Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding May 8, 2023
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 and 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 certain general
improvements to election administration, (2) replacing lever and punch card voting systems, and (3) meeting the new
requirements established by the act. HAVA also authorized grant programs to help 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-specific 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, FY2020, FY2022, and FY2023. The first of those recent rounds of HAVA funding—provided by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141)—followed reports of foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections.
Ongoing security concerns and other challenges for election administration, such as the onset of the Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the 2020 election cycle, prompted inclusion of further funding for HAVA grants in the
FY2020, FY2022, and FY2023 regular appropriations acts (P.L. 116-93, P.L. 117-103, and P.L. 117-328) and in
supplemental appropriations for FY2020 (P.L. 116-136).
Congress has also considered authorizing or funding other elections-related grant programs for states and localities since the
2016 elections. In the 117th Congress, for example, the House passed two bills—the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act
(H.R. 5746, passed 220-203) and a version of the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1, passed 220-210)—that would have
authorized multiple elections grant programs, including for recruiting and training poll workers, implementing absentee ballot
tracking programs, improving the accessibility of elections to individuals with disabilities, and complying with new voter
registration and voting system requirements that would have been established by the bills.
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 could 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 4 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 16 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 6 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 34 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of Grant Programs........................................................................................................... 2
General Improvements Grant Program ..................................................................................... 4
Voting System Replacement Grant Programs ........................................................................... 9
Requirements Payments Program ............................................................................................. 9
Disability Access Grant Programs........................................................................................... 13
Election Technology Research Grant Programs ...................................................................... 15
Youth Voter Participation and Poll Worker Recruitment Grant Programs .............................. 15
Election Data Collection Grant Program ................................................................................ 16
Potential Considerations for Congress .......................................................................................... 16
Role of Federal Grant Programs.............................................................................................. 17
Options for Legislative Proposals ........................................................................................... 18
Uses of Funds .................................................................................................................... 19
Amount of Funding ........................................................................................................... 20
Recipients of Funding ....................................................................................................... 21
Availability of Funding ..................................................................................................... 23
Administration of Grant Programs .................................................................................... 24
Concluding Observations .............................................................................................................. 25

Tables
Table 1. Selected Details of HAVA’s Three Main Grant Programs ................................................. 3
Table 2. Appropriations for Election Administration-Related Grant Programs for States
and Localities ............................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Election Administration-Related Grant Programs for States or Localities, as
Authorized .................................................................................................................................. 10
Table 4. Comparison of Original Authorization and Recent Appropriations for HAVA
General Improvements Grant Program ...................................................................................... 14

Table A-1. Selected Options for Structuring Election Administration-Related Grant
Programs for States and Localities ............................................................................................. 27

Appendixes
Appendix. Selected Options for Structuring Grant Programs ....................................................... 27

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 31

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
various 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 bills 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 specifically 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.” The 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 The 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 Commission (EAC): Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L.
Shanton; and CRS In Focus IF11445, The Election Infrastructure Subsector: Development 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. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett.
3 Some non-elections-specific grant funding that has been or could be used for elections-related purposes includes
funding provided under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) State and Local Cybersecurity Grant
program and some of its homeland security preparedness grant programs, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s)
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Rapid
Response Research program, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s) System Security
Integration Through Hardware and Firmware program. For more on some of those grant programs, see CRS Report
R44669, Department of Homeland Security Preparedness Grants: A Summary and Issues, by Shawn Reese; and CRS
In Focus IF10691, The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, by Nathan James.
4 The uses of funding described in this paragraph—including proposals to condition eligibility for federal funding on
adopting or rejecting certain elections policies, such as the 118th Congress’s Citizen Legislature Anti-Corruption
Reform of Elections (CLEAN Elections) Act (H.R. 157) and the Protecting Our Democracy by Preventing Foreign
Citizens from Voting Act of 2023 (H.R. 149/S. 194)—are outside the scope of this report.
5 Some of the funds HAVA authorized for states and localities are referred to in the act as payments, and others are
described as grants. A question arose, after HAVA was enacted, about whether some of the act’s payments meet the
federal criteria for grants. The 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 Commission—Payments
to States under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, decision, May 9, 2017, at https://www.gao.gov/products/b-328615.
6 The report covers grant programs for state and local election officials as well as (1) grant programs for non-elections-
specific government entities, such as public institutions of higher education, and (2) grant programs that are available to
nongovernmental entities, such as 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,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 6 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. That
latter 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, due to variations in state and local
policies and procedures, they varied across jurisdictions. Elections experts reported that voter
registration problems prevented many otherwise eligible voters from casting ballots, 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 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 (referred to hereinafter as the “HAVA states”) for (1) making certain
general improvements to election administration, (2) replacing lever and punch card voting
systems, and (3) meeting the new requirements established by the act (for details of the formulas
for allocating funding under those programs, see Table 1). HAVA also authorized grant programs
to help 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 Commissions for Congressional Districts, by Sarah J. Eckman; CRS Report
RL33814, Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report
R44721, Political Status of Puerto Rico: Brief Background and Recent Developments for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
7 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal Election Reform, hearing, 107th
Cong., 1st sess., May 10, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003); 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); R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, Caltech/MIT Voting
Technology Project, July 2001, at https://vote.caltech.edu/reports/1; The 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 R46949, The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA): Overview and Ongoing Role in Election Administration
Policy, by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS Report R45770, The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): Overview
and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton.
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 17
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
For this and the below
(Aggregate amount made
Recipient’s voting-age
grant program combined:
population (VAP)c
General improvements
Minimum
available for grant awards
50 states and DC: $5 mil ion
grant program
—
—
payment
+ under this section - Total of x
÷
Eligible territories: $1 mil ion
amountb
all minimum payment
Total VAP of all

amounts)
eligible recipientsc
For this and the above
Lever and punch card
November 2004
grant program combined:
Number of precincts that used lever or
voting system replacement
regular federal
50 states and DC: $5 mil ion
—
punch card voting systems in the November x
$4,000
grant program
general electiond
2000 regular federal general election
Eligible territories: $1 mil ion
50 states and DC: 0.5% of
the total appropriated for
Recipient’s VAPc
Requirements payments
the program for the year
Total appropriated for the program for the
÷
program
—
5%e
Eligible territories: 0.1% of
year
x
Total VAP of all
the total appropriated for
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 4.
a. HAVA directs the agencies charged with administering these grant programs to make pro rata reductions to the allocations 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 minimum payment amounts to be used in this calculation are based on the aggregate amount of funding made available for the 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).
c. 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).
d. Recipients of lever and punch card voting system replacement funding had to either replace all 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_Report_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 6 link to page 13 link to page 17 link to page 13 link to page 9 link to page 13 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Only a few election administration-specific 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 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, FY2020, FY2022, and
FY2023. The first of those recent rounds of HAVA funding—provided by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141)—followed reports of foreign efforts to interfere in the
2016 elections. Ongoing security concerns and other challenges for election administration, such
as the onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the 2020 election cycle,
prompted inclusion of further funding for HAVA grants in the FY2020, FY2022, and FY2023
regular appropriations acts (P.L. 116-93, P.L. 117-103, and P.L. 117-328) and in supplemental
appropriations for FY2020 (P.L. 116-136).
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 3, and Table 4.
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 systems
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 election administration processes
that it considered most pressing.10 HAVA prohibited use of the grant funds for legal judgments
and most litigation-related costs, but otherwise made the funding available for general
improvements to the administration of federal elections and other specified purposes (see Table 3
for the list of permissible uses in HAVA and other details of this program).
Congress appropriated funding for the general improvements grant program the first fiscal year
after HAVA was enacted (FY2003; see Table 2 and Table 3 for details of authorized and
appropriated funding for this and other elections grant programs). It has also provided further
funding in more recent years, in response to developments such as foreign efforts to interfere in
elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress included $380 million for funding
authorized by these provisions of HAVA in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018; $425
million in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020; $400 million in the Coronavirus Aid,

9 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology
Project, July 2001.
10 The 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, Committee on House Administration, Help
America 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

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act; $75 million in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2022; and $75 million in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.
Congressional Research Service
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 11 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11
Table 2. Appropriations for Election Administration-Related Grant Programs for States and Localities

e
m
y
y
t
b

h
e
g
g
a

s
c
t
m
ol
ol
Vo
t
n
n
s
d
e
o
s t
o

s
a
amr
n
u

n
syst
t
m
t
t
e
n
n
n
n
o
ci g
a
p
g
n
e
n
me
n
y t
a
h
h
amr
it
r
o
at

me
d
ni
se
ac
i
n
syst
c
c
me
s t
l
li
o
c
i
y
e
me
e
g
e
Pr
d
n
al
e
n
t
me
syst
me
r
e
n
p
b
t
c
t
e
h
t
o
l
me
n
oi
r
v
a
o
e
g
e
u
r
g
c
a
)
g
v
c
g
r
e
e
o
t
e
o
r
v
n
i
n
ssi
e
c
n
o
ar
n
p
k
A
g
it c
n
r
e
ac
ac
u
i
A
r
e
v
d
l
i
l
t
o
i
i
t
p
l
e
p
t
p
mbi
q
ll ec
v
t
se
t
o
c
c
l
o
le l
e
ll
Fiscal year
e
ayme
i
l
Ge
mpi
Le
arc er
Vo
er er
R
p
Po
ac
Pro
ad
(P&
Vo
mpi er
Vo
p
M
H
Co
E
oc
2003
650.0c
15.0
830.0
13.0
2.0

1.5

2004

1500.0d
10.0
5.0

0.2
0.8

2005

10.0
5.0

0.2
0.2

2006

11.0
4.9

e

2007

f
f

2008

115.0
12.4
5.4

0.2
0.8
10.0
2009

100.0
12.2
5.3
5.0
1.0
0.3
0.8

2010

70.0
12.2
5.3
3.0
2.0
0.3
0.8

2011

g
f
f

2012

5.2

2013

5.2

2014

h
h

2015

h
h

2016

h
h

2017

h
h

2018
380.0

h
h

2019

h
h

2020
825.0i

h
h

2021

h
h

CRS-6

link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11

e
m
y
y
t
b

h
e
g
g
a

s
c
t
m
ol
ol
Vo
t
n
n
s
d
e
o
s t
o

s
a
amr
n
u

n
syst
t
m
t
t
e
n
n
n
n
o
ci g
a
p
g
n
e
n
me
n
y t
a
h
h
amr
it
r
o
at

me
d
ni
se
ac
i
n
syst
c
c
me
s t
l
li
o
c
i
y
e
me
e
g
e
Pr
d
n
al
e
n
t
me
syst
me
r
e
n
p
b
t
c
t
e
h
t
o
l
me
n
oi
r
v
a
o
e
g
e
u
r
g
c
a
)
g
v
c
g
r
e
e
o
t
e
o
r
v
n
i
n
ssi
e
c
n
o
ar
n
p
k
A
g
it c
n
r
e
ac
ac
u
i
A
r
e
v
d
l
i
l
t
o
i
i
t
p
l
e
p
t
p
mbi
q
ll ec
v
t
se
t
o
c
c
l
o
le l
e
ll
Fiscal year
e
ayme
i
l
Ge
mpi
Le
arc er
Vo
er er
R
p
Po
ac
Pro
ad
(P&
Vo
mpi er
Vo
p
M
H
Co
E
oc
2022
75.0

h
h

2023
75.0

h
h

1.0

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 specifically reference the grant program. DOD reported
awarding $25.4 mil ion for the pilot program grants in 2011 and 2012 and $10.5 mil ion in 2013 and posted notice of another round of grant funding on February 8, 2023.
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. 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).
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. 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.
f.
Appropriations for FY2007 and FY2011 for the HAVA grant programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (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.
CRS-7

link to page 7 link to page 17
g. HAVA required states that had not replaced all of their lever and punch card voting systems by the relevant deadline to return some of the funds they received
under the lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program and directed the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to redistribute the returned
funds as requirements 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_Requesting_FY_2011_Requirements_Payments_Memo.2014.pdf.
h. 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.
i.
This figure includes $425 mil ion from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and $400 mil ion from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136). The CARES Act restricted use of its HAVA funds to preventing, preparing for, and responding to coronavirus, domestically and
internationally, for the 2020 federal election cycle. For information about other differences between the general improvements grant program as authorized by
HAVA and the FY2018, FY2020, FY2022, FY2023, and CARES Act funds, see the “General Improvements Grant Program” section of this report and Table 4.
CRS-8

link to page 17 link to page 6 link to page 6 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
match requirements. Explanatory statements accompanying the FY2018 and FY2020 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, FY2022, FY2023, and CARES Act funds, see Table 4.
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
systems 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 or 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 allocate these
funds). To avoid discouraging states from taking early action to improve their election systems in
the future, 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 million 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 significant
financial investments 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, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology
Project, July 2001.
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 The 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 Commission—Payments to States under the Help America Vote Act of 2002,
decision, May 9, 2017, at https://www.gao.gov/products/b-328615.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15
Table 3. 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)
Complying with the election administration
program
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)c 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 toll-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
EAC
Replacing lever or punch card voting systems in
system replacement grant
GSAc
precincts that used such systems to administer the
program
November 2000 regular federal general election
(52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906)
CRS-10

link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15
Grant Program
Authorized Amountsa
Administering Department or Agency
Permissible Uses of Funds
Voting system replacement
$15.0 mil ion
GSA
Being reimbursed for costs incurred in obtaining optical
reimbursement grant
scan or electronic voting equipment for administration
program
of federal elections prior to the November 2000
(P.L. 108-7)
regular federal general election
Election data collection 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
EACc
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-11

link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 12 link to page 6
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
Subsequent 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 UOCAVA. Executive Order 12642
identified the presidential designee for UOCAVA as the Secretary of Defense, 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 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 the act’s general improvements and lever and punch card voting system replacement grant programs but names the EAC
the administrator of that funding for purposes of audits and repayments (52 U.S.C. §§20901-20906, 21142). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-
199) also authorized GSA to make requirements payments while the EAC was being established but provided for expiration of that authority by the earlier of (1)
June 30, 2004, or (2) the end of the three-month period after the appointment of all members of 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 the
relevant sections of HAVA (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 payments 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 initially 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-12

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

As enacted, HAVA authorized a total of $3 billion 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
Disability Access Grant Programs
Congressional testimony by representatives of the disability community highlighted particular
challenges individuals with disabilities and older Americans faced in accessing the electoral
process in 2000. Such challenges 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 ballot privately and independently.16 HAVA authorized two grant
programs to help address such challenges: (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 to individuals with disabilities 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 made P&A system grant funds broadly available to HAVA
state P&A systems for helping ensure full participation in the electoral process by individuals
with disabilities, and the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) Program Inclusion
Act (P.L. 117-182) extended eligibility for the program to the P&A systems serving the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Native Americans in the Four
Corners region of the country (American Indian consortium). HAVA prohibits use of the funds for
initiating or participating in elections-related litigation and specifies that 7% of the funding
appropriated for the 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.19

15 The MOVE Act was enacted as Subtitle H of Title 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 Uniformed 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 awards 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 nonprofit 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, P&A Programs, at https://acl.gov/programs/pa-programs.
19 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-S1149.
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17
Table 4. Comparison of Original Authorization and Recent Appropriations for HAVA General Improvements Grant Program
Original
FY2018 Funds FY2020 Funds FY2022 Funds FY2023 Funds
CARES Act Funds

Authorization
(P.L. 115-141)
(P.L. 116-93)
(P.L. 117-103)
(P.L. 117-328)
(P.L. 116-136)
Uses
Making certain general
Making general improvements to the administration of federal elections,
Preventing, preparing for, or
improvements to
including enhancing election technology and improving election securitya
responding to coronavirus,
election administration
domestically and internationally, for
the 2020 federal election cycle
Guaranteed minimums

50 states and DC:
$5 mil ionb
$3 mil ion
$3 mil ion
$1 mil ion
$1 mil ion
$3 mil ionc
Eligible territories:
$1 mil ionb
$600,000
$600,000
$200,000
$200,000
$600,000c
Eligible recipients
50 states, DC, American
HAVA states
HAVA states and the Commonwealth of the Northern
HAVA states and the Commonwealth
Samoa, Guam, Puerto
Mariana Islands
of the Northern Mariana Islandsc
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands (HAVA states)
Spending deadline
—
—
—
—
—
December 31, 2020d
Match requirement
—
5%e
20%e
20%e
20%e
20%c,e
Reporting requirement
—f
—f
—f
Quarterly (financial) and annual
Within 20 days of an election in the
(progress)
2020 federal election cycle
Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code and relevant appropriations measures.
Notes: Congress appropriated funding for FY2018, FY2020, FY2022, and FY2023 for five sets of HAVA grant funds: FY2018, FY2020, FY2022, and FY2023 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 grant program as authorized by HAVA and the recent appropriations.
a. Explanatory statements accompanying the FY2018 and FY2020 consolidated 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) clarified that those funds—as well as some other funding appropriated under
HAVA—may be used to cover certain costs incurred in response to the COVID-19 pandemic or an increase in threats to election officials.
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 were required to return any funds that had 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-14

link to page 12 link to page 12 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 authorizing funding to help replace lever and punch
card voting systems. Another was authorizing 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.20
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.21
Youth Voter Participation and Poll Worker Recruitment Grant
Programs
Young people participated in the 2000 elections at lower rates than their older counterparts,22 and
some of the issues with the administration of the 2000 elections were caused by a shortage of
qualified poll workers.23 Congress authorized two grant programs in HAVA that were aimed at
addressing one or both of those issues.24 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.25 The Help America
Vote College Program, which was to be developed by the EAC, was intended to use grant-making

20 The EAC has used funding provided for these grant programs to conduct Accessible Voting Technology, Military
Heroes, and Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Testing 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.
21 The U.S. Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) implemented this grant
program as its Electronic Absentee Systems for Elections (EASE 1) and Effective Absentee Systems for Elections
(EASE 2) grant programs, which were available to states, territories, and localities. DOD posted notice of another
round of EASE grant funding on February 8, 2023. 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.
22 Thom File, Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 1964-2012, U.S. Census Bureau, April 2014,
p. 6, at https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-573.html.
23 See, for example, GAO, Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation.
24 HAVA also authorized another initiative to encourage youth voter participation: the Help America Vote Foundation.
The 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.
25 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 America 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
15

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.26
Election Data Collection Grant Program
Election data can help policymakers identify potential improvements to election administration
processes. For example, data indicating that mail ballots are being rejected at particularly high
rates in a given locality might encourage the locality to review its ballot 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)27—but
Congress found that some EAVS data quality and response rates were lower than expected.28 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 million 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,29 and it was not generally considered likely to do so.30
However, developments like 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 have introduced
election administration challenges that have been ongoing, difficult for states and localities to
manage alone, or both.31

26 HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct various activities as part of the Help America Vote College Program, 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.
27 For more on the EAVS, see CRS In Focus IF11266, The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and
2018 Findings, by Karen L. Shanton.
28 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.
29 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 15, 2021, p. 4, at
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/FY21_EAC_AFR_FINAL.pdf.
30 The then-chair of the 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 systems. 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
Commission (EAC): Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton.
31 For more on election interference, COVID-19, and other election emergencies, see CRS Report R46146, Campaign
and Election Security Policy: Overview and Recent Developments for Congress, coordinated by R. Sam Garrett; and
CRS Report R46455, COVID-19 and Other Election Emergencies: Frequently Asked Questions and Recent Policy
Developments, coordinated by R. Sam Garrett.
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 7 link to page 21 link to page 21 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

As described in the “General Improvements Grant Program” section of this report, Congress has
responded to such challenges, in part, by providing $380 million for HAVA grant funds for
FY2018, $75 million for FY2022, $75 million for FY2023, and a total of $825 million in regular
and supplemental appropriations for FY2020. Some Members have also proposed legislation to
establish new elections grant programs for states or localities. Some of those proposals would
authorize grant funding for a limited number of fiscal years, while others, such as the 118th
Congress’s Sustaining Our Democracy Act (S. 630), would establish a program and trust fund that
would provide for ongoing funding.
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 elections policy is over the role the federal government should play in election
administration. 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 all eligible voters have
access to the ballot or protecting the integrity of the electoral process.32 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.33
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 elections grant programs at all. Some have opposed
elections grant programs for states or localities on the grounds either that they would constitute
federal overreach in and of themselves or that they could lead to such overreach.34
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 still have funding remaining from previous appropriations for the grant program a given
appropriations bill would fund, for example, or suggested that Congress does not yet have enough
information to determine whether further funding for the program is warranted.35 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.

32 See, for example, Brennan Center for Justice, “Voting Reform,” at https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-
every-american-can-vote/voting-reform.
33 See, for example, Hans von Spakovsky, “Leave Elections up to the States,” USA Today, November 26, 2012.
34 See, for example, Maggie Miller, “Election Security Funds Caught in Crosshairs of Spending Debate,” The Hill,
September 17, 2019.
35 See, for example, Maggie Miller, “New Federal Funds for Election Security Garner Mixed Reactions on Capitol
Hill,” The Hill, December 17, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
17

link to page 20 link to page 30 Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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 fund them.
Options for Legislative Proposals
The “Role of Federal Grant Programs” section of this report describes cases in which Members
might oppose proposals to authorize or fund election administration-related grant programs for
states or localities. There are also 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.36 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 specifically to current needs.37
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
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 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). The discussion in these subsections is intended to be illustrative rather than to
provide a comprehensive accounting of all of the factors that might inform choices about
elections grant programs. Congressional clients may contact the author of this report for more
detailed discussion of considerations that might be relevant to specific legislative proposals.38

36 For more on Congress’s authority to set requirements for election administration, see CRS Report RL30747,
Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections, by Kenneth R. Thomas.
37 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.
38 Congress has also used or proposed using funding to engage with election administration in ways other than
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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.39 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.40 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.41
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 will likely also play a prominent role in implementing—and helping
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 specifically by replacing them. 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.42

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 policies. Such uses of
funding are outside the scope of this report.
39 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.
40 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.
41 See, for example, Written Statement of R. Kyle Ardoin in U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration,
Subcommittee on Elections, The Impact of COVID-19 on Voting Rights and Election Administration: Ensuring Safe
and Fair Elections, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., June 11, 2020, p. 2; and Statement from the Honorable Tre Hargett,
Tennessee 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.
42 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 the act’s
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
19

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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 some recent
consolidated and Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bills, is to
prioritize use of the funds for a particular activity, such as replacing direct-recording electronic
(DRE) voting machines, but permit them to be used for more general purposes under certain
conditions.43
Amount of Funding
• Is the total amount of federal funding authorized for the grant program a fixed
amount, or is it such sums as may be necessary to conduct the funded activities?
• Are grant recipients required to contribute to funding grant activities?
• How is funding allocated 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 conduct 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
required to match 5% of the federal funding they received in FY2018 HAVA general
improvements grant funds, for example, and 20% of the funding received in FY2020, FY2022,
FY2023, and CARES Act funds.44
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

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 Developments and Issues for Congress, by Sarah J. Eckman; and
EAC, Voluntary Guidance on Implementation 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.
43 See, for example, a House-passed FY2021 consolidated appropriations act (H.R. 7617; passed 217-197), the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2022 (H.R. 4345), and the Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act, 2023 (H.R. 8254).
44 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 Commission FY2008/2009/2010/2011 Requirements Payment Schedule, at https://web.archive.org/web/
20191227211147/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/4699.PDF; and EAC, “HAVA Frequently Asked Questions,” at
https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/grants-faqs.
Congressional Research Service
20

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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.45
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.46 States with more limited
resources may also find it more challenging to meet match requirements in general than better-
resourced states.
A proposal was offered, during the HAVA debate, to address that last trade-off by linking the
percentage of federal funding states were required to match to their level of financial need.47 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
allocate some HAVA funds due to concerns that competitive grant processes would disadvantage
states with more limited resources for grant-writing.48 The formulas Congress set out in HAVA
were also structured to reflect variations among states. Allocations 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 allocations 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?
• Is grant funding available to election officials or to other state or local 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 generally
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.49 Local officials are often both
responsible for most elections-related spending and most familiar with the specifics of election
administration needs.

45 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 2020 General Election
Preparations, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 22, 2020.
46 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%20Leadership.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 were offered to
repeal the match requirement for CARES Act funds or permit it to be waived. See, for example, the 116th Congress’s
Heroes Act (H.R. 6800), Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020 (S. 4033), Secure Our Elections Act (H.R.
6777), and State Elections Preparedness Act (S. 3778).
47 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.
48 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.
49 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 Administration: Duties and Structures, by Karen L. Shanton.
Congressional Research Service
21

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

There may be compelling 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.50 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. Bills have also been introduced that would require states
to pass some elections grant funding through to localities or allow local officials to apply for
elections grant funds if their state officials opt not to do so or authorize them to apply.51
Some election administration-related grant programs have also been directed to non-elections-
specific 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 well-equipped to help improve electoral access for individuals with
disabilities.52
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 “state” as including the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and that definition was used to set eligibility for a number of
elections grant programs, including HAVA’s P&A system program.53 That meant that CNMI—
and, in the case of the P&A system grant program, the P&A system serving the American Indian
consortium—was generally not eligible for funding Congress appropriated for HAVA’s state grant
programs.
Congress has subsequently provided for some exceptions to that general rule. The PAVA Program
Inclusion Act, which was enacted in 2022, amended HAVA to extend eligibility for the P&A
system grant program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022;
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023; and CARES Act also included provisions that made their
HAVA general improvements grant funds available to CNMI.
Congress might choose to base eligibility for any future state elections grant programs on the
current HAVA definition of “state.” Alternatively, it might amend the HAVA definition to include
CNMI or follow the PAVA Program Inclusion Act in extending eligibility for new or existing
grant programs to CNMI or other entities on a case-by-case basis.54

50 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 program have generally limited
them to the HAVA states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7.
51 See, for example, the Secure Elections Act (H.R. 6663/S. 2261/S. 2593) in the 115th Congress and the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2023 (H.R. 8254) in the 117th Congress.
52 Sen. Tom 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.
53 CNMI was not included in HAVA’s definition of “state” because it did not hold federal elections when HAVA was
enacted. Testimony of the Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, in U.S. Congress, Committee on House
Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Voting Rights and Election Administration in the U.S. Virgin Islands and
Other Territories, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 28, 2020, p. 2.
54 For examples of bills that would amend the HAVA definition of “state,” see the 117th Congress’s For the People Act
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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 grant-
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
systems 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 grant-funded activities. Such deadlines can help ensure that funds are spent within a
specified time period. Awards under certain HAVA grant programs, such as most of the funding
Congress has provided under 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 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 still having grant funds or interest in their accounts almost 20 years after the grant
funding was appropriated.55
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 well-tailored to the program’s objectives.56
NASS also expressed concern that the deadline for obligating CARES Act funding could
introduce complications for use of the funds, and some states cited the deadline as a barrier to
spending their shares.57
One possible way to encourage timely spending without setting deadlines could be to provide for
ongoing funding for certain election administration-related purposes.58 Some states have reported
that they waited to spend some of their HAVA grant funds so they would have funding available

