{
  "id": "RL32938",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32938",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 307049,
      "date": "2005-06-23",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:40:32.462029",
      "title": "What Do Local Election Officials Think about Election Reform?: Results of a Survey",
      "summary": "There are more than 9,000 local election jurisdictions in the United States. Local election\nofficials\n(LEOs) are responsible for administering elections in those jurisdictions. LEOs are therefore critical\nto the successful implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA,  P.L. 107-252 ) and\nstate election laws, but there has been little objective information on the perceptions and attitudes\nof those officials about election reform. This report, which will not be updated, discusses the results\nof a recent scientific survey of LEOs. The findings may be useful to Congress in considering\nfunding and possible reauthorization of HAVA.\n The demographic characteristics of LEOs are unusual for a group of government officials. \nAlmost three-quarters are women, and 5% belong to minority groups. Most do not have a college\ndegree, and most were elected to their positions. Some survey results suggest areas of potential\nprofessional improvement, such as in education and in professional involvement at the national level. \n Over the past 20 years, jurisdictions have turned increasingly to computer-assisted voting\nsystems -- especially optical scan and direct recording electronic (DRE) systems. The most\nimportant factors reported by LEOs in the acquisition of new systems are federal and state\nrequirements and funding. HAVA encourages but does not require systems that detect voter error,\nbut it does require that voting machines be available that are fully accessible to persons with\ndisabilities. About half of jurisdictions with optical scan systems use central-count, which cannot\nhelp voters to correct mistakes before casting the ballot. However, most jurisdictions acquiring new\nvoting systems are choosing either precinct-count optical scan or DREs, both of which can help\nvoters avoid errors. \n LEOs are generally highly satisfied with whatever voting systems they are using now. They have\nless confidence in the performance and security of other systems. DRE users generally oppose\nthe use of voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT) for DREs, but users of other systems favor it. \nThis result could mean that users are overconfident in DREs or that nonusers are insufficiently\nknowledgeable about them. LEOs also tend to favor new systems that have characteristics similar\nto what they have been using -- for example, lever machine users tend to favor DREs. LEOs trust\nthe voting system vendors they work with but do not believe that those vendors are very influential\nin decisions about acquiring new voting systems.\n LEOs consider themselves knowledgeable about and familiar with HAVA. They support\nindividual provisions of the act, most strongly for federal funding and least strongly for provisional\nballoting. To some extent, provisions rated more difficult to implement receive less support. Most\nLEOs believe that HAVA has resulted in some improvement in elections in their jurisdictions. \nThose rating HAVA higher overall tend to be younger, more comfortable with technology, and more\nfamiliar with the act. The areas for improvement of HAVA most commonly listed are federal\nfunding and the requirements for registration, voter identification, and provisional balloting.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32938",
          "sha1": "23a35d8572e21e33a04a95d8e84830fde1f34654",
          "filename": "files/20050623_RL32938_23a35d8572e21e33a04a95d8e84830fde1f34654.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32938",
          "sha1": "74d3942623e6537059ff8eee12d0d8b78cd394e0",
          "filename": "files/20050623_RL32938_74d3942623e6537059ff8eee12d0d8b78cd394e0.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc812917/",
      "id": "RL32938_2005Jun07",
      "date": "2005-06-07",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "What Do Local Election Officials Think about Election Reform?: Results of a Survey",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20050607_RL32938_aaf489a97242b1776c632fb71289ea0b0ede9e38.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050607_RL32938_aaf489a97242b1776c632fb71289ea0b0ede9e38.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}