The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and 2018 Findings
link to page 1 
July 9, 2019
The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and
2018 Findings
The Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) is
for the survey, using state-level resources such as voter
a biennial survey of state and local officials about the
registration and voter history databases, information
administration of federal elections. The survey is conducted
supplied by local officials, or some combination of the two.
for each regular federal election cycle by the U.S. Election
The EAC builds validation checks into the data collection
Assistance Commission (EAC), which reports its findings
templates it distributes to states, conducts further checks on
to Congress and the public the year after the election.
the data they submit, and works with states and localities
before and after they submit their data to clarify survey
The EAVS is not the federal government’s only election
requirements, collect missing data, and correct errors.
administration data collection effort—the U.S. Census
Bureau conducts surveys about voting and registration
Table 1. Sections of the 2018 EAVS
behavior, for example, and the U.S. Government
Section
Description
Selected Citations
Accountability Office has studied topics such as voting
equipment use—but it is the most comprehensive regular
A
Voter Registration
52 U.S.C. §20508; 11
survey of the state and local officials who run U.S.
C.F.R. §9428.7
elections. The data it collects have the potential to offer
insight into how, and how well, states and localities are
B
Uniformed and Overseas
52 U.S.C. §§20301-
administering elections. So, the interpretation and findings
Citizens Absentee Voting
20302
of the EAVS may be relevant to Members who are
C
Domestic Civilian By-Mail
52 U.S.C. §20922
interested in assessing state and local implementation of
Voting
federal election law, identifying problems with the conduct
of elections, or considering changes to election laws or
D
Total Votes Cast and In-
52 U.S.C. §20922
procedures.
Person Voting
E
Provisional Bal ots
52 U.S.C. §20922
This In Focus provides an introduction to the EAVS. It
starts with an overview of the survey and then describes
F
Voter Participation and
52 U.S.C. §20922
topline findings of the 2018 EAVS, some caveats about
Election Technologies
EAVS data, and legislative activity related to the EAVS.
Source: CRS, from the 2018 EAVS, the U.S. Code, and the Code of
Overview of the EAVS
Federal Regulations.
Notes: The EAVS has had this basic structure since 2008. The 2004
The current iteration of the EAVS contains six sections,
and 2006 surveys were structured differently.
with questions about voter registration, military and
overseas voting, and a range of other elections topics (see
Responding to the EAVS takes an estimated average of 88
Table 1 for details of each section). It has been
hours per state, and some state and local officials have
accompanied since 2008 by another survey—introduced as
indicated concern about the time and effort it involves.
the Statutory Overview and redesigned and recast as the
Changes have been made to the survey since its inception to
Election Administration Policy Survey (Policy Survey) for
ease this administrative burden, encourage participation,
2018—that asks about states’ election policies.
and streamline data collection and reporting. NVRA
questions, UOCAVA questions, and general election
Sections A and B of the EAVS are conducted to meet
administration questions were combined into a single
specific reporting requirements of the National Voter
questionnaire in 2006, for example, and reporting on the
Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA; 52 U.S.C. §§20501-
three sets of data was combined into a single product for
20511) and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
2014. The 2014 survey also marked the beginning of a
Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA; 52 U.S.C. §§20301-
collaboration between the EAC and the U.S. Department of
20311), respectively. The Policy Survey and Sections C
Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program to reduce
through F of the EAVS fall under a broader EAC mandate,
redundancies in UOCAVA data collection.
provided by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA;
52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145), to serve as a clearinghouse of
Findings of the 2018 EAVS
election administration information.
The EAC presents topline findings of the EAVS in the
report it releases to Congress and the public after each
The EAVS is distributed to the 50 states, the District of
midterm and presidential election. These topline findings
Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the
may be suggestive of general trends although, as noted in
U.S. Virgin Islands (referred to herein as “states”). States
the next section, some should be interpreted with care.
compile data about the most recent federal election cycle
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and 2018 Findings
In the 2018 EAVS report, which was released on June 27,
Legislative Activity on the EAVS
2019, the EAC reported that nationwide voter turnout as a
The EAC conducted its first postelection survey in 2004. In
share of the citizen voting-age population increased by
the ensuing years, Members have offered a number of
more than 15 percentage points over the 2014 midterms;
proposals related to EAVS data collection.
