). The discussion in these subsections is intended to be il ustrative
rather than to provide a comprehensive accounting of al of the factors that might inform choices
about elections grant programs. Congressional clients may contact CRS for more detailed
discussion of considerations that might be relevant to specific legislative proposals.41
Uses of Funds
 Are grant funds limited to use for specific activities or available for more general
purposes?
 Are grant funds intended to finance voluntary activities or help meet federal
requirements?
 Are any uses of grant funds prohibited or prioritized?
State and local officials who are open to receiving federal elections grant funding have tended to
express a preference for funding with minimal restrictions.42 The National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS) adopted a resolution in February 2019, for example, that urged
Congress not to set further conditions on HAVA funds than are laid out in the act.43 Some election
officials have also advocated for funding flexibility in congressional testimony, arguing against
limiting the purposes for which federal funding may be used or attaching funding to federal
requirements.44
As the officials primarily responsible for administering elections, state and local officials might
have particular insight into the election administration problems that are most pressing in their
jurisdictions and the proposed solutions to those problems that are most likely to be effective.
State and local officials wil likely also play a prominent role in implementing—and helping

41 Congress has also used or proposed using funding to engage with election administration in ways other than
authorizing or funding grant programs for states or localities. For example, Congress has directed federal agencies to
use some of their funding to support state and local election administration work and authorized more general grant
programs that have been used to fund elections-related projects. Members have also introduced bills that would
condition eligibility for certain federal funding on adopting or rejecting election administration po licies. Such uses of
funding are outside the scope of this report.
42 State and local officials may not always want or need federal elections funding. In congressional testimony on
preparations for the 2020 general election, for example, one state official indicated that, barring certain eventualities,
his state did not need further financial assistance from the federal government to conduct its 2020 elections. U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 2020 General Election Preparations, hearing, 116th Cong.,
2nd sess., July 22, 2020.
43 National Association of Secretaries of State, NASS Resolution on Principles for Federal Assistance in Funding of
Elections, February 4, 2019, at https://www.nass.org/node/1557.
44 See, for example, Written Statement of R. Kyle Ardoin in U.S. Congress, House Committee on House
Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, The Im pact of COVID-19 on Voting Rights and Election Adm inistration:
Ensuring Safe and Fair Elections, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., June 11, 2020, p. 2; and Statement from the
Honorable T re Hargett, T ennessee Secretary of State, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, 2020 General Election Preparations, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 22, 2020, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
17

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

determine the success of—any federal funding initiatives. Such considerations might lead
Members to favor general-purpose grant programs that are intended to help fund voluntary rather
than mandatory activities.
Members might choose to limit use of grant funds to more specific purposes or attach funding to
federal requirements, on the other hand, if they have a particular solution to an election
administration problem in mind or if they want to encourage consistency in the way states
approach a given aspect of election administration. For example, HAVA’s lever and punch card
voting system replacement grant program aimed to solve the reliability problems with those
voting systems specifical y by replacing the systems. The act’s requirements payments program
was attached to requirements to help standardize certain practices, such as having a centralized
statewide voter registration list, across states.45
The above discussion focuses on two options available to Congress: (1) limiting use of grant
funds to specific activities, and (2) making funds available for more general purposes. There are
also some other alternatives that might appeal to Members who are interested in a middle ground
between those options. One possible intermediate approach, which Congress used with HAVA’s
P&A system grant program, is to make grant funds broadly available for general purposes but
prohibit some specific uses of the funds. Another, which the House has explored in its versions of
the FY2020 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bil (H.R. 3351) and an
FY2021 consolidated appropriations bil (H.R. 7617), is to prioritize use of the funds for a
particular activity, such as replacing DRE voting machines, but permit them to be used for more
general purposes under certain conditions.
Amount of Funding
 Is the total amount of federal funding for the grant program a fixed amount, or is
it based on the costs of conducting the funded activities?
 Are grant recipients required to contribute to funding grant activities?
 How is funding al ocated to grant recipients?
 Are eligible recipients guaranteed minimum—or subject to maximum—award
amounts?
Congress might use grant programs either to help states or localities perform a particular activity
or to encourage them to do so. Whether a given grant program is intended to facilitate elections
activities or incentivize them might affect how much funding Congress chooses to make available
for the program. If the objective of a given grant program is to enable states to perform an
activity, for example, the amount of funding Congress chooses to provide for the program might
be based on the actual costs of conducting the activity.
Congress has sometimes also required grant recipients to contribute some of the total funding for
grant activities, such as by providing matching funds. The 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico were

