This report discusses several issues as the Congress considers legislation to reform the voting process, a number of issues have emerged as part of the debate: the reliability of different types of voting technologies; voting problems and irregularities in the 2000 election; problems for militaryand overseas voters; the electoral college; and early media projections of election results

Coleman, Kevin J.

Fischer, Eric A.

UNT Digital Library

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20898Updated April 17, 2002Elections Reform: Overview and IssuesKevin J. ColemanAnalyst in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance DivisionEric A. FischerSenior Specialist in Science and TechnologyResources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummaryThe remarkable circumstances of the 2000 Presidential election are quite unlikelyto be repeated, but Florida’s role in determining the outcome may be remembered as aturning point with respect to the nation’s election system.  Previously obscure details ofvoting and vote counting have become the focus of public attention, and various stateand national commissions have issued reports or recommendations on changing thevoting process.  Some states have made plans or have already begun to replace votingequipment and adopt other improvements before the 2002 election cycle, while othersare considering similar changes.  As Congress considers legislation to reform the voting process, a number of issueshave emerged as part of the debate: the strengths and weaknesses of different types ofvoting systems; voting and registration problems and irregularities; problems for militaryand overseas voters; and the federal role in election administration.  The House andSenate have passed different versions of election reform legislation (H.R. 3295), anddifferences will need to be resolved in conference.  For additional information, see theCRS Electronic Briefing Book on Election Reform.  For a discussion of campaignfinance reform issues, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Campaign FinanceReform.  This report will be updated periodically to reflect new developments.Voting SystemsAfter election day 2000, the media focused attention on specific problems withpunchcard voting.  Since then, however, broader questions have arisen about error rates,costs, counting standards, accessibility, and other issues, as election officials considerupgrading current systems.  Elections in the United States are administered at the state andlocal level, and the federal government currently does not set mandatory standards forvoting systems, nor does it provide funding to state and local jurisdictions for theCRS-2administration of elections; however, both versions of H.R. 3295 would change that.While initial reactions to concerns raised by the November 2000 election tended to focuson technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, some consensus emergedsubsequently that the issues, and the solutions needed, are more complex.  Those solutionsare likely to involve trade-offs among diverse goals.  Kinds of Systems.  Currently, five different technologies are in use — paperballots, lever machines, punchcards, optical scan, and electronic systems — and moststates use more than one kind.  Each has advantages and disadvantages with respect toerror rates, cost, speed, recounts, accessibility to disabled persons, and othercharacteristics.  Differences in actual performance in elections are difficult to measureaccurately,  and they depend on many factors other than the technology, such as thefamiliarity of voters with the equipment, the complexity and design of the ballot, localstandards and practices, the condition of the equipment, and the level of competence ofpollworkers.  States also have different requirements for voting systems — for example, whetherthe full ballot must be displayed on one page, whether votes are tabulated in the precinctsor at a central location, whether straight-ticket voting is provided, and how accessibilityrequirements are to be met.  Moreover, election jurisdictions within states differ in howthey configure and use the systems to meet local needs.  As a result, no clear consensushas yet emerged among election administrators and other experts on what systems arebest.  Many believe that a diversity of systems promotes innovation and inhibits systematicfraud, and is therefore preferable.  Others believe that a uniform voting system, at leastwithin each state, can be sufficiently secure, and would be more efficient and more likelyto ensure that all voters have equal opportunity to cast their votes.  (For detaileddiscussion, see CRS Report RL30773, Voting Technologies in the United States:Overview and Issues for Congress.)Federal Funding.  A central issue for Congress is what role the federal governmentshould play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems,particularly with respect to funding and standards.  Estimates of funding needs forequipment replacement have varied, depending on goals, from about $0.5–$5 billion.  Thatdoes not include administrative costs, voter education programs, training of pollworkers,and so forth.  Some have proposed federal discretionary or formula grants for upgradingcurrent systems, or have suggested that the federal government should contribute todefraying the cost to local governments of holding federal elections.  Others believe thatimprovements in other aspects of election administration and in voter education would bemore effective than upgrading technology. Still others state that an integrated, systemicresponse is needed that involves all aspects of election administration.  Some observersalso believe that significantly higher investment in research is needed to develop bettervoting systems, while others state that current knowledge and levels of investment aresufficient.  Standards.  One focus of current debate is whether a need exists for morestandardization.  In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-basedvoting systems (see [http://www.fec.gov/elections.html]).  Most states have now adoptedthose standards, which are currently being updated.  Some have suggested that mandatory,rather than voluntary, standards be adopted nationwide for voting systems and othermatters such as voter registration and election management.  For example, standards mightCRS-3require that a voting system prevent or reduce overvotes or provide common proceduresand standards for recounts.  Others have proposed that standards be broadened but remainvoluntary, or that the matter be left to state and local jurisdictions.  Both versions of H.R.3295 establish standards but differ in what those standards address and how they areapplied.  Congressional Authority.  The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authorityto regulate congressional elections (see CRS Report RL30747, Congressional Authorityto Standardize National Election Procedures).  The Voting Rights Act (see 42 USC1973; and CRS Report 95-896, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, As Amended: Its Historyand Current Issues) prohibits discriminatory voting practices and, along with the VotingAccessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, also sets some requirements forelections with respect to accessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a, 6, and ee).  Congress couldalso attach conditions to the receipt of any funding provided for voting systems or electionadministration.  Other Issues in the 2000 ElectionReports of problems in Florida and elsewhere during the 2000 election raisedconcerns about specific failures and the overall integrity of the election system:  votingproblems and irregularities; problems with ballots from military and overseas voters; theelectoral college; and media projections of state outcomes before polls had closed.Voting Problems and Irregularities.  Some are concerned that the NationalVoter Registration Act (42 USC 1973gg et seq.), the “Motor Voter” law, may have addedineligible voters to the registration rolls.  For example, there were media reports thathundreds of felons had voted in the November 2000 election, even though only a fewstates automatically restore voting rights for ex-offenders.  There were also reports thatsome new motor voter registrants were unable to cast ballots on election day because theirregistrations could not be confirmed.  And in Florida, some eligible voters reportedly wereimproperly purged from the voter rolls when counties checked registration lists before theelection.  Allegations of voter intimidation and voting irregularities prompted severalinvestigations, including hearings in Florida by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, witha report issued in June 2001 (see [http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm]). InMarch 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft announced a Justice Department voting rightsinitiative (the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division enforces federal votingrights statutes; see [http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting]).Military and Overseas Voters.  Members of the military and U.S. citizens wholive abroad are eligible to vote absentee in federal elections under the provisions of theUniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 USC 1973ff-6).  Controversyin Florida concerning military and overseas ballots centered on two issues — therequirement that ballots must be postmarked by election day and the deadline for countingthem (10 days after the election) — neither of which is currently addressed in federal law.Because the law leaves such details to the states, postmark requirements for returningballots vary (but see the Senate version of H.R. 3295).The law is administered by the Secretary of Defense through the Federal VotingAssistance Program office in the Department of Defense ([http://www.fvap.ncr.gov]).After the election, the Defense Department Inspector General investigated issues withCRS-4military and overseas citizens’ ballots and issued a report (No. D-2001-145) in June 2001(see [http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/01report.htm]).  Both versions of H.R. 3295would address problems with voting by those covered by the existing federal law (see CRSReport RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act:Background and Issues for the 107th Congress).  The Defense Authorization Act forFY2002 (P.L. 107-107) (S. 1438), also includes provisions concerning uniformed servicesvoters.Electoral College.  For the first time since 1888, the winner of the popular votein the election did not also win a majority of the electoral college vote.  President Bush isthe fourth President to win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote, the others beingPresidents J. Q. Adams (1824), Hayes (1876), and Harrison (1888). Vice President Gorewon a plurality of 537,179 in the popular vote, but Governor Bush won 5 more electoralvotes (271 versus 266) [http://fecweb1.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm]. Hundreds of proposals to reform the electoral college have been introduced in Congressduring the past century and a half; controversy in the 2000 election renewed calls toabolish or modify it (see CRS Report RL30804, The Electoral College: An Overview andAnalysis of Reform Proposals; for an analysis of 107th Congress legislation, see CRSReport RL30844, The Electoral College: Reform Proposals in the 107th Congress).Uniform Poll Closing.  There was renewed interest in uniform poll closingbecause of early and inaccurate media projections on election night in the 2000 election.Furthermore, proponents of uniform poll closing argue that projections of the winner inkey states may depress voter turnout on the West Coast if it appears that the election isor will be decided before polls close in the West.  Several uniform poll closing bills havebeen introduced.Alternative Methods for Registration and VotingBecause states, rather than the federal government, have administered elections sincethe country was founded, laws and practices vary considerably with respect to the manycomplex details of the voting process.  Innovations in some states, which may now beconsidered more broadly, include large-scale absentee voting, early voting, same day voterregistration, and election day holidays, and Internet voting.  Absentee Voting.  Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot for specificreasons only, such as illness or travel, that would prevent the voter from casting a ballotin person on election day.  But recent trends in some states, including California andWashington, allow any voter to request an absentee ballot, sometimes called “no fault”absentee voting.  In Oregon, elections are conducted entirely by mail.  All registered votersautomatically receive their ballots through the Postal Service, without needing to make aballot request, in contrast to absentee procedures in other states (see[http://www.sos.state.or.us/executive/policy-initiatives/vbm/execvbm.htm]).Early Voting.  In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election daythrough an early voting program.  There are many varied approaches, and the number ofstates using it is growing.  According to the Elections Reform Task Force of the NationalConference of State Legislatures, at least 26 states have some form of early voting (see[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2001/electref0801.htm#_Toc522012607]).CRS-5Same Day Registration.  Potential voters may register in person on election dayin six states: Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.Election day registration accommodates those who wish to participate but failed to registerby the close of the registration period.  In some jurisdictions, eligible voters must go to thevoter registrar’s office or board of elections to complete the form, while in others, theymay do so at the polling place.Election Day Holiday.  According to the FEC, 12 states designate election day asa state holiday, although whether schools are closed and state employees are off varies (see[http://www.fec.gov/pages/faqvdayeprocedures.htm]).  An additional 20 states give stateemployees some time off to vote, and 26 states also provide for private sector employeesto take time off to vote. Bills to make election day a federal holiday have been introducedin past and the current Congress.Internet Voting.  Internet voting was used on a very limited basis during the 2000election cycle.  