{
  "id": "RL30773",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30773",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100248,
      "date": "2001-03-21",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:26:10.935941",
      "title": "Voting Technologies in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress",
      "summary": "The 2000 presidential election raised questions about whether changes are needed in the voting\ntechnologies used in the United States, and what should be the federal role. Elections are\nadministered by states and localities through approximately 10,000 jurisdictions at the county level\nor below. The main federal agency involved is the Office of Election Administration, which is part\nof the Federal Election Commission and assists state and local election officials. In 1990, the FEC\nreleased voluntary standards for computer-based voting systems. The standards were developed in\nresponse to congressional direction and have been adopted in whole or in part by thirty-two states. \nUpdated standards are in development.\n  Currently, five different kinds of voting technologies are used: hand-counted paper ballots,\nmechanical lever machines, computer punchcards (Votomatic and Datavote), marksense forms (also\ncalled optical scan), and direct recording electronic systems (DRE). The last three systems are\ncomputer-based. All systems except lever machines and DRE use document ballots on which the\nvoter records choices. Punchcard systems are the most common, used by about one-third of\nregistered voters, with marksense systems used by about one-quarter. In all but a few states, more\nthan one kind of technology is currently in use.\n  For some of the technologies, concerns have been raised about ballot design, voter errors, and\ncounting accuracy. Effective ballot design involves balancing the fairness and clarity of presentation,\nas well as goals such as promoting completion of the entire ballot by voters. Different technologies\nplace different constraints on ballot design. The three basic kinds of error are overvote, undervote\n(not necessarily an error), and unintended choice. Technologies differ in how they help voters\nprevent or correct such errors, and consequently, the incidence varies with the technology employed.\nIt may also depend on the condition of equipment and the demographics of the population. Vote\ncounting involves issues such as the accuracy of the counting methodology, its speed, its integrity\nand security, and recounting where necessary. Those depend on many factors, including the\ncharacteristics of the technology used, the design and condition of the equipment and software, and\nhuman behavior. Reports on the accuracy of different systems vary. Questions have also been raised\nabout the impacts of remote voting, including absentee and mail-in balloting. Another form of\nremote voting currently in development is Internet voting, which so far has been used only on a very\nlimited basis. The overall prevalence of remote voting is increasing, raising concerns in particular\nabout potential compromises to ballot secrecy. A central issue is what role the federal government\nshould play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems. Current debate\ncenters on several questions: What is the extent of congressional authority to regulate voting\ntechnology and procedures? Should national standards be voluntary or mandatory? Should the\nscope of the standards be broadened to include ballot design, counting procedures, and other aspects\nof election management? Should a uniform technology be adopted nationally or on a state-by-state\nbasis? Should federal funding be made available to states or local election jurisdictions for\nupgrading voting systems? Significant legislative activity is expected in the 107th Congress (see the\n CRS Election Reform Electronic\nBriefing Book ).",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30773",
          "sha1": "b420c64dc4ff73c3d10ea1d5aa81f76aa820f637",
          "filename": "files/20010321_RL30773_b420c64dc4ff73c3d10ea1d5aa81f76aa820f637.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010321_RL30773_b420c64dc4ff73c3d10ea1d5aa81f76aa820f637.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1629/",
      "id": "RL30773 2001-01-11",
      "date": "2001-01-11",
      "retrieved": "2005-06-11T06:07:37",
      "title": "Voting Technologies in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20010111_RL30773_08aa342024295dc5a0581486b3e736298525e8ef.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010111_RL30773_08aa342024295dc5a0581486b3e736298525e8ef.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Elections",
          "name": "Elections"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Voting",
          "name": "Voting"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}