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

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

required to match 5% of the federal funding they received in FY2018 HAVA funds, for example,
and 20% of the funding they received in FY2020 and CARES Act funds.46
Requiring grant recipients to contribute to funding grant activities might have some advantages.
For one thing, it increases the total amount of funding available for grant activities without further
increasing federal investment. Some have also suggested that, by requiring potential grantees to
make a case to state or local authorities for providing matching funds, match requirements might
encourage grant recipients to think more carefully about how to deploy grant funds.47
Match requirements may also come with trade-offs, however. For example, some have suggested
that requiring a 20% match for CARES Act HAVA funds at a time when there were other pressing
demands on state budgets and some state legislatures had suspended their sessions due to
COVID-19 made it difficult for some states to access the funds.48 States with more limited
resources may also find it more chal enging to meet match requirements in general than better-
resourced states.
A proposal was offered, during the HAVA debate, to address this last trade-off by linking the
percentage of federal funding states were required to match to their level of financial need.49 That
proposal was not adopted, but variations among states have factored into other decisions about
elections grant programs. For example, Congress chose to use nondiscretionary formulas to
al ocate some HAVA funds due to concerns that using competitive grant processes would
disadvantage states with more limited grant-writing resources.50 The formulas Congress set out in
HAVA were also structured to reflect variations among states. Al ocations of lever and punch card
voting system replacement grant funds varied with the number of precincts that used such
systems in the November 2000 general election, for example, and al ocations of general
improvements funds and requirements payments vary by voting-age population.
Recipients of Funding
 Is grant funding available—directly or indirectly—to local officials?

46 According to the EAC, these match requirements have been waived for the other eligible territories. EAC, State
Governments’ Use of Help America Vote Act Funds 2007, July 2008, pp. 22-23, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/
files/eac_assets/1/6/EAC_Report_to_Congress_on_State_Expenditures_of_HAVA_Funds_2007.pdf ; EAC, Election
Assistance Com m ission FY2008/2009/201 0/2011 Requirem ents Paym ent Schedule, at https://web.archive.org/web/
20191227211147/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/4699.PDF; and EAC, “ 2020 CARES Act Grant FAQs,” at
https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/2020-cares-act-grant-faqs.
47 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 2020 General Election
Preparations, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 22, 2020.
48 See, for example, Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and Leader Kevin McCarthy, April 2, 2020, at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/NASS%20Letters/
4.2.20%20NASS%20CARES%20Funding%20Letter%20to%20House%2 0Leadership.pdf; and Letter from Paul Pate,
President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Sen. Mitch McConnell and Sen. Chuck Schumer, April
2, 2020, at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/NASS%20Letters/
4.2.20%20NASS%20CARES%20Funding%20Letter%20to%20Senate%20Leadership.pdf . Proposals have been
offered to repeal the match requirement for CARES Act funds or permit it to be waived. See, for example, the Heroes
Act (H.R. 6800), the Secure Our Elections Act (H.R. 6777), the State Elections Preparedness Act (S. 3778), and the
Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020 (S. 4033) in the 116th Congress.
49 Sen. Mary Landrieu, “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate, Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 148, part 18 (February 27, 2002), p. S1227.
50 Sen. Sam Brownback, “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate, Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 148, part 14 (February 14, 2002), p. S812.
Congressional Research Service
19

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

 Is grant funding available to election officials or to other state or local
government entities?
 Which jurisdictions or entities are eligible for the grant program?
State-level election officials have been the direct recipients of most of the funding Congress has
made available for election administration-related grant programs to date, and they have general y
had discretion over whether or how to share the funds. In most states, however, most of the day-
to-day work of administering elections is done at the local level.51 Local officials are often both
responsible for most elections-related spending and most familiar with the specifics of election
administration needs.
There may be compel ing administrative reasons to distribute elections grant funding at the state
level—some localities might have difficulty meeting federal grant compliance requirements, for
example, and it might be easier for the federal agencies charged with administering grant
programs to coordinate with the states than with thousands of local jurisdictions—but some
Members have explored ways to involve local officials in either spending grant funds or helping
decide how they are spent.52 HAVA required the HAVA states to submit detailed state plans for
use of their requirements payments, for example, and directed them to include local officials on
the committees that developed the plans. Bil s have also been introduced that would require states
to pass some elections grant funding through to localities or al ow local officials to apply for
elections grant funds if their state officials opt not to do so or authorize them to apply.53
Some election administration-related grant programs have also been directed to non-elections-
specific government entities rather than to election officials. Although election officials are a
natural choice for carrying out most election administration tasks, certain elections-related
activities might be a better fit for entities with other subject matter expertise. Congress directed
one of HAVA’s disability access grant programs to P&A systems, for example, because P&A
systems were thought to be particularly wel -equipped to help improve electoral access for
individuals with disabilities.54
HAVA’s P&A system grant program highlights another potential question about recipients of
election administration-related grant funds: which jurisdictions or entities should be eligible for
funding? HAVA defined “states” as the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and that definition has been used to set eligibility for a number of
elections grant programs, including HAVA’s P&A system program. That has meant that the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)—and, in the case of the P&A system
grant program, the P&A system serving the American Indian Consortium—has general y not been
eligible for funding Congress has appropriated for HAVA grant programs for states.55

51 States retain primary responsibility for most of the day-to-day work of administering elections in a few states. For
more on the division of election administration responsibilities between states and localities, see CRS Report R45549,
The State and Local Role in Election Adm inistra tion: Duties and Structures, by Karen L. Shanton.
52 As authorized, HAVA’s polling place accessibility grant program is available to units of local government as well as
HAVA states. However, the appropriations acts that have funded awards under the progr am have generally limited
them to the HAVA states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7.
53 See, for example, the Secure Elections Act (H.R. 6663/S. 2261/S. 2593) in the 115th Congress and a House-passed
FY2021 consolidated appropriations bill (H.R. 7617) in the 116th Congress.
54 Sen. T om Harkin, “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” debate in the Senate, Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 148, part 17 (February 26, 2002), p. S1144.
55 Some exceptions to this general rule are described below. T he U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) also announced a single-source grant award for CNMI for FY2010 for HAVA-related activities. HHS indicated
that it was awarding the grant because, “With its participation in Federal elections [starting in 2008], CNMI’s eligibility
Congressional Research Service
20

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Congress might choose to base eligibility for any future state elections grant programs on the
current HAVA definition of “state.” However, some have explored extending eligibility for certain
programs to CNMI or the P&A system serving the American Indian Consortium. CNMI was not
included in HAVA’s definition of “state” because it did not hold federal elections when HAVA
was enacted.56 Since the territory started electing a Delegate to Congress in 2008, however, bil s
have been introduced to amend the HAVA definition to include CNMI or extend eligibility for the
P&A system grant program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian
Consortium.57 Congress has also used appropriations measures to expand eligibility for elections
grant programs, such as by including provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020,
and the CARES Act that made their HAVA funds available to CNMI.58
Availability of Funding
 Is there a statutory deadline by which the agency that is charged with
administering the grant program must distribute the grant funding?
 Are grant recipients required to obligate or spend grant funds or complete funded
activities by a certain deadline?
 Are appropriations for the grant program authorized for a limited number of
fiscal years or on an ongoing basis?
Some states require gubernatorial or state legislative approval to claim, use, or match federal
funds, and the procurement processes states and localities use to acquire resources like voting
machines can take months or years to complete. The potential for such delays at the state and
local levels and the emergency nature of certain elections spending have sometimes led Congress
to encourage prompt distribution of elections grant funds. The CARES Act, for example, directed
the EAC to distribute its HAVA grant funds within 30 days of the act’s enactment.
Congress might also set deadlines by which grant recipients must obligate or spend their funds or
complete funded activities. Such deadlines can help ensure that grant funds are spent within a
specified time period. Awards under certain HAVA grant programs, such as the act’s general
improvements grant program and requirements payments program, were made available to
recipients without fiscal year limitation, and recipients were permitted to keep and use any
interest the grant funds generated. That offered an incentive to save grant funding for future needs
or ongoing costs rather than spending it quickly, and some states have reported stil having grant
funds or interest in their accounts more than 15 years after the grant funding was appropriated.59

for funding under HAVA is now established.” HHS, “Award of a Single-Source Grant to the Commonwealth Election
Commission of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI),” 75 Federal Register 66380-66381,
October 28, 2010.
56 T estimony of the Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on House
Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Voting Rights and Election Adm inistration in the U.S. Virgin Islands and
Other Territories, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 28, 2020, p. 2.
57 See, for example, the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) Program In clusion Act (H.R. 5510) in the
116th Congress.
58 Congress specified in report language accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L. 108-199) that
it intended the P&A system serving the American Indian Consortium to be eligible for HAVA’s P&A system grant
program. T hat P&A system does not appear, however, to have received an FY2004 P&A system grant award.
Administration for Children and Families, Discretionary Program s, p. D-134, at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/olab/sec2_discre_prog_2006cj.pdf.
59 EAC, Grant Expenditure Report: Fiscal Year 2018, April 4, 2019, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/
eac_assets/1/6/FY2018HAVAGrantsExpenditureReport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21

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

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

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

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

effective oversight of a grant program and include specific administrative conditions in bil text or
report language.65 HAVA requires recipients of requirements payments to file and update detailed
state plans for the payments, for example, and the CARES Act requires recipients of its HAVA
funds to report on their spending within 20 days of each election they hold in the 2020 federal
election cycle.
Such additional administrative conditions may help Congress gain better insight into how grant
funds are being used, how wel a given grant program is working, and whether further funding for
the program is warranted. However, they might also come with trade-offs. For example, the short
turnaround time for CARES Act reporting raised concerns for some about whether election
officials could comply with the act’s reporting requirement while also fulfil ing their other
postelection responsibilities, such as canvassing the vote. NASS indicated that this might be a
chal enge in a letter to Congress,66 for example, and some Members have proposed legislation to
modify the requirement.67 In general, Congress might consider how to balance oversight needs
against administrative demands to ensure that it can get the information it needs to evaluate grant
programs without overly burdening grantees or administering agencies.
The administering agency for most of the election administration-related grant programs
Congress has authorized for states and localities to date is the EAC. With subject matter expertise
in election administration and relationships with the state election officials to whom most grant
funds have been directed, the EAC has often been a preferred choice to administer elections grant
programs.
However, Congress has sometimes determined that an agency with other subject matter expertise
or relationships with other state or local officials is a better fit for a given grant program or that
the EAC should collaborate or consult with other agencies. The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services was charged with administering HAVA’s disability access grant programs,68 for
example, and the U.S. Department of Defense administered the MOVE Act’s UOCAVA election
technology pilot program grant program.69 The National Institute of Standards and Technology
was directed to assist the EAC with administering HAVA’s voting technology improvements
research and voting technology pilot program grant programs, and some have envisioned a
similar collaboration between the EAC and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on an
election security grant program.70

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

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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

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

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

Bill Number
Short Title
Latest Major Action
Summary of Grant-Related Provisions
H.R. 1
For the People Act of 2019
Passed by the House
Would authorize use of Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requirements
payments for meeting voter registration requirements and making improvements to
voting system security;
would expand and reauthorize HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program;
would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA protection and advocacy (P&A) system
grant funds for initiating or otherwise participating in litigation about election-related
disability access;
would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and specify a minimum amount for HAVA
requirements payments to CNMI;
would include the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in
state plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committees responsible
for developing state plans to be geographical y representative; and
would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to automatic voter
registration and registration portability and correction; encouraging minors to
participate in election activities; providing 12th graders with information about
registering to vote; conducting pilot programs to enable individuals with disabilities to
register to vote and request and receive absentee bal ots at home; conducting research
into accessible paper bal ot voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best
practices for increasing the accessibility of paper bal ots; recruiting and training pol
workers; rewarding institutions of higher education that exceed requirements for
registering students to vote; establishing absentee bal ot tracking programs; replacing
voting systems that do not meet specified requirements or are not in compliance with
specified federal voting system guidelines, making improvements to voting system
security, and implementing and modeling best practices for bal ot design, instructions,
and testing; conducting risk-limiting audits; and conducting research into improving
election infrastructure security, quality, reliability, accuracy, accessibility, and
affordability and increasing voter participation.
H.R. 126
Students Voicing Opinions in
Referred to Committee
Would authorize a grant program for providing 12th graders with information about
Today’s Elections (VOTE) Act
registering to vote.
H.R. 378
Safeguarding Election
Referred to Committee
Would authorize grant programs for conducting postelection audits; and meeting paper
Infrastructure Act of 2019
bal ot and manual counting requirements and making other improvements to voting
system security.
CRS-26

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

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

Bill Number
Short Title
Latest Major Action
Summary of Grant-Related Provisions
H.R. 2740
Labor, Health and Human
Passed by the House
Would provide funding for carrying out the provisions of HAVA related to disability
Services, Education, Defense,
access grant programs.
State, Foreign Operations, and
Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2020
H.R. 2754
Protecting American Votes and
Referred to Committee
Would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or
Elections Act of 2019
otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;
would specify a minimum amount for HAVA P&A system grant awards to the American
Indian Consortium P&A system;
would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and
would authorize grant programs for replacing paperless voting systems; acquiring
accessible bal ot marking devices; designing and printing bal ots; and conducting risk-
limiting audits.
H.R. 2807
Help Students Vote Act
Referred to Committee
Would authorize a grant program for rewarding institutions of higher education that
exceed requirements for registering students to vote.
H.R. 3351
Financial Services and General
Passed by the House
Would provide funding for replacing voting systems that use direct-recording electronic
Government Appropriations Act,
(DRE) voting machines and other elections-related purposes.
2020
H.R. 3412
Election Security Assistance Act
Referred to Committee
Would authorize appropriations for making general improvements to the
administration of federal elections, including for enhancing election technology and
improving election security.
H.R. 4000
Fair Representation Act
Referred to Committee
Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting and
otherwise conducting federal elections.
H.R. 4464
Ranked Choice Voting Act
Referred to Committee
Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting and
otherwise conducting federal elections.
H.R. 4990
Election Technology Research
Passed by the House
Would authorize grant programs for establishing a Center of Excel ence in Election
Act of 2019
Systems; conducting research to improve the understanding of threats to voting
systems and inform the development of technologies, processes, and policies that
contribute to election security, fairness, and accessibility; and establishing at least one
multidisciplinary center for elections systems research and education.
H.R. 5510
Protection and Advocacy for
Referred to Committee
Would extend eligibility for HAVA's P&A system grant program to the P&A systems
Voting Access (PAVA) Program
serving CNMI and the American Indian Consortium and specify a minimum amount for
Inclusion Act
HAVA P&A system grant awards to the American Indian Consortium P&A system.
CRS-29

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

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

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

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

Bill Number
Short Title
Latest Major Action
Summary of Grant-Related Provisions
S. 739
Native American Voting Rights
Referred to Committee
Would authorize a grant program for establishing and operating Native American
Act of 2019
voting task forces.
S. 949
For the People Act of 2019
Referred to Committee
Would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for meeting voter registration
requirements and making improvements to voting system security;
would expand and reauthorize HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program;
would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or
otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;
would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI and specify a minimum
amount for HAVA requirements payments to CNMI;
would include the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in
state plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committees responsible
for developing state plans to be geographical y representative; and
would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to automatic voter
registration and registration portability and correction; encouraging minors to
participate in election activities; providing 12th graders with information about
registering to vote; conducting pilot programs to enable individuals with disabilities to
register to vote and request and receive absentee bal ots at home; conducting research
into accessible paper bal ot voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best
practices for increasing the accessibility of paper bal ots; recruiting and training pol
workers; rewarding institutions of higher education that exceed requirements for
registering students to vote; establishing absentee bal ot tracking programs; replacing
voting systems that do not meet specified requirements or are not in compliance with
specified federal voting system guidelines, making improvements to voting system
security, and implementing and modeling best practices for bal ot design, instructions,
and testing; conducting risk-limiting audits; and conducting research into improving
election infrastructure security, quality, reliability, accuracy, accessibility, and
affordability and increasing voter participation.
S. 957
Early Voting Act
Referred to Committee
Would authorize appropriations for HAVA requirements payments for meeting early
voting requirements.
S. 1319
Protecting the Right to
Referred to Committee
Would authorize a grant program for implementing or improving use of auditable paper
Independent and Democratic
bal ots, conducting risk-limiting audits, or implementing cybersecurity standards and
Elections (PRIDE) Voting Act
best practices.
CRS-34