of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093), Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747), and Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act (H.R. 5746).
Amending the definition of “state” to include other entities might also have other implications, such as extending
HAVA’s requirements to those entities.
55 EAC, 2021 Grant Expenditure Report, July 2022, at
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/paymentgrants/expenditures/EAC_2021_Grant_Expenditure_Report_FINAL.pd
f.
56 See, for example, Brandon Fail, “HAVA’s Unintended Consequences: A Lesson for Next Time,” The Yale Law
Journal, vol. 116, no. 2 (November 2006), pp. 499-500.
57 Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Speaker Nancy Pelosi 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. See also, for example, the FY2021 financial and progress reporting
some states submitted for CARES Act funds. EAC, “2020 CARES Act Grants,” at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-
grants/2020-cares-act-grants.
58 For an example of legislation in the 118th Congress that would take this approach, see the Sustaining Our Democracy
Act (S. 630).
Congressional Research Service
23

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

to cover unexpected expenses or meet future iterations of ongoing needs.59 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.60 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 bill 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 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.61 In some cases,
however, Congress might determine that there is particular information it needs to conduct
effective oversight of a grant program and include specific administrative conditions in bill text or
report language.62 HAVA requires recipients of requirements payments to file and update detailed
state plans for the payments, for example, and the CARES Act required recipients of its HAVA
funds to report on their spending within 20 days of each election they held in the 2020 federal
election cycle.
Such additional administrative conditions may help Congress gain better insight into how grant
funds are being used, how well 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 requirements while also fulfilling their other post-
election responsibilities, such as conducting the canvass. NASS indicated that this might be a
challenge in a letter to Congress,63 for example, and some Members proposed legislation to

59 See, for example, the spending plans some states submitted for FY2018 HAVA funds. EAC, “Election Security
Funds,” at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/election-security-funds.
60 See, for example, Testimony 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.
61 For more on grants administration and the role of agency discretion, see CRS Report R42769, Federal Grants-in-Aid
Administration: A Primer, by Natalie Keegan.
62 For more on the respective roles of bill text and report language, see CRS Report R44124, Appropriations Report
Language: Overview of Development and Components, by Drew C. Aherne.
63 Letter from Paul Pate, President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

modify the requirement.64 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 been a common choice of agency 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 (HHS) was charged with administering HAVA’s disability access grant
programs,65 for example, and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has administered the
MOVE Act’s UOCAVA election technology pilot program grant program.66 The National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) 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 (DHS) on an election security grant program.67
Concluding Observations
Congress has tended, historically, 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 typically 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 foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 election cycle and the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycle. Congress appropriated a total of more than
$1.3 billion under HAVA’s general improvements grant program for FY2018, FY2020, FY2022,
and FY2023 and has advanced other proposals to authorize or fund state or local elections grant
programs through parts of the legislative process.

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.
64 See, for example, the 116th Congress’s Heroes Act (H.R. 6800), Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020
(S. 4033), and Secure Our Elections Act (H.R. 6777).
65 The 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. The 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.
66 The 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. Department
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
Title I of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act,” 53 Federal Register 21975, June 8, 1988.
67 See, for example, the Secure Elections Act (H.R. 6663/S. 2593) in the 115th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
25

Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities

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, FY2020, FY2022, and FY2023 appropriations
were more isolated responses to immediate challenges. 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 challenges
like the ones presented by election interference and the COVID-19 pandemic or to advance
broader elections objectives, such as ensuring that all eligible voters have access to the ballot 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
26