use of electronic poll books by jurisdictions increased by
almost half; and the rate of early in-person voting more than
Some proposals have been introduced through the
doubled. The agency also reported that more than 211
appropriations process. The committee report on the
million people were registered and eligible to vote for the
House’s FY2010 Financial Services and General
2018 general elections; a majority of 2018 UOCAVA
Government (FSGG) appropriations bill (H.R. 3170), for
voters were overseas civilians; and more than 90% of
example, urged the EAC to develop questions for the EAVS
jurisdictions used paper ballots or voting machines that
about voting system performance. An election data
produce paper records.
collection pilot program that was included in the FY2008
FSGG appropriations bill (P.L. 110-161) aimed to expand
Some Caveats About EAVS Data
and improve states’ collection of EAC election data.
The EAVS is a complex project, and the EAC has taken
steps—including in the 2018 survey—to improve the
Other proposals have been offered in authorizing
quality of the data it receives. As the agency notes in its
legislation. Bills such as H.R. 108 in the 112th Congress and
reports, however, some EAVS data should be interpreted
H.R. 2017 in the 113th Congress, for example, would have
with care.
exempted the EAVS from public comment and other
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
One item to note is that the data states and localities report
U.S.C. §§3501-3521). Participation in the Policy Survey
to the EAC may not present a complete, accurate picture in
and certain parts of the EAVS is currently voluntary. Bills
all cases. Some data provided by any given state or locality
such as H.R. 1937 in the 112th Congress and H.R. 794 in the
might be incomplete, ambiguous, or—despite state and
115th Congress would have made it mandatory.
EAC error checks—potentially inaccurate. For example,
one state apparently reported that almost all of its active
Previous legislative activity on the EAVS suggests two
registered voters turned out to vote in 2018.
broad issues that may be of interest to Members as they
consider whether or how to take future action on either the
Some data also may not be straightforwardly comparable
EAVS in particular or election data collection in general:
across years, states, or localities. Changes in the EAVS
Content of the EAVS. Some Members have indicated
survey instrument from one year to another and changes or
interest in voting system performance data, as noted
differences in data collection practices or election laws and
above, but the EAC has not included questions about
procedures complicate comparisons. For example, one
voting system performance on its postelection survey
locality might appear to be significantly understaffed for
since the inaugural iteration in 2004. The EAVS also
Election Day relative to another because the former
does not collect data on other topics of potential interest
schedules a smaller number of poll workers for the full day
to Members, such as the costs of administering elections
while the latter enlists a larger number for shorter shifts.
and some of the specific steps states and localities take
to secure their elections. Does Congress want or need
Data on voter turnout as a share of registered voters
election administration data that are not currently being
illustrate some of these complexities. States and localities
collected by the EAVS? If so, is the EAC’s EAVS the
differ in how they define both turnout and registration, and
best way to collect such data? And how might
the differences can result in very different turnout rates. For
challenges with collecting the data—such as increased
example, defining turnout as the total number of ballots cast
administrative burdens on states and localities, the
and registration as the number of active registered voters
would put one state’s 2018 registered voter turnout rate
involvement of multiple state and local entities in
funding election administration, or the need to protect
among the higher rates reported by the EAC. Using the
sensitive information—be addressed?
number of votes cast for the highest office on the ballot and
the combined total of active and inactive registrants, on the
Conduct of the EAVS. As noted in the previous
other hand, would put it among the lowest.
section, some EAVS data may be incomplete,
ambiguous, or inaccurate. Congress has taken steps in
These complexities suggest that it matters how EAVS data
the past to address such issues, such as authorizing and
are used. The EAC includes notes about missing,
funding an election data collection pilot program. The
inconsistent, and improbable data in its EAVS reports and
EAC has also recommended—and some states have
releases raw data for individual jurisdictions. Responses to
adopted—changes to data tracking and collection
the EAVS and the Policy Survey provide information about
processes, such as designing election databases to output
the origins and circumstances of the data states and
data files that are formatted for responding to the EAVS.
localities report. Taking these kinds of contextual
Does Congress wish to consider these or other ways of
information into account may enable lawmakers and
further improving EAVS data quality? What, if any,
election officials to draw more meaningful conclusions
obstacles are there to implementing data quality fixes?
about how election administration is working—and whether
or how policy interventions might improve it—than relying
Karen L. Shanton, Analyst in American National
solely on decontextualized data like state rankings.
Government
IF11266
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and 2018 Findings
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 | IF11266 · VERSION 1 · NEW
July 9, 2019
The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and
2018 Findings
The Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) is
for the survey, using state-level resources such as voter
a biennial survey of state and local officials about the
registration and voter history databases, information
administration of federal elections. The survey is conducted
supplied by local officials, or some combination of the two.
for each regular federal election cycle by the U.S. Election
The EAC builds validation checks into the data collection
Assistance Commission (EAC), which reports its findings
templates it distributes to states, conducts further checks on
to Congress and the public the year after the election.
the data they submit, and works with states and localities
before and after they submit their data to clarify survey
The EAVS is not the federal government’s only election
requirements, collect missing data, and correct errors.
administration data collection effort—the U.S. Census
Bureau conducts surveys about voting and registration
Table 1. Sections of the 2018 EAVS
behavior, for example, and the U.S. Government
Section
Description
Selected Citations
Accountability Office has studied topics such as voting
equipment use—but it is the most comprehensive regular
A
Voter Registration
52 U.S.C. §20508; 11
survey of the state and local officials who run U.S.
C.F.R. §9428.7
elections. The data it collects have the potential to offer
insight into how, and how well, states and localities are
B
Uniformed and Overseas
52 U.S.C. §§20301-
administering elections. So, the interpretation and findings
Citizens Absentee Voting
20302
of the EAVS may be relevant to Members who are
C
Domestic Civilian By-Mail
52 U.S.C. §20922
interested in assessing state and local implementation of
Voting
federal election law, identifying problems with the conduct
of elections, or considering changes to election laws or
D
Total Votes Cast and In-
52 U.S.C. §20922
procedures.
Person Voting
E
Provisional Bal ots
52 U.S.C. §20922
This In Focus provides an introduction to the EAVS. It
starts with an overview of the survey and then describes
F
Voter Participation and
52 U.S.C. §20922
topline findings of the 2018 EAVS, some caveats about
Election Technologies
EAVS data, and legislative activity related to the EAVS.
Source: CRS, from the 2018 EAVS, the U.S. Code, and the Code of
Overview of the EAVS
Federal Regulations.
Notes: The EAVS has had this basic structure since 2008. The 2004
The current iteration of the EAVS contains six sections,
and 2006 surveys were structured differently.
with questions about voter registration, military and
overseas voting, and a range of other elections topics (see
Responding to the EAVS takes an estimated average of 88
Table 1 for details of each section). It has been
hours per state, and some state and local officials have
accompanied since 2008 by another survey—introduced as
indicated concern about the time and effort it involves.
the Statutory Overview and redesigned and recast as the
Changes have been made to the survey since its inception to
Election Administration Policy Survey (Policy Survey) for
ease this administrative burden, encourage participation,
2018—that asks about states’ election policies.
and streamline data collection and reporting. NVRA
questions, UOCAVA questions, and general election
Sections A and B of the EAVS are conducted to meet
administration questions were combined into a single
specific reporting requirements of the National Voter
questionnaire in 2006, for example, and reporting on the
Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA; 52 U.S.C. §§20501-
three sets of data was combined into a single product for
20511) and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
2014. The 2014 survey also marked the beginning of a
Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA; 52 U.S.C. §§20301-
collaboration between the EAC and the U.S. Department of
20311), respectively. The Policy Survey and Sections C
Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program to reduce
through F of the EAVS fall under a broader EAC mandate,
redundancies in UOCAVA data collection.
provided by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA;
52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145), to serve as a clearinghouse of
Findings of the 2018 EAVS
election administration information.
The EAC presents topline findings of the EAVS in the
report it releases to Congress and the public after each
The EAVS is distributed to the 50 states, the District of
midterm and presidential election. These topline findings
Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the
may be suggestive of general trends although, as noted in
U.S. Virgin Islands (referred to herein as “states”). States
the next section, some should be interpreted with care.
compile data about the most recent federal election cycle
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and 2018 Findings
In the 2018 EAVS report, which was released on June 27,
Legislative Activity on the EAVS
2019, the EAC reported that nationwide voter turnout as a
The EAC conducted its first postelection survey in 2004. In
share of the citizen voting-age population increased by
the ensuing years, Members have offered a number of
more than 15 percentage points over the 2014 midterms;
proposals related to EAVS data collection.
use of electronic poll books by jurisdictions increased by
almost half; and the rate of early in-person voting more than
Some proposals have been introduced through the
doubled. The agency also reported that more than 211
appropriations process. The committee report on the
million people were registered and eligible to vote for the
House’s FY2010 Financial Services and General
2018 general elections; a majority of 2018 UOCAVA
Government (FSGG) appropriations bill (H.R. 3170), for
voters were overseas civilians; and more than 90% of
example, urged the EAC to develop questions for the EAVS
jurisdictions used paper ballots or voting machines that
about voting system performance. An election data
produce paper records.
collection pilot program that was included in the FY2008
FSGG appropriations bill (P.L. 110-161) aimed to expand
Some Caveats About EAVS Data
and improve states’ collection of EAC election data.
