link to page 2 
Updated October 5, 2022
Elections Grant Programs: Policy Options
Recent congressional activity on elections issues has often
Options for Legislative Proposals
taken the form of grant programs or funding. Congress
In addition to opposing federal elections grant programs in
responded to foreign interference in the 2016 elections and
general, some might object to particular grant programs or
the effects of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
funding on more specific grounds. They might note that
pandemic on administration of the 2020 elections, in part,
some of the funding previously appropriated for a given
with funding for a grant program established by the Help
grant program has not been spent, for example, or oppose
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252).
the objectives the program is intended to achieve.
Multiple bills introduced or enacted in the 117th Congress—
Alternatively, they might think that the goals of a given
from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-
grant program are worthwhile but that it is unlikely to
103) to the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access
achieve them or likely to have other, unintended effects.
(PAVA) Program Inclusion Act (P.L. 117-182) to the
To identify or address potential issues in the last of the
Protecting the Right to Organized, Transparent Elections
above categories, Members who are developing or
through a Constitutionally Trustworthy Electoral College
evaluating grant programs or funding might want to
(PROTECT Electoral College) Act (H.R. 4789/S. 519)—
consider how they are structured. Choices about the
have addressed or would address elections grant programs.
structure of elections grant programs and funding can help
This In Focus explores some issues that may be of interest
determine how effective they are at achieving their intended
to Members who are considering offering, supporting,
purposes and what, if any, unintended consequences they
opposing, or amending proposals to authorize, fund, or set
might have. Grant programs with short spending deadlines
conditions for elections grant programs. It starts by
might be better suited to encouraging prompt action on
summarizing some general arguments for and against
funded activities, for example, while longer (or no)
federal elections grant programs then introduces some
deadlines might enable grantees to undertake a wider range
considerations that might be relevant for development or
of projects or wait for relevant information or guidance
evaluation of particular programs or proposals.
before acting. Ongoing funding might have all of the above
effects but raise concerns for some about potential federal
Role of Federal Elections Grant
overreach.
Programs
Views on the appropriate scope of federal involvement in
A central debate in elections policy is over the role the
elections might also factor into choices about permissible
federal government should play in election administration.
uses of proposed grant funds. For example, Members might
States and localities have traditionally had primary
have preferences about exactly how grant funding is spent,
responsibility for administering elections in the United
an interest in allowing for flexibility in states’ or localities’
States, and opinions differ about the appropriate scope of
use of funds, or both. Depending on how they balance such
federal involvement in setting or implementing election
considerations, they might choose to limit funding to
administration policy.
specific activities or make it available for more general
That debate has carried over to some discussions of federal
purposes. They might also opt for a middle ground between
elections grant programs. Elections grant funding has been
those choices, such as (1) making grant funds broadly
described by some as federal overreach into a primarily
available but prohibiting certain uses or (2) prioritizing use
state and local responsibility or a potential path to such
of funds for particular activities but permitting more general
overreach. Some have suggested, for example, that
uses under certain circumstances.
elections grant programs could foster a state and local
Each of the above options—along with other questions
reliance on federal funds that could translate to outsized
about the structure of elections grant programs and options
federal influence on election administration policymaking.
for answering them—has been explored in previously
Others say that the federal government has a responsibility
introduced or enacted legislation. Table 1 provides some
to share the expense of conducting federal elections or to
illustrative examples of such structural questions and
advance certain policy goals—such as ensuring that eligible
answers in each of five categories.
voters have access to the ballot or ineligible voters do not—
More detailed information about each set of questions and
and that grant programs offer a way to fulfill such
answers is available in CRS Report R46646, Election
responsibilities. Grant programs might be used to help
Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and
cover the costs of conducting federal elections. Congress
Localities, by Karen L. Shanton. Congressional clients may
could also use grant programs to encourage states to adopt
also contact the author of this In Focus for discussion of
certain elections policies voluntarily or to help defray the
considerations relevant to specific legislative proposals.
costs of implementing policies it requires them to adopt.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Elections Grant Programs: Policy Options
Table 1. Selected Policy Options for Elections Grant Programs and Funding
Category
Sample Questions
Sample Answers
Uses
Are grant funds limited to use for specific activities or
Specific activities (P.L. 116-136, Election Security Grants)
available for more general purposes?
General purposes (52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906)
Are grant funds intended to finance voluntary activities
Voluntary activities (52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053)
or help meet federal requirements?
Federal requirements (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
Are any uses of grant funds prohibited or prioritized?
Prohibited (52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062)
Prioritized (117th Congress; H.R. 8254)
Amount
Is the total amount of federal funding authorized for the
Fixed amount (52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906)
grant program a fixed amount, or is it such sums as may
be necessary to conduct the funded activities?
Such sums as may be necessary (52 U.S.C. §20311)
Are grant recipients required to contribute to funding
Match for funds received (P.L. 116-93, Elect. Sec. Grants)
grant activities?
Match for funds to be spent (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
How is funding allocated to grant recipients?
Nondiscretionary formula (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
Competitive grant process (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043)
Are eligible recipients guaranteed minimum—or subject
Minimum amounts (P.L. 115-141, Elect. Reform Program)
to maximum—award amounts?
Maximum amounts (P.L. 108-7, Elect. Ref. Progs.)
Recipients
Is grant funding available—directly or indirectly—to local Directly (52 U.S.C. §§21021-21025)
officials?
If state does not apply (115th Congress; H.R. 6663/S. 2593)
If authorized by state (115th Congress; S. 2261)
Via mandatory pass-throughs (117th Congress; H.R. 8254)
Is grant funding available to election officials or to other
Election officials (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
state or local entities?
Other entities (52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062)
Which jurisdictions or entities are eligible for the grant
50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and
program?
U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (52 U.S.C. §20981 note)
50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, USVI,
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and American
Indian consortium (P.L. 117-182)
Availability
Are grant recipients required to obligate or spend grant
Option for extension (52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906)
funds or complete funded activities by a certain deadline? No option for extension (P.L. 116-136, Elect. Sec. Grants)
Are appropriations for the grant program authorized for
Limited number of fiscal years (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043)
a limited number of fiscal years or on an ongoing basis?
Ongoing basis (52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062)
Administration
Are details of grants administration specified in bil text,
Authorizing legislation (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
specified in report language, or left to the discretion of
the federal agency charged with administering the
Appropriations legislation (P.L. 116-136, Elect. Sec. Grants)
program?
Report language (P.L. 111-8, Cmte. print, Elect. Ref. Progs.)
Which agency is charged with administering the grant
Election Assistance Commission (52 U.S.C. §20981 note)
program?
Other federal agency (52 U.S.C. §20311)
Is the administering agency encouraged or required to
Other agencies (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043)
col aborate or consult with other agencies or elections
stakeholders?
Elections stakeholders (117th Congress; H.R. 5008/S. 2702)
Sources: CRS, based on review of data from the U.S. Code and Congress.gov.
Notes: This table is intended to be il ustrative, not comprehensive. Each sample answer includes an example from bil text or report language.
Karen L. Shanton, Analyst in American National
Government
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Elections Grant Programs: Policy Options
IF11962
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11962 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED