.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections
Reform: Overview and Issues
Kevin J. Coleman
Analyst in Elections
Eric A. Fischer
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
May 26, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS20898
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
Summary
The November 2000 presidential election made previously obscure details of election
administration the focus of state and federal legislative action. The Help America Vote Act
(HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in 2002, and states have made additional changes to election
laws and procedures since then. HAVA created the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), set
requirements for various aspects of election administration, and provided federal funding. The
law did not supplant state and local control over election administration, but several election
reform issues have arisen or persisted subsequently. HAVA promoted the use of electronic voting
systems to facilitate voting by persons with disabilities, but those systems raised concerns about
security and reliability that led many states to enact laws requiring voter-verifiable paper ballot
records. Support for the EAC has eroded among some observers, who have criticized it for being
too obtrusive, or for being slow, ineffectual, or even unnecessary. HAVA’s voter-identification
provisions did not resolve the controversy over whether more stringent requirements are needed
to prevent voter fraud, or whether such requirements are more likely to disenfranchise legitimate
voters than prevent fraud. Similarly, while HAVA’s voter-registration requirement may have
improved that process, some have argued for more automated systems. Concerns about
inadvertent disenfranchisement of military and overseas voters led to legislation to correct those
problems. Finally, the Obama Administration and others have argued that no additional federal
funds should be expended to assist states in meeting HAVA requirements because large sums
previously appropriated remain unexpended.
Altogether, more than $3.5 billion of federal funds has been appropriated through FY2010 under
various HAVA authorities: about $3.3 billion in election reform payments to states; $130 million
for the EAC and various programs it administers; and another $130 million in accessibility
payments to states, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. For FY2011,
the President’s budget request included $16.8 million for the EAC but no funding for election
reform payments to the states. The Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 111-238) and the
House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee recommended
similar amounts. However, the EAC has been operating at FY2010 funding levels since
September 30, 2010, under a series of continuing resolutions. For FY2012, the Administration
requested $13.7 million for the EAC, with no funding for election reform payments.
Numerous bills to amend HAVA have been considered in Congress. One has been enacted that
made a minor change to the law. The 111th Congress enacted a new military and overseas citizens
voting law that was signed into law in October 2009 as part of the defense authorization act (P.L.
111-84). The House passed H.R. 512, which would prohibit a state’s chief election official from
actively participating in a federal election campaign, unless the official or an immediate family
member was the candidate. The bill died in the Senate. A number of election reform bills were
reported in the House as well. The reported bills would have established universal absentee
voting (H.R. 1604), provided grants for voluntary absentee ballot tracking (H.R. 2510), and made
improvements to military voting procedures (H.R. 2393).
In the 112th Congress, the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on House Administration
held a hearing on April 14, 2011, on H.R. 672 (Harper), which would amend HAVA to eliminate
the EAC and transfer its functions to the Federal Election Commission and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology. On May 25, 2011, the full committee approved an amendment in
the nature of a substitute to the bill, offered by Representative Harper, and passed it. As amended,
the bill would transfer essential functions to the FEC only, rather than to the FEC and NIST.
Congressional Research Service
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
Contents
The Help America Vote Act ......................................................................................................... 1
Voting Systems and Election Administration ............................................................................... 2
Voting Systems ..................................................................................................................... 2
Electronic Voting Machine Controversy .......................................................................... 3
Federal Funding .................................................................................................................... 3
Election Assistance Commission ........................................................................................... 3
Standards and Requirements ................................................................................................. 4
Voter Identification ............................................................................................................... 4
Voter Registration ................................................................................................................. 5
Voting by Members of the Uniformed Services and Overseas Voters ........................................... 5
Funding Under the Help America Vote Act ............................................................................ 5
Appropriations ...................................................................................................................... 6
Legislative Action ..................................................................................................................... 10
Tables
Table 1. Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Funding ....................................................................... 8
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 11
Congressional Research Service
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
The Help America Vote Act
Even before the 2000 presidential election had been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in
December of that year, more than a dozen bills to reform the election process had been introduced
in the Congress. Legislative activity continued when the 107th Congress convened the following
month, along with the release of various independent reports and studies on election reform. In
December 2001, the House passed H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act. The Senate passed S.
565, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act, in early 2002, after
adopting 40 amendments. Following conference negotiations, the compromise bill, the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in October.
HAVA imposed a number of requirements on the states with respect to election administration,
provided payments to the states to meet the new requirements, created a new independent agency,
made changes to improve military and overseas voting, and authorized other election reform
activities. Among its major provisions, HAVA did the following:
• created the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent, bipartisan
agency to carry out grant programs, provide for testing and certification of voting
systems, study election issues, and assist election officials by issuing guidelines
and other guidance for voting systems and implementation of the act’s
requirements;
• established a number of payment and grant programs to
• help states meet the law’s requirements,
• replace punchcard and lever voting machines and make general election
improvements,
• promote accessibility in the electoral process,
• promote student participation, and
• support research and pilot programs;
• established requirements in the states to
• provide a provisional ballot to a voter who is not on the registration list or
whose registration is in question;
• post a sample ballot and voter information at polling places on election day;
• impose an identification standard for first-time voters who register by mail;
• provide for voter error correction on voting systems used in federal elections;
• provide for manual auditing of the voting system, alternative-language
accessibility, and at least one machine per voting place that can provide
disability access, and
• create and maintain a computerized, verified statewide voter registration list,
• required the EAC to develop voting system guidelines for computer hardware
and software for voluntarily use by the states, and voluntary guidance to assist
states in meeting HAVA requirements;
• left methods of implementation to the states and prohibited rulemaking by the
EAC, leaving enforcement to the U.S. Attorney General while requiring states to
establish grievance procedures; and
Congressional Research Service
1
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
• amended the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)
to make improvements to voting procedures for members of the military and
overseas citizens.
Although many bills have been introduced to amend HAVA since it became law, only a minor
change has been enacted. The National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 made numerous
amendments to UOCAVA and also amended HAVA to authorize appropriations to achieve
compliance on the new military and overseas voting requirements. In general, local election
officials (LEOs) support HAVA and its provisions, although some, such as the provisional ballot
requirement, have been controversial. For more information about the views of LEOs, see CRS
Report R41667, How Local Election Officials View Election Reform: Results of Three National
Surveys, by Eric A. Fischer and Kevin J. Coleman.
Voting Systems and Election Administration
While initial reactions after the 2000 election had tended to focus on technological fixes such as
eliminating punchcards, a consensus emerged subsequently that the issues, and the solutions
needed, were more complex and often involved trade-offs among diverse goals. HAVA reflects
those developments—it funded replacement of punchcard and lever systems but also broader
improvements in election administration.
Voting Systems
Currently, most jurisdictions use one of two kinds of voting system:
• optical scan, in which voters mark choices on paper ballots by hand or machine
and the ballots are read by an electronic counting device, or
• direct recording electronic (DRE) systems, in which voters mark choices via a
computer interface and the voting machine records them directly to an electronic
memory.
There is no consensus on whether any one technology is best. Use of optical scan and DRE
systems increased after the enactment of HAVA, and these systems are now used by 90% of
voters. States have different practices and requirements. HAVA does not require any particular
voting system, but it sets requirements that influence what systems election officials choose.
Systems used in federal elections must provide for error correction by voters, manual auditing,
accessibility, alternative languages, and error-rate standards. Systems must also maintain voter
privacy and ballot confidentiality, and states must adopt uniform standards for what constitutes a
vote on each system.
In September 2009, ES&S, considered by many to be the largest voting-system vendor in the
United States, announced that it had acquired Premier Election Solutions, considered the second
largest. This acquisition raised concerns among some other vendors, election officials, and
activists. A particular concern was whether the larger market share the acquisition gave ES&S
would create a monopolistic environment in the voting-system industry. The merger
announcement prompted a lawsuit by competitor Hart Intercivic against ES&S and Diebold,
Incorporated, Premier’s parent company, on antitrust grounds, and led to an investigation and
lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice. The case was settled in March 2010 with an agreement
Congressional Research Service
2
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
by ES&S to divest specified assets acquired from Premier. In May 2010, Dominion Voting
Systems acquired those assets, and one month later, it also acquired Sequoia Voting Systems,
which had been the third largest U.S. vendor.
Electronic Voting Machine Controversy
HAVA’s requirement for accessible voting systems (at least one per polling place) and other
factors drove some states to adopt DREs, but controversy exists about the security of those
systems. Some experts and advocates believe that the problem is serious enough to require that all
voting systems produce paper ballots that can be verified by voters and that will serve as the
official record of the votes for any recount. Others believe that other safeguards can make DREs
sufficiently safe from tampering, that use of printed paper ballots would create too many
problems, and that the controversy risks drawing attention away from the demonstrated utility of
DREs in addressing problems of access to and usability of voting systems. HAVA requires a paper
audit trail for the voting system, but not paper ballots. However, many states have instituted
paper-ballot-trail requirements.
Several bills introduced in recent Congresses would have addressed this issue. Most would have
required a specific design standard for paper ballots rather than setting a performance standard
that can be met in different ways, which was the approach taken by HAVA with respect to voting
system requirements. Proponents of paper ballots argue that a legislated design standard is the
only way to ensure that voting systems exhibit the desired level of verifiability and security.
Opponents argue that such a design standard freezes technology and stifles innovation, thereby
precluding the development and implementation of technologies with superior levels of
verifiability and security than is possible with current technology.1
Federal Funding
A central issue has been the role of the federal government in addressing concerns about voting
systems, particularly with respect to funding and standards. HAVA authorized $3.86 billion in
funding for programs to replace equipment, improve election administration, improve
accessibility, recruit pollworkers, and perform research and pilot studies. The amount
appropriated by Congress thus far is $3.54 billion. However, a substantial proportion of the
payments to states reportedly remains unexpended, and as a result, the two most recent
Administration budget requests have not included any additional funding for that program.
Similarly, the FY2012 request does not include any funding for accessibility payments (see
“Voting by Members of the Uniformed Services and Overseas Voters”).
Election Assistance Commission
Before HAVA, federal activities relating to election administration were performed by the Office
of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Other than the
voluntary voting system standards, OEA performed clearinghouse functions and some
administrative activities under the National Voter Registration Act (P.L. 103-31). HAVA replaced
1 See CRS Report RL33190, The Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machine (DRE) Controversy: FAQs and
Misperceptions.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
the OEA with the Election Assistance Commission (EAC, http://www.eac.gov), an independent,
bipartisan federal agency. The act also established two boards, with broad-based state and local
membership, and a technical committee, to address aspects of voting system standards and
certification. The statute also provides for technical support and participation by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, see http://vote.nist.gov/). The EAC carries out grant
programs, provides for testing and certification of voting systems, studies election issues, and
issues voluntary guidelines for voting systems and guidance for the requirements in the act. The
EAC has no rule-making authority (except for limited authority under the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993, the “motor-voter” law) and does not enforce HAVA requirements. The
act established two enforcement processes: the U.S. Attorney General may bring civil action with
respect to HAVA requirements, and states, as a condition for receipt of funds, were required to
establish administrative grievance procedures to handle complaints from individuals.
At the time HAVA was being debated in Congress, there was some dispute about whether it
should be a permanent agency. Some supporters contended that a permanent agency was
necessary to ensure the fairness and integrity of federal elections, whereas opponents were
concerned about a permanent federal role in what was historically a responsibility of state and
local governments. The outcome of the debate was that HAVA authorized appropriations for the
EAC for FY2003 through FY2005, but did not contain a sunset provision for the agency. It has
not been reauthorized but has been funded in each fiscal year since FY2005. At least one bill was
previously introduced to make the EAC a permanent agency (H.R. 550, 109th Congress), while
two bills in the 112th Congress would eliminate the EAC (H.R. 235 and H.R. 672). The
Committee on House Administration ordered H.R. 672 to be reported, as amended, on May 25,
2011. (See the “Legislative Action” section of this report.)
Standards and Requirements
In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-based voting systems. Most
states have now adopted those standards, which were updated in 2002. HAVA codifies the
development and regular updating of those standards, which it calls voluntary guidelines. The
EAC issued draft guidelines for public comment in June 2005. The final version took effect in
December 2007. A new, completely rewritten draft version was first released for public review in
October 2007.2 However, it has yet to be adopted.
HAVA also establishes federal requirements for voting systems, registration, provisional ballots,
and other aspects of election administration. It leaves the methods of implementation to the states
but requires the EAC to issue voluntary guidance.3
Voter Identification
The Help America Vote Act requires that certain voters who had registered by mail present a form
of identification from a list specified in the act. States vary greatly in what identification they
require voters to present, ranging from nothing beyond the federal requirement to photographic
identification for all voters. A number of states enacted laws in recent years to require photo ID to
2 See CRS Report RS21156, Federal Voting Systems Standards and Guidelines: Congressional Deliberations; and
CRS Report RL33146, Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines: Summary and Analysis of Issues.