The EAVS is a complex project, and the EAC has taken
steps—including in the 2018 survey—to improve the
Other proposals have been offered in authorizing
quality of the data it receives. As the agency notes in its
legislation. Bills such as H.R. 108 in the 112th Congress and
reports, however, some EAVS data should be interpreted
H.R. 2017 in the 113th Congress, for example, would have
with care.
exempted the EAVS from public comment and other
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
One item to note is that the data states and localities report
U.S.C. §§3501-3521). Participation in the Policy Survey
to the EAC may not present a complete, accurate picture in
and certain parts of the EAVS is currently voluntary. Bills
all cases. Some data provided by any given state or locality
such as H.R. 1937 in the 112th Congress and H.R. 794 in the
might be incomplete, ambiguous, or—despite state and
115th Congress would have made it mandatory.
EAC error checks—potentially inaccurate. For example,
one state apparently reported that almost all of its active
Previous legislative activity on the EAVS suggests two
registered voters turned out to vote in 2018.
broad issues that may be of interest to Members as they
consider whether or how to take future action on either the
Some data also may not be straightforwardly comparable
EAVS in particular or election data collection in general:
across years, states, or localities. Changes in the EAVS
Content of the EAVS. Some Members have indicated
survey instrument from one year to another and changes or
interest in voting system performance data, as noted
differences in data collection practices or election laws and
above, but the EAC has not included questions about
procedures complicate comparisons. For example, one
voting system performance on its postelection survey
locality might appear to be significantly understaffed for
since the inaugural iteration in 2004. The EAVS also
Election Day relative to another because the former
does not collect data on other topics of potential interest
schedules a smaller number of poll workers for the full day
to Members, such as the costs of administering elections
while the latter enlists a larger number for shorter shifts.
and some of the specific steps states and localities take
to secure their elections. Does Congress want or need
Data on voter turnout as a share of registered voters
election administration data that are not currently being
illustrate some of these complexities. States and localities
collected by the EAVS? If so, is the EAC’s EAVS the
differ in how they define both turnout and registration, and
best way to collect such data? And how might
the differences can result in very different turnout rates. For
challenges with collecting the data—such as increased
example, defining turnout as the total number of ballots cast
administrative burdens on states and localities, the
and registration as the number of active registered voters
would put one state’s 2018 registered voter turnout rate
involvement of multiple state and local entities in
funding election administration, or the need to protect
among the higher rates reported by the EAC. Using the
sensitive information—be addressed?
number of votes cast for the highest office on the ballot and
the combined total of active and inactive registrants, on the
Conduct of the EAVS. As noted in the previous
other hand, would put it among the lowest.
section, some EAVS data may be incomplete,
ambiguous, or inaccurate. Congress has taken steps in
These complexities suggest that it matters how EAVS data
the past to address such issues, such as authorizing and
are used. The EAC includes notes about missing,
funding an election data collection pilot program. The
inconsistent, and improbable data in its EAVS reports and
EAC has also recommended—and some states have
releases raw data for individual jurisdictions. Responses to
adopted—changes to data tracking and collection
the EAVS and the Policy Survey provide information about
processes, such as designing election databases to output
the origins and circumstances of the data states and
data files that are formatted for responding to the EAVS.
localities report. Taking these kinds of contextual
Does Congress wish to consider these or other ways of
information into account may enable lawmakers and
further improving EAVS data quality? What, if any,
election officials to draw more meaningful conclusions
obstacles are there to implementing data quality fixes?
about how election administration is working—and whether
or how policy interventions might improve it—than relying
Karen L. Shanton, Analyst in American National
solely on decontextualized data like state rankings.
Government
IF11266
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and 2018 Findings
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 | IF11266 · VERSION 1 · NEW