The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March 2000 primary usingboth the Internet and traditional polling places.  In the November 2000 election, theDefense Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested andsubmitted absentee ballots via the Internet.  Although interest has grown, Internet votingfrom remote locations raises concerns about voter identification, ballot secrecy, and accessfor all potential voters.  It is unlikely to be widely adopted until such problems are resolved(see CRS Report RS20639, Internet Voting: Issues and Legislation).National and State InitiativesAfter the November 2000 election, both national and state task forces and otherinitiatives were established to address voting issues.  Recommendations for federal actionwere issued by ad hoc groups such as The National Commission on Federal ElectionReform [http://www.reformelections.org], chaired by former Presidents Ford and Carter;professional associations of election officials such as the Election Center[http://www.electioncenter.org]; academic groups such as the Caltech/MIT Voting Project[http://www.vote.caltech.edu]; and others such as the Constitution Project’s ElectionReform Initiative [http://www.constitutionproject.org/eri/index.htm].   While emphasesand proposals vary, there was broad agreement among most or all on severalrecommendations, including! federal funding for technology upgrades,! use of formula grants for at least some purposes,! conditions for receiving federal funds,! improvements in the voting system standards;! expansion of data collection and dissemination,! enhancement of functions now performed by the Office of ElectionAdministration,! statewide, networked voter registration systems,! broader use of provisional ballots,! actions to facilitate voting by military and overseas citizens,! actions to ensure equal voting opportunity and accessibility,! improvements in voter education,! adoption by states of specific criteria for what is a valid vote, andCRS-6! procedures to help ensure that statutory certification and other deadlinesare met.More than a dozen states established task forces or other efforts to examineelection reform needs (see [http://nass.stateofthevote.org/Issues/issues_elections.html]).Reform legislation was considered  in all 50 states in 2001 on a wide range of electionreform issues (see [http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/elections.cfm]). At leastsix states (California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, and Minnesota) enactedlegislation to assist in upgrading or replacing current voting systems. The General Accounting Office has also released several reports on differentaspects of election reform (for an overview, see Elections: A Framework for EvaluatingReform Proposals, GAO-02-90, 15 October 2001).  They include recommendations onassistance to military and overseas voters and on voting system standards, and aframework for evaluating election reform proposals.Legislation in the 107th Congress More than 80  bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress to make broad-reaching or more limited changes to the electoral system.  Hearings were held by theAdministration, Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, and Science Committees in theHouse, and by the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation;Government Affairs; and Rules and Administration.  The Defense Authorization Act forFY2002 (P.L. 107-107) (S. 1438), includes provisions concerning uniformed servicesvoters and was signed into law in December 2001.H.R. 3295 (Ney) passed the House (362–63) on December 12, 2001.  It wouldestablish a program to buy out or improve punch card voting systems, a funding programto improve the administration of elections, a new agency called the Election AssistanceCommission, and programs to recruit students to work at the polls on election day.  Itwould also set certain minimum standards for state and local election systems and addresssome issues relating to uniformed and overseas voters.  The Senate version of H.R. 3295 was passed (99–1) on April 11, 2002.  It wasbased on a bipartisan substitute (S.Amdt. 2688) to S. 565.  The Senate version wouldestablish grant programs to replace equipment and make improvements in electionadministration and accessibility of polling places, establish a new agency called theElection Administration Commission, and require states to meet certain standards withrespect to the voting process.  It would also address some issues relating to uniformed andoverseas voters and establish programs to recruit students to work at the polls on electionday.  Differences between the two versions will need to be resolved in conference.  President Bush's FY2003 budget request includes $1.2 billion over 3 years in 50%matching grants to states for election improvements.  The House version of H.R. 3295provides $2.25 billion over 3 years, and the Senate version, $3.5 billion over 5 years.  Thetwo bills call for matches ranging from 0-25%, depending on the program.  The FY2003House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 353) earmarks $400 million for matching grants tostate and local governments to improve voting technology and election administration(H.Rept. 107-376).  (For more information on legislation, see the CRS Electronic BriefingBook on Election Reform). 

Elections Reform: Overview and Issues

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20898Updated March 29, 2004Elections Reform: Overview and IssuesKevin J. ColemanAnalyst in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance DivisionEric A. FischerSenior Specialist in Science and TechnologyResources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummaryThe remarkable circumstances of the November 2000 Presidential election areunlikely to be repeated, but Florida’s role in determining the outcome may beremembered as a turning point with respect to the nation’s election system.  Previouslyobscure details of voting and vote counting became the focus of public attention, andvarious state and national commissions issued reports or recommendations on changingthe voting process.  Some states made plans or began to replace voting equipment andadopt other improvements before the 2002 election cycle.  Both sessions of the 107thCongress considered and debated federal election reform legislation, and the HelpAmerica Vote Act  (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in October 2002.  The actcreates a new federal agency with election administration responsibilities, setsrequirements for voting and voter-registration systems and certain other aspects ofelection administration, and provides federal funding; but it does not supplant state andlocal control over election administration.  Issues for the 108th Congress include funding,establishment of the new agency, and implementation by and impacts on the states. Foradditional information, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Election Reform.  Thisreport will be updated periodically to reflect new developments.Voting Systems and Election AdministrationAfter election day 2000, the media first focused attention on specific problems withpunchcard voting, but broader questions soon arose about error rates, costs, countingstandards, accessibility, and other issues.  Elections in the United States are administeredat the state and local level, and the federal government had not historically set mandatorystandards for voting systems, nor had it provided funding to state and local jurisdictionsfor the administration of elections.  HAVA changed that.  While initial reactions after theelection had tended to focus on technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, someconsensus emerged subsequently that the issues, and the solutions needed, are moreCRS-2complex and often involve trade-offs among diverse goals.  HAVA reflects thosedevelopments — it funds replacement of punchcard and lever systems but also broaderimprovements to election administration.Kinds of Voting Systems.  Currently, five technologies are used — paper ballots,lever machines, punchcards, optical scan, and direct recording electronic (DRE) systems.Most states use more than one kind.  Each has advantages and disadvantages with respectto error rates, cost, speed, recounts, accessibility to disabled persons, and othercharacteristics.  Differences in actual performance in elections are difficult to measureaccurately and depend on many factors, such as the design and condition of the system,the familiarity of voters with it, the complexity and design of the ballot, local standardsand practices, and the level of competence of pollworkers.   There is no consensus on whether any one technology is best. States have differentrequirements, such as whether the full ballot must be displayed on one page, whethervotes are tabulated in the precincts or at a central location, whether straight-ticket votingis provided, and how accessibility requirements are to be met.  Local jurisdictions alsodiffer in how they configure and use the systems to meet local needs.  Many believe thata diversity of systems is preferable because it promotes innovation and inhibits systematicfraud.  Others believe that a uniform voting system, at least within each state, can besufficiently secure, and would be more efficient and more likely to ensure that all votershave equal opportunity to cast their votes.  HAVA does not require any particular votingsystem, but it sets requirements that will influence what systems election officials choose.Beginning in 2006, voting systems used in federal elections must provide for errorcorrection by voters, manual auditing, accessibility, alternative languages, and federalerror-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.Electronic Voting Machine Controversy.  The HAVA requirement foraccessible voting systems (at least one per polling place) and other factors are expectedto drive states toward adopting DREs. However, there is currently some controversy abouthow secure those systems are from tampering.  Some experts believe that the problem isserious enough to require changes in the systems before they are more widely adopted,ranging from more sophisticated computer security to the printing of paper ballots thatwould be verified by the voter and hand-counted if the election results were contested.Others believe that procedural and other safeguards can make DREs sufficiently safe fromtampering, that use of printed paper ballots would create too many problems, and that thecontroversy risks drawing attention away from the demonstrated utility of DREs inaddressing known problems of access to and usability of voting systems. Federal Funding.  A central issue has been what role the federal governmentshould play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems,particularly with respect to funding and standards.  Estimates of funding needs for votingequipment replacement have varied, depending on goals, from about $0.5-$5 billion.  Thatdoes not include administrative costs, voter education programs, training of pollworkers,and so forth.  HAVA authorizes $3.86 billion in funding for programs to replaceequipment, improve election administration, improve accessibility, recruit pollworkers,and perform research and pilot studies.  (See “Funding Under the Help America VoteAct,” below.)CRS-3New Agency.  Federal activities relating to election administration have previouslybeen performed by the Office of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal ElectionCommission (FEC).  Other than the voluntary voting system standards, those activitieshave been limited essentially to clearinghouse functions, such as publications and reports,and some administrative responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act (P.L.103-31).  HAVA replaces the OEA with a new, independent, bipartisan federal agency,the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).  The EAC is authorized for three fiscal years,beginning in 2003.  Members are appointed to four-year terms and may be reappointedonce.  The act also establishes two boards, with broad-based state and local membership,and a committee to address aspects of voting system standards.  The main duties of theEAC include carrying out grant programs, providing for testing and certification of votingsystems, studying election issues, and issuing voluntary guidelines for voting systems andthe requirements in the act.  The commission will not have any new rule-making authorityand will not enforce the requirements in the act.  The law provides for technical supportand participation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in relevantcommission activities.HAVA called for the appointment of commissioners within 120 days of enactment,which was February 26, 2003.  In late May 2003, Democratic leaders in Congressrecommended appointing Ray Martinez and Gracia Hillman to the commission, and theWhite House announced on June 6 that the President planned to nominate RepublicansPaul DeGregorio and Deforest B. Soaries. On September 12, the White House announcedthe President’s intention to nominate Democrats Martinez and Hillman. The Senate Rulesand Administration Committee held a hearing on the nominations on October 28; Hillmanand DeGregorio have been nominated for two-year terms and Soaries and Martinez forfour-year terms. All nominees are eligible to be reappointed to one additional four-yearterm. The Senate confirmed the nominees on December 9. The commissioners met in aprivate session on January 5, 2004; Commissioner Soaries will serve as chairman.The EAC held its first meeting on March 23 and announced that $2.3 billion in TitleII funds would be disbursed following publication of state plans in the Federal Registeron March 24 and a subsequent 45-day public comment period. Reportedly, thecommission plans to hold a hearing on electronic voting issues.Standards.  In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-based voting systems, although not for voter registration systems.  Most states have nowadopted those standards, which have recently been updated.  HAVA establishes federalrequirements for voting systems, registration, provisional ballots, and other aspects ofelection administration, but leaves the methods of implementation to the states.  The actestablishes two enforcement processes.  The U.S. Attorney General may bring civil actionwith respect to the above requirements, and states, as a condition for receipt of funds, areto establish administrative grievance procedures to handle complaints from individuals.Congressional Authority.  Some observers expressed concern over Congress’sauthority to require states to meet election administration standards.  However, the U.S.Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate congressional elections (see CRSReport RL30747, Congressional Authority to Standardize National Election Procedures).Prior examples of Congress’s use of that authority include, among other laws, the VotingRights Act (see 42 USC  1973; and CRS Report 95-896, The Voting Rights Act of 1965,As Amended: Its History and Current Issues), which prohibits discriminatory votingCRS-4practices and, and the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, whichsets some requirements for elections with respect to accessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a,6, and ee).  Congress can also attach conditions to the receipt of any funding, such as forvoting systems or election administration.  Such conditions are included in HAVA, forexample with respect to the grievance procedures described above.Alternative Methods for VotingState laws and practices vary considerably with respect to the many complex detailsof the voting process.  Innovations in some states, which may now be considered morebroadly, include large-scale absentee voting, early voting, and Internet voting.  Absentee Voting.  Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot only forspecific reasons that would prevent the voter from casting a ballot in person.  But recenttrends in some states, including California and Washington, allow any voter to requestsuch a ballot, sometimes called “no fault” absentee voting.  Oregon conducts its electionsentirely by mail — all registered voters receive their ballots through the Postal Service.While the percentage of votes cast by absentee or mail ballot has been increasing in recentelections, some observers have expressed concerns that the method is more vulnerable tocertain kinds of fraud and coercion of voters than is balloting at the polling place.Early Voting.  In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election daythrough an early voting program.  There are many approaches, and the number of statesusing it is growing.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least26 states have some form of early voting.  Some have criticized early voting as distortingto the electoral process and being open to certain kinds of fraud and abuse.Internet Voting.  Internet voting was used on a very limited basis during the 2000election cycle.  The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March 2000 primary usingboth the Internet and traditional polling places, and in the November 2000 election, theDefense Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested andsubmitted ballots via the Internet; the experiment is slated to be repeated in 2004.Although interest has grown, Internet voting from remote locations raises concerns aboutvoter identification, ballot secrecy, risk of cyberattack, and access for all potential voters.It is unlikely to be widely adopted until such problems are resolved (see CRS ReportRS20639, Internet Voting: Issues and Legislation).  HAVA requires a study on this issue.Funding Under the Help America Vote ActHAVA establishes several grant programs (see table below for authorized amounts):! Election Administration Improvements. Provides expedited, one-time formulapayments for general election administration improvements to states that apply,with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for this and thereplacement program below. Administered by General Services Administration(GSA). (Sec. 101.)! Replacement of Punchcard and Lever Machine Systems. Provides expedited, one-time formula payments to replace punchcard systems and lever machines inqualifying states, with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for thisand the improvements program above. Administered by GSA. (Sec. 102.)CRS-5! Payments to Meet Election Requirements. Provides annual formula payments tostates to meet the act’s requirements. Requires a 5% match and submission of astate plan. Administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) createdin the act (see below). (Sec. 251-258.)! Payments to Assure Accessibility. Provides payments to states to make pollingplaces accessible to persons with disabilities. Requires application. Administeredby Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (Sec. 265-265.)! Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems. Provides payments to stateprotection and advocacy systems to ensure electoral participation by persons withdisabilities. Requires application. Administered by HHS. (Sec. 291-292.) ! Grants for Research and Pilot Programs. Provides grants for research to improvevoting technology (Sec. 271-273) and for pilot programs to test new votingtechnology (Sec. 281-283). Requires application. Administered by EAC.! Student Programs. Establishes three programs, one to recruit college students aspollworkers (Sec. 501-503), one to recruit high school students (Sec. 601), andone to provide grants for the National Student and Parent Mock Election (Sec.295-296).Funding Authorizations in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)Program Authorizations ($millions) per Fiscal Year2003 2004 2005 2006 TotalElection AdministrationImprovement 325.0 325.0Punchcard/Lever MachineReplacement325.0 325.0Election Requirements 1,400.0 1,000.0 600.0 3,000.0Accessibility 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0Protection and Advocacy 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 40.0+Research 20.0 20.0Pilot Programs 0.0 10.0College Program 5.0 a a a 5.0+High School Program 5.0 a a a 5.0+Mock Election 0.2 a a a 0.2+EAC 10.0 10.0 10.0 30.0Total 2,160.2 1,045.0 645.0 10.0 3,860.2+a: sums necessary.+: amount shown plus sums necessary for subsequent years.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 forelection reform programs authorized by HAVA, including:! $650 million combined for the election administration improvement and votingsystem replacement payments to be administered by GSA (with no specificallocation designated for either program and a maximum of $500,000 foradministrative costs), CRS-6! $830 million for requirements grants (with a maximum of 0.1% to be paid to anyterritory), and! $20 million for other programs — $13 million for accessibility grants, $2 millionfor protection and advocacy programs,$1.5 million each for the college and highschool programs, and $2 million for the EAC.P.L. 108-7 also included $15 million for one-time payments to certain states thathad obtained optical scan or electronic voting systems prior to the November 2000election. The President’s budget request for FY2004 included $500 million, one-half theamount authorized, to fund EAC requirements grants and administration. No funds werespecifically requested for the other programs described above.  The House-passedTransportation/Treasury Appropriations bill, H.R. 2989, included $495 million for HAVAgrant programs and $5 million for the EAC.  The Senate bill, S. 1589, provided $500million, of which not more than $800,000 was to be used for EAC administrativeexpenses. The Senate passed H.R. 2989 with an amendment providing $1.5 billionaltogether for HAVA grant programs. The final omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 2673,signed into law on January 23, 2004 (P.L. 108-199), contains $1,516,200,000 for electionreform, including $1.0 billion for requirements payments, $500 million for electionreform programs, $10 million for accessibility grants, $5 million for protection andadvocacy systems, and $1.2 million for the EAC. The President’s budget request for FY2005 includes $65 million for electionreform, of which $40 million is additional funding for requirements grants and $10million is for EAC administrative expenses. The request also includes $5 million forprotection and advocacy systems and $10 million for accessibility grants.  The combined total appropriations for election reform for FY2003-FY2005(assuming funding at the requested level for FY2005) is approximately $3.08 billion. Thetotal authorization for FY2003-FY2005 is approximately $3.85 billion.  Title I Funding Administered by GSA. The General Services Administration(GSA) disbursed all Section 101 (election administration improvements) and Section 102(replacement of punch card and lever machine systems) funds to states in June 2003. Allstates and territories received payments for election administration improvements, basedon a formula using each state’s voting age population. Payments for the replacement ofpunch card and lever voting systems were made to all states that applied for the program.Total disbursements for both programs were $649.5 million.State Implementation of the Help America Vote ActWith the publication of state plans in the Federal Register on March 24, states andterritories will be eligible to receive $2.3 billion in federal funds, following a 45-daypublic comment period. States and territories then need to file a certification with theEAC to receive a payment. The $2.3 billion includes funds appropriated in FY2003 andFY2004 which could not be allocated until establishment of the EAC and publication ofthe state plans. The General Services Administration will disburse the funds, as it did withTitle I payments made in June 2003.  

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20898Updated November 30, 2001Elections Reform: Overview and IssuesKevin J. ColemanAnalyst in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance DivisionEric A. FischerSenior Specialist in Science and TechnologyResources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummaryThe remarkable circumstances of the 2000 Presidential election are quite unlikelyto be repeated, but Florida’s role in determining the outcome may be remembered as aturning point with respect to the nation’s election system.  Previously obscure details ofvoting and vote counting have become the focus of public attention, and various stateand national commissions have issued reports or recommendations on changing thevoting process.  Some states have already made plans to replace voting equipment andadopt other improvements before the 2002 election cycle, while others are consideringsimilar changes.  As Congress considers legislation to reform the voting process, a number of issueshave emerged as part of the debate: the reliability of different types of votingtechnologies; voting problems and irregularities in the 2000 election; problems formilitary and overseas voters; the electoral college; and early media projections of electionresults.  For additional information on these issues, see the CRS Electronic BriefingBook on Election Reform.  For a discussion of campaign finance reform issues, see theCRS Electronic Briefing Book on Campaign Finance Reform.  This report will beupdated periodically to reflect new developments.Voting SystemsAfter election day 2000, the media focused attention on specific problems withpunchcard voting.  Since then, however, broader questions have arisen about error rates,costs, counting standards, and other issues, as election officials consider upgrading currentsystems.  Elections in the United States are administered at the state and local level, andthe federal government does not set mandatory standards for voting systems, nor does itprovide funding to state and local jurisdictions for the administration of elections.  Whileinitial reactions to concerns raised by the November 2000 election tended to focus onCRS-2technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, some consensus emerged subsequentlythat the issues, and the solutions needed, are more complex.  Those solutions are likely toinvolve trade-offs among diverse goals.  Kinds of Systems.  Currently, five different technologies are in use — paperballots, lever machines, punchcards, optical scan, and electronic systems — and moststates use more than one kind.  Each has advantages and disadvantages with respect toerror rates, cost, speed, recounts, accessibility to disabled persons, and othercharacteristics.  Differences in actual performance in elections are difficult to measureaccurately,  and they depend on many factors other than the technology, such as thefamiliarity of voters with the equipment, the complexity and design of the ballot, localstandards and practices, the condition of the equipment, and the level of competence ofpollworkers.  States also have different requirements for voting systems — for example, whetherthe full ballot must be displayed on one page, whether votes are tabulated in the precinctsor at a central location, whether straight-ticket voting is provided, and how accessibilityrequirements are to be met.  Moreover, election jurisdictions within states differ in howthey configure and use the systems to meet local needs.  As a result, no clear consensushas yet emerged among election administrators and other experts on what systems arebest.  Many believe that a diversity of systems promotes innovation and inhibits systematicfraud, and is therefore preferable.  Others believe that a uniform voting system, at leastwithin each state, can be sufficiently secure, and would be more efficient and more likelyto ensure that all voters have equal opportunity to cast their votes.  Federal Funding.  A central issue for Congress is what role the federal governmentshould play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems,particularly with respect to funding and standards.  Estimates of funding needs forequipment replacement have varied, depending on goals, from about $0.5–$5 billion.  Thatdoes not include administrative costs, voter education programs, training of pollworkers,and so forth.  Some have proposed federal discretionary or formula grants for upgradingcurrent systems, or have suggested that the federal government should contribute todefraying the cost to local governments of holding federal elections.  Others believe thatimprovements in other aspects of election administration and in voter education would bemore effective than upgrading technology. Still others state that an integrated, systemicresponse is needed that involves all aspects of election administration.  Some observersalso believe that significantly higher investment in research is needed to develop bettervoting systems, while others state that current knowledge and levels of investment aresufficient.  Standards.  One focus of current debate is whether a need exists for morestandardization.  In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-basedvoting systems (see [http://www.fec.gov/elections.html]).  Most states have now adoptedthose standards, which are currently being updated.  Some have suggested that mandatory,rather than voluntary, standards be adopted nationwide for voting systems.  Suchstandards might also be expanded to address factors such as ballot design, voter error, andelection management.  For example, standards might require that a voting system preventor reduce overvotes or provide common procedures and standards for recounts.  Othershave proposed that standards be broadened but remain voluntary, or that the matter be leftto state and local jurisdictions.CRS-3  Congressional Authority.  The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authorityto regulate congressional elections (see CRS Report RL30747, Congressional Authorityto Standardize National Election Procedures).  The Voting Rights Act (see 42 USC §1973; and CRS Report 95-896, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, As Amended: Its Historyand Current Issues) prohibits discriminatory voting practices and, along with the VotingAccessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, also sets some requirements forelections with respect to accessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a, 6, and ee).  Congress couldalso attach conditions to the receipt of any funding provided for voting systems or electionadministration.  Other Issues in the 2000 ElectionReports of problems in Florida and elsewhere during the 2000 election raisedconcerns about specific failures and the overall integrity of the election system:  votingproblems and irregularities; problems with ballots from military and overseas voters; theelectoral college; and media projections of state outcomes before polls had closed.Voting Problems and Irregularities.  Allegations of voter intimidation andvoting irregularities prompted several investigations, including a series of hearingsconducted in Florida by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, with a final report issuedin June 2001 (see [http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/stdraft1/main.htm]). In March 2001,Attorney General Ashcroft announced a Justice Department voting rights initiative thatincludes increasing the number of federal monitors who oversee the voting process, hiringa new senior counsel to supervise enforcement of federal laws and recommend changes,and adding an additional eight lawyers to the voting rights staff (for more information, see[http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2001/0307civilrightspressconf.htm]).Some are concerned that the National Voter Registration Act (42 USC 1973gg etseq.), the “Motor Voter” law, may have added ineligible voters to the registration rolls.For example, there were media reports that hundreds of felons had voted in the November2000 election, even though only a few states automatically restore voting rights for ex-offenders.  There were also reports that some new motor voter registrants were unable tocast ballots on election day because their registrations could not be confirmed.  And inFlorida, some eligible voters reportedly were improperly purged from the voter rolls whencounties checked registration lists before the election.  Some bills have been introducedto amend or repeal the National Voter Registration Act. Military and Overseas Voters.  Members of the military and U.S. citizens wholive abroad are eligible to vote absentee in federal elections under the provisions of theUniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 USC 1973ff-6).  Controversyin Florida concerning military and overseas ballots centered on two issues — therequirement that ballots must be postmarked by election day and the deadline for countingthem (10 days after the election) — neither of which is addressed in federal law.  Becausethe law leaves such details to the states, postmark requirements for returning ballots vary.The law is administered by the Secretary of Defense through the Federal VotingAssistance Program office in the Department of Defense ([http://www.fvap.ncr.gov]).After the election, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen directed the DefenseDepartment Inspector General to investigate issues with military and overseas citizens’CRS-4ballots and to recommend changes to the law; a report (Report No. D-2001-145) wasissued on June 22, 2001 (see [http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/01report.htm]).  InCongress, several bills would address problems with voting by those covered by theexisting federal law (see CRS Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas CitizensAbsentee Voting Act: Background and Issues for the 107th Congress).Electoral College.  For the first time since 1888, the winner of the popular votein the election did not also win a majority of the electoral college vote.  President Bush isthe fourth President to win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote, the others beingPresidents J. Q. Adams (1824), Hayes (1876), and Harrison (1888). Vice President Gorewon a plurality of 537,179 in the popular vote, but Governor Bush won 5 more electoralvotes (271 versus 266) [http://fecweb1.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm]. Hundreds of proposals to reform the electoral college have been introduced inCongress during the past century and a half, and controversy in the 2000 election renewedcalls to abolish or modify it (see CRS Report RL30804, The Electoral College: AnOverview and Analysis of Reform Proposals; for an analysis of 107th Congress legislation,see CRS Report RL30844, The Electoral College: Reform Proposals in the 107thCongress).Uniform Poll Closing.  There is renewed congressional interest in uniform pollclosing legislation because of early and inaccurate media projections on election night. Inthe 2000 election, the networks projected a Gore victory in Florida before the polls hadclosed in the Florida panhandle, but subsequently withdrew the projection.   Furthermore,proponents of uniform poll closing argue that projections of the winner in key states maydepress voter turnout on the West Coast if it appears that the election is or will be decidedbefore polls close in the West.  Several uniform poll closing bills have been introduced.Alternative Methods for Registration and VotingBecause states, rather than the federal government, have administered elections sincethe country was founded, laws and practices vary considerably with respect to the manycomplex details of the voting process.  Innovations in some states, which may now beconsidered more broadly, include universal absentee voting, early voting, same day voterregistration, declaring an election day holiday, and Internet voting.  Absentee Voting.  Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot for specificreasons only, such as illness or travel, that would prevent the voter from casting a ballotin person on election day.  But recent trends in some states, including California andWashington,  allow any voter to request an absentee ballot, sometimes called “no fault”absentee voting.  In Oregon, elections are conducted entirely by mail.  All registered votersautomatically receive their ballots through the Postal Service, without needing to make aballot request, in contrast to absentee procedures in other states (see[http://www.sos.state.or.us/executive/policy-initiatives/vbm/execvbm.htm]).Early Voting.  In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election daythrough an early voting program.  There are many varied approaches, and the number ofstates using it is growing.  According to the Elections Reform Task Force of the NationalConference of State Legislatures, 26 states now have some form of early voting (see[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2001/electref0801.htm#_Toc522012607]).CRS-5Same Day Registration.  Potential voters may register in person on election dayin six states: Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.Election day registration accommodates those who wish to participate but failed to registerby the close of the registration period.  In some jurisdictions, eligible voters must go to thevoter registrar’s office or board of elections to complete the form, while in others, theymay do so at the polling place.Election Day Holiday.  According to the FEC, 12 states designate election day asa state holiday, although whether schools are closed and state employees are off varies (see[http://www.fec.gov/pages/faqvdayeprocedures.htm]).  An additional 20 states give stateemployees some time off to vote, and 26 states also provide for private sector employeesto take time off to vote. Bills to make election day a federal holiday have been introducedin Congress in the past, and several are pending.Internet Voting.  Internet voting was used on a very limited basis during the 2000election cycle.  The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March 2000 primary usingboth the Internet and traditional polling places.  In the November 2000 election, theDefense Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested andsubmitted absentee ballots via the Internet.  Although interest has grown, Internet votingfrom remote locations raises concerns about voter identification, ballot secrecy, and accessfor all potential voters.  It is unlikely to be widely adopted until such problems are resolved(see CRS Report RS20639, Internet Voting: Issues and Legislation).National and State InitiativesAfter the November 2000 election, both national and state task forces and otherinitiatives were established to address voting issues.  Recommendations for federal actionwere issued by ad hoc commissions such as The National Commission on Federal ElectionReform ([http://www.reformelections.org]), chaired by former Presidents Ford and Carter;professional associations of election officials such as the Election Center([http://www.electioncenter.org]); academic groups such as the Caltech/MIT VotingProject ([http://www.vote.caltech.edu]); and others.   While emphases and proposals vary,there appears to be broad agreement among most or all on several recommendations,including! federal funding for technology upgrades,! use of formula grants for at least some purposes,! conditions for receiving federal funds,! improvements in the voting system standards;! expansion of data collection and dissemination,! enhancement of functions now performed by the Office of ElectionAdministration,! statewide, networked voter registration systems,! broader use of provisional ballots,! actions to facilitate voting by military and overseas citizens,! actions to ensure equal voting opportunity and accessibility,! improvements in voter education,! adoption by states of specific criteria for what is a valid vote, and! procedures to help ensure that statutory certification and other deadlinesare met.CRS-6More than a dozen states established task forces or other efforts to examineelection reform needs (see [http://nass.stateofthevote.org/Issues/issues_elections.html]),and some have produced recommendations.  Reform legislation was considered  in all 50states on a wide range of election reform issues, with more than 1,600 bills introduced (see[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/elections.cfm]). At least six states (California,Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, and Minnesota) enacted legislation to assist inupgrading or replacing current voting systems. The General Accounting Office has also released several reports this year ondifferent aspects of election reform (for an overview, see Elections: A Framework forEvaluating Reform Proposals, GAO-02-90, 15 October 2001).  They includerecommendations on assistance to military and overseas voters and on voting systemstandards, and a framework for evaluating election reform proposals.Legislation in the 107th Congress More than 80  bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress to make broad-reaching changes to the electoral system or to enact more limited changes to specificaspects of the process.  Several would establish an election day holiday, modify theexisting law for voting by military personnel and overseas citizens, or change the NationalVoter Registration Act.  Of the proposals that would make major changes, some wouldestablish a commission to study the voting process and make recommendations forchanges.  In a few cases, a new, permanent federal agency with ongoing responsibilitieswould be established.  Other proposals would establish a study commission or new agencyand provide grant money to states and local governments for new voting equipment orother changes.  A few bills would provide grants to the states but would not create a studycommission.  Hearings on various aspects of election reform have been held by theAdministration, Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, and Science Committees in theHouse, and by the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation;Government Affairs; and Rules and Administration.Three bills have been ordered reported.  H.R. 2275 (Ehlers) would involve theNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in establishing voluntary standardsand certification procedures to ensure the usability, accuracy, integrity, and security ofvoting systems.  H.R. 3295 (Ney) would establish a program to buy-out or improve theperformance of punch card voting systems, a funding program to improve theadministration of elections, a new agency called the Election Assistance Commission, andprograms to recruit students to work at the polls on election day.  It would also involveNIST in development of voluntary standards and certification of voting systems, set certainminimum standards for state and local election systems, and address some issues relatingto uniformed and overseas voters.  S. 565 (Dodd) would establish a commission to studyand make recommendations concerning voting reform, establish a grant program to replaceequipment and make improvements in election administration, and require states to meetcertain standards with respect to the voting process.  (For further information onlegislation, see CRS Report RL30855, Election Reform Bills in the 107th Congress: AComparison). 

This report discusses several issues as the Congress considers legislation to reform the voting process, a number of issues have emerged as part of the debate: the reliability of different types of voting technologies; voting problems and irregularities in the 2000 election; problems for militaryand overseas voters; the electoral college; and early media projections of election results. Both sessions of the 107th Congress considered and debated federal election reform legislation, and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in October 2002

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20898Updated January 30, 2003Elections Reform: Overview and IssuesKevin J. ColemanAnalyst in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance DivisionEric A. FischerSenior Specialist in Science and TechnologyResources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummaryThe remarkable circumstances of the 2000 Presidential election are quite unlikelyto be repeated, but Florida’s role in determining the outcome may be remembered as aturning point with respect to the nation’s election system.  Previously obscure details ofvoting and vote counting became the focus of public attention, and various state andnational commissions issued reports or recommendations on changing the votingprocess.  Some states made plans or began to replace voting equipment and adopt otherimprovements before the 2002 election cycle.  Both sessions of the 107th Congressconsidered and debated federal election reform legislation, and the Help America VoteAct  (P.L. 107-252) was enacted in October 2002.  The Act creates a new federal agencywith election administration responsibilities, sets requirements for voting and voter-registration systems and certain other aspects of election administration, and providesfederal funding, but does not supplant state and local control over electionadministration.  Issues for the 108th Congress may include funding, establishment of thenew agency, and implementation by and impacts on the states. For additionalinformation, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Election Reform.  This report willbe updated periodically to reflect new developments.Voting Systems and Election AdministrationAfter election day 2000, the media focused attention on specific problems withpunchcard voting.  After that, however, broader questions arose about error rates, costs,counting standards, accessibility, and other issues, as election officials consideredupgrading voting systems.  Elections in the United States are administered at the state andlocal level, and the federal government has not historically set mandatory standards forvoting systems, nor has it provide funding to state and local jurisdictions for theadministration of elections.  The Help America Vote Act of 2002 changes that.  Whileinitial reactions to concerns raised by the November 2000 election tended to focus onCRS-2technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, some consensus emergedsubsequently that the issues, and the solutions needed, are more complex, and thelegislation reflects those developments.  However, the solutions involve trade-offs amongdiverse goals.  Kinds of Systems.  Currently, five different technologies are in use — paperballots, lever machines, punchcards, optical scan, and electronic systems — and moststates use more than one kind.  Each has advantages and disadvantages with respect toerror rates, cost, speed, recounts, accessibility to disabled persons, and othercharacteristics.  Differences in actual performance in elections are difficult to measureaccurately,  and they depend on many factors other than the technology, such as thefamiliarity of voters with the equipment, the complexity and design of the ballot, localstandards and practices, the condition of the equipment, and the level of competence ofpollworkers.  P.L. 107-252 funds replacement of punchcard and lever systems.  States also have different requirements for voting systems — for example, whetherthe full ballot must be displayed on one page, whether votes are tabulated in the precinctsor at a central location, whether straight-ticket voting is provided, and how accessibilityrequirements are to be met.  Moreover, election jurisdictions within states differ in howthey configure and use the systems to meet local needs.  As a result, there is no consensuson whether any particular system is best.  Many believe that a diversity of systemspromotes innovation and inhibits systematic fraud, and is therefore preferable.  Othersbelieve that a uniform voting system, at least within each state, can be sufficiently secure,and would be more efficient and more likely to ensure that all voters have equalopportunity to cast their votes.  P.L. 107-252 does not require any particular votingsystem.  It does, however, set requirements that will influence what systems state andlocal election officials choose. Beginning in 2006, voting systems used in federalelections must provide for error correction by voters, manual auditing, accessibility todisabled persons (for at least one machine per precinct), alternative languages, and federalerror-rate standards.  Systems must also maintain voter privacy and ballot confidentiality,and states are required to adopt uniform standards for what constitutes a vote on eachsystem.  Federal Funding.  A central issue has been what role the federal governmentshould play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems,particularly with respect to funding and standards.  Estimates of funding needs for votingequipment replacement have varied, depending on goals, from about $0.5–$5 billion.That does not include administrative costs, voter education programs, training ofpollworkers, and so forth.  Some observers proposed federal grants for upgrading currentsystems, or suggested that the federal government should contribute to defraying the costto local governments of holding federal elections.  Others said that improvements in otheraspects of election administration and in voter education would be more effective thanupgrading technology. Still others stated that an integrated, systemic response is neededthat involves all aspects of election administration.  Some observers also stated thatsignificantly higher investment in research is needed to develop better voting systems.P.L. 107-252 authorizes $3.86 billion in funding for programs to replace equipment,improve election administration, improve accessibility, recruit pollworkers, and performresearch and pilot studies.CRS-3Standards.  One focus of debate has been whether federal standards orrequirements were necessary, both for voting systems and voter registration.  In the 1980s,the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-based voting systems (see[http://www.fec.gov/elections.html]), but not for voter registration systems.  Most stateshave now adopted those standards, which have recently been updated.  Some suggestedthat mandatory, rather than voluntary, standards be adopted nationwide.  Others proposedthat standards be broadened but remain voluntary, or that the matter be left to state andlocal jurisdictions.  P.L. 107-252  establishes federal requirements for voting systems,registration, provisional ballots, and other aspects of election administration, but leavesthe methods of implementation to the states.  The Act establishes two enforcementprocesses.  The U.S. Attorney General may bring civil action with respect to the aboverequirements, and states, as a condition for receipt of funds, are to establish administrativegrievance procedures to handle complaints from individuals. New Agency.  Federal activities relating to election administration have previouslybeen performed by the Office of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal ElectionCommission (FEC).  In addition to the voluntary voting system standards, those activitieshave been limited essentially to clearinghouse functions, such as publications and reports,and some administrative responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act (P.L.103-31).  Some observers expressed concern that the OEA could not function effectivelyas part of the FEC, whose primary responsibilities are related to campaign finance.Others expressed concern that a new federal agency to provide funding and administerrequirements would be cumbersome and risk usurping state and local control overelections.  P.L. 107-252 replaces the OEA with a new, independent, bipartisan federalagency, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).  The EAC is authorized for threefiscal years.  Members are appointed to four-year terms and may be reappointed once.The Act also establishes two boards, with broad-based state and local membership, anda committee to address aspects of voting system standards.  The main duties of the EACinclude carrying out grant programs, providing for testing and certification of votingsystems, studying election issues, and issuing voluntary guidelines for voting systems andthe requirements in the Act.  The commission will not have any new rule-makingauthority and will not enforce the requirements in the Act.  The law provides for technicalsupport and participation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology inrelevant commission activities.    Congressional Authority.  Some observers expressed concern over Congress’sauthority to require states to meet election administration standards.  However, the U.S.Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate congressional elections (see CRSReport RL30747, Congressional Authority to Standardize National Election Procedures).Prior examples of Congress’s use of that authority include, among other laws, the VotingRights Act (see 42 USC  1973; and CRS Report 95-896, The Voting Rights Act of 1965,As Amended: Its History and Current Issues), which prohibits discriminatory votingpractices and, and the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, whichsets some requirements for elections with respect to accessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a,6, and ee).  Congress can also attach conditions to the receipt of any funding, such as forvoting systems or election administration.  Such conditions are included in P.L. 107-252,for example with respect to the grievance procedures described above.CRS-4Other Issues from the 2000 ElectionReports of problems in Florida and elsewhere during the 2000 election raisedconcerns about specific failures and the overall integrity of the election system:  votingproblems and irregularities; problems with ballots from military and overseas voters; theelectoral college; and media projections of state outcomes before polls had closed.Voting Problems and Irregularities.  Some were concerned that the NationalVoter Registration Act (42 USC 1973gg et seq.), the “Motor Voter” law, may have addedineligible voters to the registration rolls.  For example, there were media reports thathundreds of felons had voted in the November 2000 election, even though only a fewstates automatically restore voting rights for ex-offenders.  There were also reports thatsome new motor voter registrants were unable to cast ballots on election day because theirregistrations could not be confirmed.  And in Florida, some eligible voters reportedly wereimproperly purged from the voter rolls when counties checked registration lists before theelection.  Allegations of voter intimidation and voting irregularities prompted severalinvestigations.  In March 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft announced a JusticeDepartment voting rights initiative (the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Divisionenforces federal voting rights statutes; see [http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting]).  P.L. 107-252 requires each state with voter registration  to have a single, accurate, statewideregistration system, and contains identification provisions for first-time voters.Military and Overseas Voters.  Members of the military and U.S. citizens wholive abroad are eligible to vote absentee in federal elections under the provisions of theUniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 USC 1973ff-6).  Controversyin Florida concerning military and overseas ballots centered on two issues — therequirement that ballots must be postmarked by election day and the deadline for countingthem (10 days after the election) — neither of which is currently addressed in federal law.Because the law leaves such details to the states, postmark requirements for returningballots vary.The law is administered by the Secretary of Defense through the Federal VotingAssistance Program office in the Department of Defense ([http://www.fvap.ncr.gov]).After the election, the Defense Department Inspector General investigated issues withmilitary and overseas citizens’ ballots and issued a report (No. D-2001-145) in June 2001(see [http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/01report.htm]).  P.L. 107-252 addressesproblems with voting by those covered by the existing federal law (see CRS ReportRS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Background andIssues for the 107th Congress).  The Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L.107-107), also includes provisions concerning uniformed services voters.Electoral College.  For the first time since 1888, the winner of the popular votein the election did not also win a majority of the electoral college vote.  President Bushis the fourth President to win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote, the othersbeing Presidents J. Q. Adams (1824), Hayes (1876), and Harrison (1888). Vice PresidentGore won a plurality of 537,179 in the popular vote, but Governor Bush won 5 moreelectoral votes (271 versus 266).  Controversy in the 2000 election renewed calls toabolish or modify the electoral college (see CRS Report RL30804, The Electoral College:An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals; and CRS Report RL30844, TheCRS-5Electoral College: Reform Proposals in the 107th Congress).  P.L. 107-252 does notaddress this issue.Uniform Poll Closing.  There was renewed interest in uniform poll closingbecause of early and inaccurate media projections on election night in the 2000 election.Furthermore, proponents of uniform poll closing argue that projections of the winner inkey states may depress voter turnout on the West Coast if it appears that the election isor will be decided before polls close in the West.  Several uniform poll closing bills havebeen introduced.  P.L. 107-252 requires a study on this issue.Alternative Methods for Registration and VotingBecause states, rather than the federal government, have administered elections sincethe country was founded, laws and practices vary considerably with respect to the manycomplex details of the voting process.  Innovations in some states, which may now beconsidered more broadly, include large-scale absentee voting, early voting, same-dayvoter registration, election day holidays, and Internet voting.  Absentee Voting.  Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot forspecific reasons only, such as illness or travel, that would prevent the voter from castinga ballot in person on election day.  But recent trends in some states, including Californiaand Washington, allow any voter to request an absentee ballot, sometimes called “nofault” absentee voting.  In Oregon, elections are conducted entirely by mail.  All registeredvoters automatically receive their ballots through the Postal Service, without needing tomake a ballot request, in contrast to absentee procedures in other states.Early Voting.  In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election daythrough an early voting program.  There are many varied approaches, and the number ofstates using it is growing.  According to the Elections Reform Task Force of the NationalConference of State Legislatures, at least 26 states have some form of early voting.Same Day Registration.  Potential voters may register in person on election dayin six states: Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.Election day registration accommodates those who wish to participate but failed toregister by the close of the registration period.  In some jurisdictions, eligible voters mustgo to the voter registrar’s office or board of elections to complete the form, while inothers, they may do so at the polling place.  Election Day Holiday.  According to the FEC, 12 states designate election day asa state holiday, although whether schools are closed and state employees are off varies(see [http://www.fec.gov/pages/faqvdayeprocedures.htm]).  An additional 20 states givestate employees some time off to vote, and 26 states also provide for private sectoremployees to take time off to vote.  P.L. 107-252 includes a study on this issue.Internet Voting.  Internet voting was used on a very limited basis during the 2000election cycle.  The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March 2000 primary usingboth the Internet and traditional polling places.  In the November 2000 election, theDefense Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested andsubmitted absentee ballots via the Internet.  Although interest has grown, Internet votingfrom remote locations raises concerns about voter identification, ballot secrecy, andCRS-6access for all potential voters.  It is unlikely to be widely adopted until such problems areresolved (see CRS Report RS20639, Internet Voting: Issues and Legislation).  P.L. 107-252 includes a study on this issue.National and State InitiativesAfter the November 2000 election, both national and state task forces and otherinitiatives were established to address voting issues.  Recommendations for federal actionwere issued by ad hoc groups such as The National Commission on Federal ElectionReform (the Ford-Carter Commission); professional associations of election officials suchas the Election Center; academic groups such as the Caltech/MIT Voting Project ; andothers such as the Constitution Project’s Election Reform Initiative.  While emphases andproposals varied, there was broad agreement among most or all on severalrecommendations, including the following:! federal funding for technology upgrades,! use of formula grants for at least some purposes,! conditions for receiving federal funds,! improvements in the voting system standards;! expansion of data collection and dissemination,! enhancement of functions performed by the OEA,! statewide, networked voter registration systems,! broader use of provisional ballots,! actions to facilitate voting by military and overseas citizens,! actions to ensure equal voting opportunity and accessibility,! improvements in voter education,! adoption by states of specific criteria for what is a valid vote, and! procedures to ensure meeting statutory certification and other deadlines.P.L. 107-252 contains provisions relating to all of those recommendations. Issues for the 108th Congress Funding for the programs authorized in the Help America Vote Act is stilluncertain.  Appropriations for the programs have not yet been finalized for FY2003, asagencies continue to operate under a continuing resolution.  The Senate passed anomnibus appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2, as amended) on January 23.  The bill includes$1.55 billion for an election reform grant program but does not specify how funds shouldbe allocated among the programs authorized in P.L. 107-252.  The House has not yetconsidered an omnibus bill.  The House version of the FY2003 Treasury/Postalappropriations bill (H.R. 5120) in the 107th Congress provided $200 million for electionreform but was passed before the Help America Vote Act was enacted.  The FY2002supplemental appropriations (P.L.107-206) provided $400 million for election reform aspart of the "contingent emergency spending" portion of the appropriation, which did notreceive the required presidential approval.  Funding below authorized levels may raiseconcerns among some observers about unfunded mandates.  However, most requirementsin the Act do not go into effect immediately.  Because the EAC is a new agency withmore complex responsibilities and structure than the OEA that it replaces, issues are likelyto arise with respect to its establishment and the implementation of its programs.  Onequestion is whether time frames established in the Act will be met, especially given thedelay in enacting FY2003 appropriations.

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20898Updated October 10, 2002Elections Reform: Overview and IssuesKevin J. ColemanAnalyst in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance DivisionEric A. FischerSenior Specialist in Science and TechnologyResources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummaryThe remarkable circumstances of the 2000 Presidential election are quite unlikelyto be repeated, but Florida’s role in determining the outcome may be remembered as aturning point with respect to the nation’s election system.  Previously obscure details ofvoting and vote counting have become the focus of public attention, and various stateand national commissions have issued reports or recommendations on changing thevoting process.  Some states have made plans or have already begun to replace votingequipment and adopt other improvements before the 2002 election cycle, while othersare considering similar changes.  As Congress considers legislation to reform the voting process, a number of issueshave emerged as part of the debate: the strengths and weaknesses of different types ofvoting systems; voting and registration problems and irregularities; problems formilitary and overseas voters; and the federal role in election administration.  The Houseand Senate passed different versions of election reform legislation (H.R. 3295), anddifferences have been resolved in conference (H.Rept. 107-730).  For additionalinformation, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Election Reform.  This report willbe updated periodically to reflect new developments.Voting SystemsAfter election day 2000, the media focused attention on specific problems withpunchcard voting.  Since then, however, broader questions have arisen about error rates,costs, counting standards, accessibility, and other issues, as election officials considerupgrading current systems.  Elections in the United States are administered at the state andlocal level, and the federal government currently does not set mandatory standards forvoting systems, nor does it provide funding to state and local jurisdictions for theadministration of elections; however, H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2002,CRS-2would change that.  While initial reactions to concerns raised by the November 2000election tended to focus on technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, someconsensus emerged subsequently that the issues, and the solutions needed, are morecomplex, and the legislation reflects those developments.  However, any solutions arelikely to involve trade-offs among diverse goals.  Kinds of Systems.  Currently, five different technologies are in use — paperballots, lever machines, punchcards, optical scan, and electronic systems — and moststates use more than one kind.  Each has advantages and disadvantages with respect toerror rates, cost, speed, recounts, accessibility to disabled persons, and othercharacteristics.  Differences in actual performance in elections are difficult to measureaccurately,  and they depend on many factors other than the technology, such as thefamiliarity of voters with the equipment, the complexity and design of the ballot, localstandards and practices, the condition of the equipment, and the level of competence ofpollworkers.  H.R. 3295 funds replacement of punchcard and lever systems.  States also have different requirements for voting systems — for example, whetherthe full ballot must be displayed on one page, whether votes are tabulated in the precinctsor at a central location, whether straight-ticket voting is provided, and how accessibilityrequirements are to be met.  Moreover, election jurisdictions within states differ in howthey configure and use the systems to meet local needs.  As a result, there is no consensuson whether any particular system is best.  Many believe that a diversity of systemspromotes innovation and inhibits systematic fraud, and is therefore preferable.  Othersbelieve that a uniform voting system, at least within each state, can be sufficiently secure,and would be more efficient and more likely to ensure that all voters have equalopportunity to cast their votes.  H.R. 3295 does not require any particular voting system,except electronic systems for accessibility for disabled persons.  Federal Funding.  A central issue for Congress is what role the federalgovernment should play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about votingsystems, particularly with respect to funding and standards.  Estimates of funding needsfor equipment replacement have varied, depending on goals, from about $0.5–$5 billion.That does not include administrative costs, voter education programs, training ofpollworkers, and so forth.  Some have proposed federal discretionary or formula grantsfor upgrading current systems, or have suggested that the federal government shouldcontribute to defraying the cost to local governments of holding federal elections.  Othersbelieve that improvements in other aspects of election administration and in votereducation would be more effective than upgrading technology. Still others state that anintegrated, systemic response is needed that involves all aspects of electionadministration.  Some observers also believe that significantly higher investment inresearch is needed to develop better voting systems, while others state that currentknowledge and levels of investment are sufficient.  H.R. 3295 authorizes $3.9 billion infunding for programs to replace equipment, improve election administration, improeaccessibility, recruit pollworkers, and perform research and pilot studies.Standards.  One focus of current debate is whether a need exists for morestandardization.  In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-basedvoting systems (see [http://www.fec.gov/elections.html]).  Most states have now adoptedthose standards, which are currently being updated.  Some have suggested that mandatory,rather than voluntary, standards be adopted nationwide for voting systems and otherCRS-3matters such as voter registration and election management.  For example, standardsmight require that a voting system prevent or reduce overvotes or provide commonprocedures and standards for recounts.  Others have proposed that standards be broadenedbut remain voluntary, or that the matter be left to state and local jurisdictions.  H.R. 3295establishes requirements for voting systems, registration, provisional ballots, and otheraspects of election administration, but leaves the methods of implementation to the states.  Congressional Authority.  The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authorityto regulate congressional elections (see CRS Report RL30747, Congressional Authorityto Standardize National Election Procedures).  The Voting Rights Act (see 42 USC1973; and CRS Report 95-896, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, As Amended: Its Historyand Current Issues) prohibits discriminatory voting practices and, along with the VotingAccessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, also sets some requirements forelections with respect to accessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a, 6, and ee).  Congress couldalso attach conditions to the receipt of any funding provided for voting systems or electionadministration.  Other Issues from the 2000 ElectionReports of problems in Florida and elsewhere during the 2000 election raisedconcerns about specific failures and the overall integrity of the election system:  votingproblems and irregularities; problems with ballots from military and overseas voters; theelectoral college; and media projections of state outcomes before polls had closed.Voting Problems and Irregularities.  Some are concerned that the NationalVoter Registration Act (42 USC 1973gg et seq.), the “Motor Voter” law, may have addedineligible voters to the registration rolls.  For example, there were media reports thathundreds of felons had voted in the November 2000 election, even though only a fewstates automatically restore voting rights for ex-offenders.  There were also reports thatsome new motor voter registrants were unable to cast ballots on election day because theirregistrations could not be confirmed.  And in Florida, some eligible voters reportedly wereimproperly purged from the voter rolls when counties checked registration lists before theelection.  Allegations of voter intimidation and voting irregularities prompted severalinvestigations, including hearings in Florida by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,with a report issued in June 2001 (see [http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm]).In March 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft announced a Justice Department voting rightsinitiative (the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division enforces federal votingrights statutes; see [http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting]).  H.R. 3295 requires each state withvoter registration  to have a single, accurate, statewide registration system, and containsidentification provisions for first-time voters.Military and Overseas Voters.  Members of the military and U.S. citizens wholive abroad are eligible to vote absentee in federal elections under the provisions of theUniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 USC 1973ff-6).  Controversyin Florida concerning military and overseas ballots centered on two issues — therequirement that ballots must be postmarked by election day and the deadline for countingthem (10 days after the election) — neither of which is currently addressed in federal law.Because the law leaves such details to the states, postmark requirements for returningballots vary.CRS-4The law is administered by the Secretary of Defense through the Federal VotingAssistance Program office in the Department of Defense ([http://www.fvap.ncr.gov]).After the election, the Defense Department Inspector General investigated issues withmilitary and overseas citizens’ ballots and issued a report (No. D-2001-145) in June 2001(see [http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/01report.htm]).  H.R. 3295 addressesproblems with voting by those covered by the existing federal law (see CRS ReportRS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Background andIssues for the 107th Congress).  The Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L.107-107) (S. 1438), also includes provisions concerning uniformed services voters.Electoral College.  For the first time since 1888, the winner of the popular votein the election did not also win a majority of the electoral college vote.  President Bushis the fourth President to win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote, the othersbeing Presidents J. Q. Adams (1824), Hayes (1876), and Harrison (1888). Vice PresidentGore won a plurality of 537,179 in the popular vote, but Governor Bush won 5 moreelectoral votes (271 versus 266).  Controversy in the 2000 election renewed calls toabolish or modify the electoral college (see CRS Reports RL30804, The ElectoralCollege: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals; and RL30844, The ElectoralCollege: Reform Proposals in the 107th Congress).  H.R. 3295 does not address this issue.Uniform Poll Closing.  There was renewed interest in uniform poll closingbecause of early and inaccurate media projections on election night in the 2000 election.Furthermore, proponents of uniform poll closing argue that projections of the winner inkey states may depress voter turnout on the West Coast if it appears that the election isor will be decided before polls close in the West.  Several uniform poll closing bills havebeen introduced.  H.R. 3295 requires a study on this issue.Alternative Methods for Registration and VotingBecause states, rather than the federal government, have administered elections sincethe country was founded, laws and practices vary considerably with respect to the manycomplex details of the voting process.  Innovations in some states, which may now beconsidered more broadly, include large-scale absentee voting, early voting, same day voterregistration, election day holidays, and Internet voting.  Absentee Voting.  Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot forspecific reasons only, such as illness or travel, that would prevent the voter from castinga ballot in person on election day.  But recent trends in some states, including Californiaand Washington, allow any voter to request an absentee ballot, sometimes called “nofault” absentee voting.  In Oregon, elections are conducted entirely by mail.  All registeredvoters automatically receive their ballots through the Postal Service, without needing tomake a ballot request, in contrast to absentee procedures in other states (see[http://www.sos.state.or.us/executive/policy-initiatives/vbm/execvbm.htm]).Early Voting.  In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election daythrough an early voting program.  There are many varied approaches, and the number ofstates using it is growing.  According to the Elections Reform Task Force of the NationalConference of State Legislatures, at least 26 states have some form of early voting (see[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2001/electref0801.htm#_Toc522012607]).CRS-5Same Day Registration.  Potential voters may register in person on election dayin six states: Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.Election day registration accommodates those who wish to participate but failed toregister by the close of the registration period.  In some jurisdictions, eligible voters mustgo to the voter registrar’s office or board of elections to complete the form, while inothers, they may do so at the polling place.  Election Day Holiday.  According to the FEC, 12 states designate election day asa state holiday, although whether schools are closed and state employees are off varies(see [http://www.fec.gov/pages/faqvdayeprocedures.htm]).  An additional 20 states givestate employees some time off to vote, and 26 states also provide for private sectoremployees to take time off to vote.  H.R. 3295 includes a study on this issue.Internet Voting.  Internet voting was used on a very limited basis during the 2000election cycle.  The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March 2000 primary usingboth the Internet and traditional polling places.  In the November 2000 election, theDefense Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested andsubmitted absentee ballots via the Internet.  Although interest has grown, Internet votingfrom remote locations raises concerns about voter identification, ballot secrecy, andaccess for all potential voters.  It is unlikely to be widely adopted until such problems areresolved (see CRS Report RS20639, Internet Voting: Issues and Legislation).  H.R. 3295includes a study on this issue.National and State InitiativesAfter the November 2000 election, both national and state task forces and otherinitiatives were established to address voting issues.  Recommendations for federal actionwere issued by ad hoc groups such as The National Commission on Federal ElectionReform [http://www.reformelections.org], chaired by former Presidents Ford and Carter;professional associations of election officials such as the Election Center[http://www.electioncenter.org]; academic groups such as the Caltech/MIT Voting Project[http://www.vote.caltech.edu]; and others such as the Constitution Project’s ElectionReform Initiative [http://www.constitutionproject.org/eri/index.htm].   While emphasesand proposals vary, there was broad agreement among most or all on severalrecommendations, including! federal funding for technology upgrades,! use of formula grants for at least some purposes,! conditions for receiving federal funds,! improvements in the voting system standards;! expansion of data collection and dissemination,! enhancement of functions now performed by the Office of ElectionAdministration,! statewide, networked voter registration systems,! broader use of provisional ballots,! actions to facilitate voting by military and overseas citizens,! actions to ensure equal voting opportunity and accessibility,! improvements in voter education,! adoption by states of specific criteria for what is a valid vote, andCRS-6! procedures to help ensure that statutory certification and other deadlinesare met.H.R. 3295 contains provisions relating to all of those recommendations.  Morethan a dozen states established task forces or other efforts to examine election reformneeds.  Reform legislation was considered  in all 50 states in 2001 on a wide range ofelection reform issues (see [http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/elections.cfm]).At least six states (California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, and Minnesota)enacted legislation to assist in upgrading or replacing current voting systems. The General Accounting Office has also released several reports on differentaspects of election reform (for an overview, see Elections: A Framework for EvaluatingReform Proposals, GAO-02-90, 15 October 2001).  They include recommendations onassistance to military and overseas voters and on voting system standards, and aframework for evaluating election reform proposals.Legislation in the 107th Congress More than 80  bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress to make broad-reaching or more limited changes to the electoral system.  Hearings were held by theAdministration, Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, and Science Committees in theHouse, and by the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation;Government Affairs; and Rules and Administration.  The Defense Authorization Act forFY2002 (P.L. 107-107) (S. 1438), includes provisions concerning uniformed servicesvoters and was signed into law in December 2001.The House version of H.R. 3295 passed (362–63) on December 12, 2001.  Itincluded a new agency and programs to buy out or improve punch card voting systemsand improve the administration of elections.  It also set certain minimum standards forelection systems. The Senate version passed (99–1) on April 11, 2002.  Based on abipartisan substitute (S.Amdt. 2688) to S. 565, it included grant programs to replaceequipment and make improvements in election administration and accessibility of pollingplaces, a new agency, and requirements for voting systems, registration, and other aspectsof the voting process.  Both bills also addressed uniformed and overseas voting andestablished programs to recruit students as pollworkers.  The conference  version (H.Rept.107-730) creates a new federal agency based largely on the House bill provisions, setsrequirements similar to those in the Senate bill, and provides formula funds for equipmentreplacement, improvement of election administration, and meeting the requirements, andgrants for improving accessibility and research and pilot programs.  It  also addressesissues relating to uniformed and overseas voters and establishes programs to recruitstudents as pollworkers.  It passed the House October 10 (357–48).President Bush's FY2003 budget request includes $1.2 billion over 3 years in 50%matching grants to states for election improvements.  The House version of H.R. 3295provides $2.25 billion, the Senate version, $3.5 billion, and the conference version $3.9billion with a 5% match for grants to meet requirements.  The FY2003 House budgetresolution (H.Con.Res. 353) earmarks $400 million, the House Treasury/Postalappropriations bill (H.R. 5120) provides $200 million, and the Senate Commerce/Justice/State bill (S. 2778) provides $400 million .  (For more information on legislation,see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Election Reform).

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for Congress.Received through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20898Updated June 29, 2005Elections Reform: Overview and IssuesKevin J. Coleman and Eric A. FischerAnalyst in American National Government and Senior Specialist in Science and TechnologyGovernment and Finance Division and Resources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummarySince the November 2000 Presidential election, previously obscure details ofvoting and vote counting have become the focus of ongoing public attention andlegislative action at the state and federal levels.  Some states made plans or began toreplace voting equipment and adopt other improvements before the 2002 election cycle.Both sessions of the 107th Congress considered and debated federal election reformlegislation, and the Help America Vote Act  (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted inOctober 2002.  The act created a new federal agency with election administrationresponsibilities, set requirements for voting and voter-registration systems and certainother aspects of election administration, and provided federal funding; but it did notsupplant state and local control over election administration.  Issues for the 108thCongress included funding, establishment of the new agency, and implementation byand impacts on the states.  Those issues remain for the 109th Congress, with additionalemphasis on the January 2006 deadline for states to meet several HAVA requirementsand the controversy over paper audit trails for electronic voting systems.  Several billshave been introduced to address those and other issues. This report will be updatedperiodically to reflect new developments.Voting Systems and Election AdministrationElections in the United States are administered at the state and local level, and thefederal government had not historically set mandatory standards for voting systems, norhad it provided funding to state and local jurisdictions for the administration of elections.HAVA changed that.  While initial reactions after the 2000 election had tended to focuson technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, a consensus emerged subsequentlythat the issues, and the solutions needed, were more complex and often involved trade-offs among diverse goals.  HAVA reflects those developments — it funded replacementof punchcard and lever systems but also broader improvements in election administration.CRS-2Kinds of Voting Systems.  Currently, five technologies are used — paper ballots,lever machines, punchcards, optical scan, and direct recording electronic (DRE) systems.Most states use more than one kind.  Each system has advantages and disadvantages withrespect to error rates, cost, speed, recounts, accessibility to disabled persons, and othercharacteristics.  Differences in actual performance in elections are difficult to measureaccurately and depend on many factors, such as the design and condition of the system,the familiarity of voters with it, the complexity and design of the ballot, local standardsand practices, and the level of competence and preparation of officials and pollworkers.There is no consensus on whether any one technology is best, although use of opticalscan and DRE systems has been increasing for several years. States have differentpractices and requirements, such as whether the full ballot must be displayed on one page,whether votes are tabulated in precincts or centrally, whether straight-ticket voting isallowed, and how accessibility requirements are to be met.  Local jurisdictions also differin how they configure and use the systems to meet local needs.  HAVA does not requireany particular voting system, but it sets requirements that influence what systems electionofficials choose.  Beginning in 2006, systems used in federal elections must provide forerror correction by voters, manual auditing, accessibility, alternative languages, andfederal error-rate standards.  Systems must also maintain voter privacy and ballotconfidentiality, and states must adopt uniform standards for what constitutes a vote oneach system.Electronic Voting Machine Controversy.  The HAVA requirement foraccessible voting systems (at least one per polling place) and other factors have begunto drive states to adopt DREs. However, controversy exists about how secure thosesystems are from tampering.  Some experts believe that the problem is serious enough torequire changes in the systems before they are more widely adopted, ranging from moresophisticated computer security to the printing of paper ballots that would be verified bythe voter and hand-counted if the election results were contested.  Others believe thatprocedural and other safeguards can make DREs sufficiently safe from tampering, that useof printed paper ballots would create too many problems, and that the controversy risksdrawing attention away from the demonstrated utility of DREs in addressing knownproblems of access to and usability of voting systems.  One state, Nevada, required DREsto provide a voter-verified paper trail for the November 2004 election.  Several additionalstates have since instituted related requirements.  The Senate Rules and AdministrationCommittees held a hearing on the paper audit-trail issue on June 21, 2005. See CRSReport RL32139 for discussion of these issues. Federal Funding.  A central issue has been what role the federal governmentshould play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems,particularly with respect to funding and standards.  HAVA authorizes $3.86 billion infunding for programs to replace equipment, improve election administration, improveaccessibility, recruit pollworkers, and perform research and pilot studies.  (See “FundingUnder the Help America Vote Act,” below.)New Agency.  Federal activities relating to election administration were previouslyperformed by the Office of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal ElectionCommission (FEC).  Other than the voluntary voting system standards, those activitieswere limited to clearinghouse functions and some administrative responsibilities under theNational Voter Registration Act (P.L. 103-31).  HAVA replaced the OEA with  theCRS-3Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent, bipartisan federal agency, andauthorized funding for it through FY2005.  Members are appointed to four-year terms andmay be reappointed once.  The act also established two boards, with broad-based state andlocal membership, and a technical committee, to address aspects of voting systemstandards and certification.  The main duties of the EAC include carrying out grantprograms, providing for testing and certification of voting systems, studying electionissues, and issuing voluntary guidelines for voting systems and the requirements in the act.The commission does not have any new rule-making authority and does not enforceHAVA requirements.  The law provides for technical support and participation by theNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in relevant commission activities.The EAC has held several additional public meetings and hearings on issues such as thesecurity of electronic voting systems and best practices in election administration.  Itreleased a recommended set of best practices for local election administrators in August2004.  The EAC boards and technical committee have also met, and the agency hasdistributed requirements payments (see section on funding below). Standards and Requirements.  In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntarystandards for computer-based voting systems, although not for voter registration systems.Most states have now adopted those standards, which were updated in 2002.  HAVAcodifies the development and regular updating of those standards, which it calls voluntaryguidelines.  It also establishes federal requirements for voting systems, registration,provisional ballots, and other aspects of election administration.  It leaves the methods ofimplementation to the states but requires the EAC to issue voluntary guidance.  The EACissued its voluntary voting system guidelines for public comment on June 27, 2005. Theact establishes two enforcement processes.  The U.S. Attorney General may bring civilaction with respect to the above requirements, and states, as a condition for receipt offunds, are to establish administrative grievance procedures to handle complaints fromindividuals. Congressional Authority.  Some observers expressed concern before HAVA overCongress’s authority to require states to meet election administration standards.  However,the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate congressional elections (seeCRS Report RL30747).  Prior examples of Congress’s use of that authority include, amongother laws, the Voting Rights Act (see 42 USC  1973; and CRS Report 95-896), whichprohibits discriminatory voting practices and, and the Voting Accessibility for the Elderlyand Handicapped Act, which sets some requirements for elections with respect toaccessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a, 6, and ee).  