3 See CRS Report RL32685, Election Reform: The Help America Vote Act and Issues for Congress.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
vote, which resulted in a series of state court challenges and rulings. In the 109th Congress, the
House passed legislation to require photo identification and proof of citizenship when voting in
federal elections, but no further action followed. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld an Indiana
statute requiring photo identification for voting.4
Voter Registration
With the passage of HAVA, Congress attempted to address voter registration problems by
requiring computerization and integration of voter registration systems and placing primary
responsibility at the state level of government. That requirement went into effect in January 2006.
The absence of a clear national standard for the HAVA-required statewide systems has led to
uncertainties about how states should develop them and even whether states will be able to meet
the requirements. Given the problems some states have had, the increase in new-voter registration
in recent elections, and recent closely contested presidential elections, issues associated with
voter registration systems have become more prominent. Among them are questions about the
integrity and accuracy of the new statewide systems, the validity of new registrations, concerns
about various kinds of fraud and abuse, and the impacts of attempts to challenge the validity of
voters’ registrations at polling places.
Voting by Members of the Uniformed Services and
Overseas Voters
Members of the uniformed services and U.S. citizens who live abroad are eligible to register and
vote absentee in federal elections under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act (UOCAVA, P.L. 99-410) of 1986. The law is administered by the Secretary of Defense, who
delegates that responsibility to the director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program at the
Department of Defense (DOD). The law was amended following the 2000 Presidential election
because of controversy surrounding ballots received in Florida from uniformed services and
overseas voters. Both the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) and the
Help America Vote Act (P.L. 107-252) included various provisions concerning uniformed
services and overseas voting. Minor revisions to the law were made again in 2005 and 2007. In
the 111th Congress, a major overhaul of UOCAVA was approved when the President signed the
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-84) on October 28. It included an
amendment (S.Amdt. 1764) that contained the provisions of S. 1415, the Military and Overseas
Voter Empowerment Act. Most of the provisions of the MOVE Act were in effect for the 2010
election.5
Funding Under the Help America Vote Act
States and territories were eligible to receive $2.3 billion in federal requirements payments under
HAVA, once each jurisdiction had published a “state plan” in the Federal Register, followed by a
4 See CRS Report RS22882, The Constitutionality of Requiring Photo Identification for Voting: An Analysis of
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, by L. Paige Whitaker.
5 See CRS Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues, by
Kevin J. Coleman.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
45-day public comment period and the filing of a certification with the EAC. The state plans were
published on March 24, 2004. The $2.3 billion included funds appropriated in FY2003 and
FY2004, which could not be allocated until establishment of the EAC and publication of the state
plans. The EAC distributed all of that funding to states by December 2005; no additional funding
for requirements payments was appropriated until FY2008, when $115 million was appropriated.
An additional $100 million was appropriated for FY2009. Payments have been distributed to
states and territories to meet the new HAVA requirements and can be used for general election
administration improvements once the requirements have been met.
HAVA established the following payment and grant programs (see Table 1 below for authorized
and appropriated amounts).
• Election Administration Improvements. Provided expedited, one-time formula
payments for general election administration improvements to states that applied,
with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for this and the
replacement program (see next paragraph). Administered by General Services
Administration (GSA). (Sec. 101.)
• Replacement of Punchcard and Lever Machine Systems. Provided expedited,
one-time formula payments to replace punchcard systems and lever machines in
qualifying states, with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for this
and the improvements program, summarized above. Administered by GSA. (Sec.
102.)
• Payments to Meet Election Requirements. Provides annual formula payments to
states to meet the act’s requirements. Requires a 5% match and submission of a
state plan. Administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) created
in the act. (Sec. 251-258.)
• Payments to Assure Accessibility. Provides payments to states to make polling
places accessible to persons with disabilities. Requires application. Administered
by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (Sec. 265-265.)
• Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems. Provides payments to state
protection and advocacy systems to ensure electoral participation by persons with
disabilities. Requires application. Administered by HHS. (Sec. 291-292.)
• Grants for Research and Pilot Programs. Provides grants for research to improve
voting technology (Sec. 271-273) and for pilot programs to test new voting
technology (Sec. 281-283). Requires application. Administered by EAC.
• Student Programs. Establishes three programs, one to recruit college students as
pollworkers (Sec. 501-503), one to recruit high school students (Sec. 601), and
one to provide grants for the National Student and Parent Mock Election (Sec.
295-296).
Appropriations
The FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2, H.Rept. 108-10, P.L. 108-7), signed into
law on February 20, 2003, contained $1.5 billion for election reform programs authorized by
HAVA, including $650 million combined for the election administration improvement and voting
system replacement payments to be administered by GSA (with no specific allocation designated
for either program and a maximum of $500,000 for administrative costs). GSA disbursed all of
Congressional Research Service
6
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
these funds to states in June 2003. All states and territories received payments for election
administration improvements, based on a formula using each state’s voting-age population, and
payments to replace punch card and lever voting systems were made to all states that applied.
Also included was $830 million for requirements payments (with a maximum of 0.1% to be paid
to any territory), and $20 million for other programs—$13 million for accessibility payments, $2
million for protection and advocacy programs, $1.5 million each for the college and high school
programs, and $2 million for the EAC. P.L. 108-7 also included a $15 million appropriation to
GSA for one-time payments to certain states that had obtained optical scan or electronic voting
systems prior to the November 2000 election.
The President’s budget request for FY2004 included $500 million, one-half the amount
authorized, to fund EAC requirements payments and administration. No funds were specifically
requested for the other programs described above. The final omnibus appropriations bill, H.R.
2673, signed into law on January 23, 2004 (P.L. 108-199), contained just over $1.5 billion for
election reform, including $1.0 billion for requirements payments, $500 million for election
reform programs, $10 million for accessibility payments, $5 million for protection and advocacy
systems, and $1.2 million for the EAC.
For FY2005, the President’s budget request included $65 million for election reform, of which
$40 million was additional funding for requirements payments and $10 million was for EAC
administrative expenses. The request also included $5 million for protection and advocacy
programs and $10 million for accessibility payments. The omnibus appropriations bill for
FY2005, H.R. 4818, was signed into law on December 8, 2004, and included $14 million for the
EAC, of which $2.8 million was to be transferred to NIST, and $15 million for disability voting
access, with $5 million of that amount to apply to protection and advocacy systems. Also
included was $200,000 for the student parent mock election program and $200,000 for the Help
America Vote College Program.
The President’s FY2006 budget request included $17.6 million for the EAC (of which $2.8
million is for NIST), as well as $5 million for protection and advocacy programs and $9.9 million
for accessibility payments administered by HHS. The final appropriation (P.L. 109-115) contained
$14.2 million, including $2.8 million for NIST, with $13.5 and $8.6 million, respectively, for the
HHS programs, and $250,000 “encouraged” to be spent on the Help America Vote College
Program.
The FY2007 request included $16.9 million for the EAC ($5 million for NIST), $4.83 million for
protection and advocacy programs, and $10.89 million for accessibility payments administered by
HHS. The 109th Congress adjourned without enacting an appropriations measure, providing
instead temporary funding until February 15, 2007, via a continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 102).
Continued funding through September 30 for FY2007 was subsequently provided via another
continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 20, which was signed by the President on February 15 (P.L. 110-
5). It provided $16.24 million for the EAC, of which $4.95 million was for NIST, $4.83 million
for protection and advocacy programs, and $10.89 million for disability access.
The FY2008 request included $15.5 million for the EAC ($3.25 million for NIST), and $4.83
million for protection and advocacy programs and $10.89 million for accessibility payments
administered by HHS. From the start of FY2008 until December 31, 2007, continued funding for
the EAC was provided by a series of continuing resolutions. Ultimately, FY2008 funding was
provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008, enacted on December 16, 2007 (P.L.
110-161). It provided $16.53 million for the EAC, of which $3.25 million is for NIST, and
Congressional Research Service
7
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
$200,000 is for the student and parent mock election program. It also provided $115 million for
requirements payments, $10 million for data collection grants to selected states, $4.83 million for
protection and advocacy programs, and $12.37 million for disability access.