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

Bill Number
Short Title
Latest Major Action
Summary of Grant-Related Provisions
S. 2053
Securing America’s Federal
Referred to Committee
Would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or
Elections (SAFE) Act
otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;
would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for making improvements to
voting system security;
would include the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in
state plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committees responsible
for developing state plans to be geographical y representative;
would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and
would authorize grant programs for conducting research into accessible paper bal ot
voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best practices for increasing the
accessibility of paper bal ots; replacing voting systems that do not meet specified
requirements or are not in compliance with specified federal voting system guidelines,
making improvements to voting system security, and implementing and modeling best
practices for bal ot design, instructions, and testing; and conducting risk-limiting audits.
S. 2238
Securing America’s Federal
Referred to Committee
Would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or
Elections (SAFE) Act
otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;
would authorize use of HAVA requirements payments for making improvements to
voting system security;
would include the protection of election infrastructure as a topic to be addressed in
state plans for HAVA requirements payments and require the committees responsible
for developing state plans to be geographical y representative;
would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and
would authorize grant programs for conducting research into accessible paper bal ot
voting, verification, and casting mechanisms and best practices for increasing the
accessibility of paper bal ots; replacing voting systems that do not meet specified
requirements or are not in compliance with specified federal voting system guidelines
and making improvements to voting system security; acquiring accessible bal ot marking
devices; designing and printing bal ots; and conducting risk-limiting audits.
S. 2524
Financial Services and General
Reported by Committee
Would provide funding for making general improvements to the administration of
Government Appropriations Act,
federal elections, including for enhancing election technology and improving election
2020
security.
CRS-36

Bill Number
Short Title
Latest Major Action
Summary of Grant-Related Provisions
S. 3206
Accessible Voting Act of 2019
Referred to Committee
Would expand and reauthorize HAVA’s pol ing place accessibility grant program;
would repeal the prohibition on use of HAVA P&A system grant funds for initiating or
otherwise participating in litigation about election-related disability access;
would extend eligibility for HAVA's P&A system grant program to the P&A system
serving the American Indian Consortium and specify a minimum amount for HAVA
P&A system grant awards to the American Indian Consortium P&A system;
would amend the HAVA definition of “state” to include CNMI; and
would authorize a grant program for meeting requirements related to the accessibility
of election information and processes and the transparency of changes to election
prerequisites, standards, practices, and procedures.
S. 3340
Voter Choice Act
Referred to Committee
Would authorize a grant program for implementing ranked choice voting.
S. 3440
Resilient Elections During
Referred to Committee
Would authorize a grant program for meeting requirements and conducting activities
Quarantines and Natural
related to election contingency planning and absentee voting.
Disasters Act of 2020
S. 3529
Natural Disaster and Emergency
Referred to Committee
Would authorize grant programs for using a federal service for providing voter
Bal ot Act of 2020
registration and absentee bal ot status updates; meeting requirements related to
election contingency planning, absentee voting, early voting, provisional bal ots, and
voter registration in the November 3, 2020, general election; and voluntarily complying
with related requirements in 2020 primary elections.
S. 3725
VoteSafe Act of 2020
Referred to Committee
Would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to absentee voting,
early voting, and pol ing place safety; and promoting safe, accessible, and efficient in-
person voting.
S. 3778
State Elections Preparedness Act
Referred to Committee
Would authorize the EAC to waive the match requirement for CARES Act HAVA
funds in certain circumstances.
S. 3822
DemocracyCorps Act
Referred to Committee
Would repeal the match requirement for FY2020 and CARES Act HAVA funds; and
would authorize grant programs for meeting requirements related to absentee voting,
pol ing place safety, early voting, and voter registration; and promoting safe, accessible,
and efficient in-person voting.
S. 3961
Pandemic Democracy for Al Act
Referred to Committee
Would authorize grant programs for implementing online voter registration systems;
and facilitating an increase in absentee voting.
CRS-37

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

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

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

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

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Author Information

Karen L. Shanton

Analyst in American National Government

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

Congressional Research Service
R46646 · VERSION 1 · NEW
42