link to page 21
Appendix. 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 evaluating 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 illustrative 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 A-1. Selected Options for Structuring Election Administration-Related Grant Programs for States and Localities
Category
Sample Questions
Sample Answers
Examples from Previous Legislation
Uses of Funds
Are grant funds limited to use for
Specific activities
CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136, Election
specific activities or available for more
Security Grants)
general purposes?
General purposes
HAVA general improvements grant program (52
U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906)
Are grant funds intended to finance
Voluntary activities
HAVA voting technology pilot program grant
voluntary activities or help meet
program (52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053)
federal requirements?
Federal requirements
HAVA requirements payments program (52
U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
Are any uses of grant funds prohibited
Prohibited
HAVA P&A system grant program (52 U.S.C.
or prioritized?
§§21061-21062)
Prioritized
Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2023 (117th Congress; H.R.
8254, Election Security Grants)
Amount of Funding
Is the total amount of federal funding
Fixed amount
HAVA general improvements grant program (52
authorized for the grant program a
U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906)
fixed amount, or is it such sums as
may be necessary to conduct the
Such sums as may be necessary
UOCAVA election technology pilot program grant
funded activities?
program (52 U.S.C. §20311)
Are grant recipients required to
By matching a percentage of the federal
FY2023 HAVA funds (P.L. 117-328, Election
contribute to funding grant activities?
funding they receive
Security Grants)
CRS-27

link to page 33
Category
Sample Questions
Sample Answers
Examples from Previous Legislation
By matching a percentage of the total amount
HAVA requirements payments program (52
to be spent on grant activities
U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
How is funding allocated to grant
Nondiscretionary formula, based on voting-
HAVA requirements payments program (52
recipients?
age population
U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
Nondiscretionary formula, based on number
HAVA lever and punch card voting system
of qualifying precincts in the state
replacement grant program (52 U.S.C. §§20902-
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, Election
minimum—or subject to maximum—
Reform Program)
award amounts?
Maximum award amounts
Voting system replacement reimbursement grant
program (P.L. 108-7, Election Reform Programs)
Recipients of Funding
Is grant funding available—directly or
Directly
HAVA pol ing place accessibility grant program (52
indirectly—to local officials?
U.S.C. §§21021-21025)a
If the state does not apply
Secure Elections Act (115th Congress; H.R.
6663/S. 2593, §7)
If authorized by the state
Secure Elections Act (115th Congress; S. 2261, §7)
Via mandatory pass-throughs
Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2023 (117th Congress; H.R.
8254, Election Security Grants)
Is grant funding available to election
Election officials
HAVA requirements payments program (52
officials or to other state or local
U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
entities?
Other state or local entities
HAVA P&A system grant program (52 U.S.C.
§§21061-21062)
Which jurisdictions or entities are
50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam,
Election data collection grant program (52 U.S.C.
eligible for the grant program?
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
§20981 note)
(HAVA states)
HAVA states and the Commonwealth of the
FY2020 HAVA funds (P.L. 116-93, Election
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
Security Grants)
CRS-28

Category
Sample Questions
Sample Answers
Examples from Previous Legislation
HAVA states, CNMI, and the American Indian Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access
consortium
(PAVA) Program Inclusion Act (52 U.S.C. §21061)
Availability of Funding
Is there a statutory deadline by which
Within 30 days of the act’s enactment
CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136, Election
the agency that is charged with
Security Grants)
administering the grant program must
distribute the grant funding?
Within 45 days of the act’s enactment
FY2018 HAVA funds (P.L. 115-141, Election
Reform Program)
Are grant recipients required to
With option for extension
HAVA lever and punch card voting system
obligate or spend grant funds or
replacement grant program (52 U.S.C. §§20902-
complete grant-funded activities by a
20906)
certain deadline?
Without option for extension
CARES Act HAVA funds (P.L. 116-136, Election
Security Grants)
Are appropriations for the grant
Limited number of fiscal years
HAVA voting technology improvements research
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)
Administration of
Are details of grants administration,
Specified in authorizing legislation
HAVA requirements payments program (52
Grant Programs
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, Election
language, or left to the discretion of
Security Grants)
the federal agency charged with
Specified in report language
Joint Committee Print, Omnibus Appropriations
administering the grant program?
Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8, Election Reform Programs)
Which agency is charged with
EAC
Election data collection grant program (52 U.S.C.
administering the grant program?
§20981 note)
Other federal agency
UOCAVA election technology pilot program grant
program (52 U.S.C. §20311)
Is the administering agency
Other agencies
HAVA voting technology improvements research
encouraged or required to col aborate
grant program (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043)
or consult with other agencies or
stakeholders?
Other stakeholders
Frank Harrison, Elizabeth Peratrovich, and Miguel
Trujil o Native American Voting Rights Act of
2021 (117th Congress; H.R. 5008/S. 2702, §4)
CRS-29

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 generally limited them to the HAVA states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7.
CRS-30

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 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.

Congressional Research Service
R46646 · VERSION 11 · UPDATED
31