The FY2009 request included $16.68 million for the EAC (with $4 million for NIST), as well as
$5.26 million for protection and advocacy programs and $12.15 million for accessibility
payments administered by HHS. The FY2009 appropriations were provided initially in a
continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329), which provided the same funding levels as FY2008, and
then in an omnibus bill (P.L. 111-8) that was passed on March 11, 2009. The omnibus provided
$18 million for the EAC, with $4 million of that to be transferred to NIST, $750,000 for the
College Program, and $300,000 for the high school mock election program. It also provided
funding for requirements payments to the states in the amount of $100 million, with an additional
$5 million for grants for research on voting technology improvements and $1 million for a pilot
program for grants to states and localities to test voting systems before and after elections.
Finally, the omnibus provided $12.2 million for disability access and $5.3 million for protection
and advocacy programs.
Table 1. Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Funding
($ millions)
Appropriations
HAVA
Budget Item
Auth.a 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Payments to States
Election Administration
Improvement
325
650b
650
Punchcard/Lever Machine
Replacement
325
HAVA Requirements
3,000
830
1,498
115
100
70
2,613
One-Time Paymentc
15 15
Total Paymentsd 3,650
1,495
1,498
115
100
70
3,278
Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Generale
30.00 2.00 2.00 10.71 11.29 11.29 23.08f 14.00 13.41 87.77
NIST
2.78 2.77 4.95 3.25 4.00 3.50 21.25
College Program
5.00g 1.50 0.75 0.20 0.00h 0.80
0.75 4.00
High School Program
5.00g
1.50
0.75
2.25
Mock Election
0.20g 0.20
0.20 0.20
0.30
0.30
1.20
Research 20.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
Pilot Programs
10.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
Total
EAC
70.20 5.00 3.70 13.88 14.06 16.24 26.53 25.10 22.96 127.47
Health and Human Services (HHS)
Accessibility 100.00 13.00 10.00 10.00 10.90 10.90 12.40 12.20 12.15 91.55
Protection and Advocacy
40.00g 2.00 5.00 4.96 4.83 4.83 5.35 5.30 5.26 37.52
Total
HHS
140.00 15.00 15.00 14.96 15.73 15.73 17.75 17.50 17.41 129.08
Congressional Research Service
8
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
Appropriations
HAVA
Budget Item
Auth.a 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Total
HAVA
3,860 1,515 1,517 29 30 32 159 143 110 3,535
Source: CRS, from HAVA and relevant appropriations acts.
Notes: All figures are in millions of current (nominal) dollars of budget authority as authorized or appropriated
and are rounded where necessary. Figures for FY2005 and FY2006 include rescissions.
a. Authorization amounts in HAVA.
b. Appropriated amount did not specify the distribution of funds between the two budget items.
c. For payments to states that had obtained optical scan or DRE voting systems prior to the November 2000
election. The funds were appropriated in the General Government and Appropriations Act of 2003,
whereas payments to states authorized under HAVA were appropriated in the Miscellaneous
Appropriations Act of 2003; both acts were included as divisions of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations act,
P.L. 108-7.
d. The total payment appropriated includes the one-time payment in FY2003 and is therefore $15 million
greater than the total appropriated from funds authorized by HAVA. See note c.
e. Figures in this row are funds remaining in EAC line items after amounts for other specific items (such as
NIST) are subtracted.
f.
This includes $10 million for grants of $2 million each to five states to improve the collection of election
data.
g. Listed amounts plus sums necessary for subsequent years beyond the initial authorization period.
h. Congress appropriated no funds for this in FY2006 but “encouraged” the EAC to spend $250,000 on it.
For FY2010, the President’s budget request included $16.5 million for the Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) and $106 million for election reform payments to states, with $5.26 million
for protection and advocacy programs and $12.15 million for accessibility payments administered
by HHS, as in FY2009. The House and Senate bills (H.R. 3170, S. 1432) would have provided
about the same amount for the EAC. The House bill would have provided nearly the same
amount for election payments, while the Senate bill called for $52 million in election payments.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117) that was signed into law on December
16, 2009, includes $18.0 million for the EAC, of which $3.5 million is to be transferred to NIST,
$750,000 is for the Help America Vote College Program, and $300,000 is for a competitive grant
program to support student and parent mock elections. It also includes $75 million for election
reform programs, with $70 million of that amount for requirements payments, $3 million for
research grants to improve voting technology with respect to disability access, and $2 million for
grants to states and localities for voting system logic and accuracy testing. Also, the omnibus
provided $12.15 million for disability access and $5.26 million for protection and advocacy
programs.
For FY2011, the President’s budget request included $16.8 million for the EAC, of which $3.25
million is to be transferred to NIST. It also included $5.26 million for protection and advocacy
programs and $12.15 million for accessibility payments administered by HHS. It included EAC
“election reform grants” among programs to be terminated, and therefore provided no funding for
requirements payments, research and pilot program grants, the college program, and mock
elections. As justification, it pointed out that about $1 billion in EAC payments to states remained
unspent, and claimed that states had accrued $763 million in interest on previously appropriated
payments. The EAC, in contrast, listed accrued interest through 2008 as totaling $279 million.
The cause of this discrepancy is not clear. Funding for federal agencies, including the EAC, was
Congressional Research Service
9
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
provided at FY2010 levels according to a series of seven continuing resolutions between
September 30, 2010, and April 15, 2011. On that date, a continuing resolution was enacted to
fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year. H.R. 1473, the Department of Defense
and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, provides $16.3 million for the EAC, of
which $3.25 million is to be transferred to NIST. It provides no new funding for election reform
programs.
For FY2012, the President’s budget request includes $13.7 million for the EAC, of which $3.25
million is to be transferred to NIST, resulting in a 23% reduction in operating funds for the EAC
from the FY2011 request and a 28% reduction from the FY2010 appropriation. The budget
request also includes no funding for the HAVA-authorized protection and advocacy programs and
accessibility payments administered by HHS.
Legislative Action
Two bills have been introduced to eliminate the EAC, originally established under the Help
America Vote Act. The EAC was authorized for FY2003-FY2005. H.R. 235 (Representative
Kevin Brady) would terminate the EAC and its authority to make requirements payments to the
states and would rescind unobligated requirements payments. No amounts could be expended
after enactment, except to terminate ongoing projects and activities that use requirements
payments or those necessary to terminate commission activities and projects. H.R. 672 (Harper)
would terminate the EAC, would transfer to the National Institute of Standards and Technology
the functions for voting system testing and certification, and would transfer various other
functions of the agency to the Federal Election Commission. (An amendment to eliminate the
EAC was offered, but not adopted, in the 111th Congress: (S.Amdt. 4764) to the Airport and
Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III (H.R. 4853)).
The Committee on House Administration held a hearing on MOVE Act implementation on
February 15, 2011, and the Subcommittee on Elections held hearings on what went right and
wrong in the 2010 election (on March 31) and on H.R. 672, which would eliminate the Election
Assistance Commission (on April 14). The full Committee marked up the bill on May 25, when it
approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and passed the bill on a voice vote. The bill
as amended would retain some of the responsibilities of the EAC that were established in HAVA,
transferring them to the FEC. The FEC would acquire responsibility for the voluntary voting
system guidelines, testing and certification of voting systems, and functions that had been
transferred by HAVA from the FEC to the EAC, as well as specified functions relating to military
and overseas voters.
In the 111th Congress, the House passed a bill that would have prohibited certain electoral activity
by each state’s chief election administration official. H.R. 512 was passed on September 29,
2010, and would have prohibited such officials from actively taking part in a federal political
campaign unless the official or an immediate family member was the candidate. In addition, a
new military and overseas citizens voting law was enacted in October 2009. The new law
originated in the Senate as S. 1415, which was reported with amendments by the Senate Rules
Committee in July 2009. It was passed in October 2009 as an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-84), and it amends the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA; P.L. 99-410) to allow for electronic and mail transmission of
voting materials, requires that states send out absentee ballots at least 45 days before an election,
requires collection and delivery of overseas military ballots, and requires other improvements. In
Congressional Research Service
10
.
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
other legislative action, the House Administration Committee reported three bills, H.R. 1604 and
H.R. 2510, both sponsored by Representative Susan Davis, and H.R. 2393, sponsored by
Representative Kevin McCarthy. H.R. 1604 would have extended no-excuse absentee voting by
mail (a voter does not need to provide an excuse to vote absentee) to all states and H.R. 2510
would have reimbursed states for the cost of establishing a voluntary, absentee ballot tracking
program. H.R. 2393 would have required the Secretary of Defense to collect absentee ballots
from overseas military voters for express delivery (a similar provision was enacted in P.L. 111-
84) and made other improvements to UOCAVA.
Author Contact Information
Kevin J. Coleman
Eric A. Fischer
Analyst in Elections
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
kcoleman@crs.loc.gov, 7-7878
efischer@crs.loc.gov, 7-7071
Congressional Research Service
11