Congress can also attach conditions tothe receipt of any funding, such as for voting systems or election administration.  Suchconditions are included in HAVA, for example, with respect to the grievance proceduresdescribed above.Alternative Methods for VotingAbsentee Voting.  Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot only forspecific reasons that would prevent the voter from casting a ballot in person.  But manystates now allow any voter to request such a ballot, sometimes called “no fault” absenteevoting.  Oregon conducts its elections entirely by mail — all registered voters receive theirballots through the Postal Service — and the percentage of votes cast via absentee ballothas increased in other states, especially Washington and California, over the past severalelections.  Some observers have expressed concerns that absentee voting is moreCRS-4vulnerable to certain kinds of fraud and coercion of voters than is balloting at the pollingplace, but the trend toward increased absentee voting is expected to continue.Early Voting.  In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election daythrough an early voting program.  There are many approaches, and the number of statesusing early voting is growing, with most states now having some form of it.  Someobservers have criticized early voting as distorting to the electoral process and being opento certain kinds of fraud and abuse.  Proponents argue that early voting can increaseturnout and lessen the risk of certain kinds of distortions.  Internet voting.  The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March 2000 primaryusing both the Internet and traditional polling places.  In the November 2000 election, theDefense Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested andsubmitted ballots via the Internet; the experiment was slated to be repeated on a largerscale in 2004 but was cancelled, largely because of security concerns.  Although interesthas grown, Internet voting from remote locations raises concerns about voteridentification, ballot secrecy, risk of cyberattack, and access for all potential voters.  It isunlikely to be widely adopted until such problems are resolved (see CRS ReportRS20639).  HAVA requires a study on this issue.Funding Under the Help America Vote ActHAVA established several grant programs (see table below for authorized amounts):! Election Administration Improvements. Provided expedited, one-timeformula payments for general election administration improvements tostates that applied, with a $5 million minimum combined payment perstate for this and the replacement program below. Administered byGeneral Services Administration (GSA). (Sec. 101.)! Replacement of Punchcard and Lever Machine Systems. Providedexpedited, one-time formula payments to replace punchcard systems andlever machines in qualifying states, with a $5 million minimum combinedpayment per state for this and the improvements program above.Administered by GSA. (Sec. 102.)! Payments to Meet Election Requirements. Provides annual formulapayments to states to meet the act’s requirements. Requires a 5% matchand submission of a state plan. Administered by the Election AssistanceCommission (EAC) created in the act (see below). (Sec. 251-258.)! Payments to Assure Accessibility. Provides payments to states to makepolling places accessible to persons with disabilities. Requiresapplication. Administered by Department of Health and Human Services(HHS). (Sec. 265-265.)! Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems. Provides payments tostate protection and advocacy systems to ensure electoral participation bypersons with disabilities. Requires application. Administered by HHS.(Sec. 291-292.) ! Grants for Research and Pilot Programs. Provides grants for research toimprove voting technology (Sec. 271-273) and for pilot programs to testnew voting technology (Sec. 281-283). Requires application.Administered by EAC.CRS-5! Student Programs. Establishes three programs, one to recruit collegestudents as pollworkers (Sec. 501-503), one to recruit high schoolstudents (Sec. 601), and one to provide grants for the National Studentand Parent Mock Election (Sec. 295-296).Help America Vote Act (HAVA) FundingProgram Authorization ($millions) per Fiscal Year Actuala FY03-052003 2004 2005 2006 Total TotalElection AdministrationImprovement 325.0 325.0 325.0Punchcard/LeverMachine Replacement325.0 325.0 325.0Election Requirements 1,400.0 1,000.0 600.0 3,000.0 2,328.3Accessibility 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 23.0Protection and Advocacy 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 40.0+ 7.0Research 20.0 20.0Pilot Programs 0.0 10.0College Program 5.0 b b b 5.0+ 2.45High School Program 5.0 b b b 5.0+ 2.25Mock Election 0.2 b b b 0.2+ 0.4EAC 10.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 18.0Total 2,160.2 1,045.0 645.0 10.0 3,860.2+ 3,031.4a: funds appropriated for FY2003 and FY2004, plus the Administration request for FY2005.b: sums necessary.+: amount shown plus sums necessary for subsequent years.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 forelection reform programs authorized by HAVA, including:! $650 million combined for the election administration improvement andvoting system replacement payments to be administered by GSA (with nospecific allocation designated for either program and a maximum of$500,000 for administrative costs).GSA disbursed all of these funds to states in June 2003. All states and territories receivedpayments for election administration improvements, based on a formula using each state’svoting age population. Payments for the replacement of punch card and lever votingsystems were made to all states that applied for the program.! $830 million for requirements grants (with a maximum of 0.1% to be paidto any territory), and! $20 million for other programs — $13 million for accessibility grants, $2million for protection and advocacy programs, $1.5 million each for thecollege and high school programs, and $2 million for the EAC.CRS-6P.L. 108-7 also included $15 million for one-time payments to certain states that hadobtained optical scan or electronic voting systems prior to the November 2000 election.The President’s budget request for FY2004 included $500 million, one-half theamount authorized, to fund EAC requirements grants and administration. No funds werespecifically requested for the other programs described above.  The final omnibusappropriations 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 requirementspayments, $500 million for election reform programs, $10 million for accessibility grants,$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 electionreform, of which $40 million was additional funding for requirements grants and $10million was for EAC administrative expenses.  The request also included $5 million forprotection and advocacy programs and $10 million for accessibility grants.  The HouseTransportation and Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee mark-up included anadditional $5 million for the EAC.  The omnibus appropriations bill for FY2005, H.R.4818 was signed into law on December 8, 2004 and included $14 million for the ElectionAssistance Commission, of which $2.8 million was to be transferred to the NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology, 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 HelpAmerica Vote College Program.The President’s budget request for FY2006 included $17.6 million for the EAC“to develop voluntary standards and initiate an accreditation program for electronic votingmachines,” as well as $9.9 million for protection and advocacy programs and $5 millionfor accessibility grants administered by HHS.  The House appropriations bills include$15.9 million for the EAC, of which $2.8 million is for NIST activities (H.R. 3058), andthe administration-requested amounts for HHS (H.R. 3010).State Implementation of the Help America Vote ActWith the publication of state plans in the Federal Register on March 24, 2004,states and territories were eligible to receive $2.3 billion in federal requirements payments,following a 45-day public comment period and filing of a certification with the EAC.  The$2.3 billion includes funds appropriated in FY2003 and FY2004 which could not beallocated until establishment of the EAC and publication of the state plans.  As of June2005, $2.2 billion in EAC-approved requirements payments had been distributed, with$112 million remaining to be disbursed.

Congressional Research Service ò The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20898Updated April 30, 2001Elections Reform: Overview and IssuesKevin J. ColemanAnalyst in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance DivisionEric A. FischerSenior Specialist in Science and TechnologyResources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummaryThe remarkable circumstances of the 2000 Presidential election are quite unlikelyto be repeated, but Florida’s role in determining the outcome may be remembered as aturning point with respect to the nation’s election system.  Previously obscure details ofvoting and vote counting have become the focus of public attention, and various stateand national commissions are studying the voting process.  Some states have alreadymade plans to replace voting equipment and adopt other improvements before the 2002election cycle, while others are considering similar changes.  As Congress considers legislation to reform the voting process, a number of issueshave emerged as part of the debate: the reliability of different types of votingtechnologies; voting problems and irregularities in the 2000 election; problems formilitary and overseas voters; the electoral college; and early media projections of electionresults.  (For a discussion of campaign finance reform issues, see CRS Issue BriefIB87020 and [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebcam1.html].)  This report will beupdated periodically to reflect new developments.Voting SystemsAfter election day, the media focused attention on specific problems with punch cardvoting.  In the months since then, however, broader questions have arisen about errorrates, costs, counting standards, and other issues, as election officials consider upgradingcurrent systems (for an in-depth discussion, see CRS Report RL30773, VotingTechnologies in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress).  Elections in theUnited States are administered at the state and local level, and the federal government doesnot set mandatory standards for voting systems, nor does it provide funding to state andlocal jurisdictions for the administration of elections.  While initial reactions to problemsraised by the election tended to focus on technological fixes such as eliminatingpunchcards, a consensus appears to be emerging that the issues, and the solutions needed,CRS-2are more complex.  Those solutions are likely to involve trade-offs among such diversegoals as cost, speed, accuracy, security, reduction in voter errors, and ease of use.  Currently, five different technologies are in use — paper ballots, lever machines,punchcards, marksense forms (also called optical scan), and electronic systems — andmost states use more than one kind.  Each has advantages and disadvantages with respectto error rates, cost, speed, recounts, accessibility to disabled persons, and othercharacteristics.  Differences in actual performance in elections are difficult to measureaccurately, however, and depend on many factors other than the technology, such as thefamiliarity of voters with the equipment, the complexity and design of the ballot, localstandards and practices, the condition of the equipment, and the level of competence ofpollworkers.  States also have different requirements for voting systems — for example, whetherthe full ballot must be displayed on one page, whether votes are tabulated in the precinctsor at a central location, whether straight-ticket voting is provided, and how accessibilityrequirements are to be met.  Moreover, election jurisdictions within states differ in howthey configure and use the systems to meet local needs.  As a result, no clear consensushas yet emerged among election administrators and other experts on what systems arebest.  Many believe that a diversity of systems promotes innovation and increases thedifficulty of systematic fraud, and is therefore preferable.  Others believe that a uniformvoting system, at least within each state, can be made sufficiently secure, and would bemore efficient and more likely to ensure that all voters have equal opportunity to cast theirvotes.  A central issue for Congress is what role the federal government should play inaddressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems, in particular withrespect to funding and standards.  The cost of providing fully accessible voting equipmentnationwide has been estimated at $3–5 billion, according to Doug Lewis of the ElectionsCenter.  That does not include administrative costs, voter education programs, training ofpollworkers, and so forth.  Some have proposed federal funding for upgrading currentsystems, in the form of discretionary or formula grants administered through the FederalElection Commission (FEC), the Department of Justice, or other agencies, or that thefederal government should contribute to defraying the cost to local governments ofholding federal elections.  Others believe, in contrast, that improvements in other aspectsof election administration and in voter education would be more effective than upgradingtechnology. Still others state that an integrated, systemic response is needed that involvesall aspects of election administration.  Some observers also believe that significantly higherinvestment in research is needed to develop better voting systems, while others state thatcurrent knowledge and levels of investment are sufficient to make any neededimprovements.  One focus of current debate is whether a need exists for more standardization.  In the1980s, the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-based voting systems (see[http://www.fec.gov/elections.html]).  Most states have now adopted those standards.Some have suggested that mandatory, rather than voluntary, standards be adoptednationwide for existing voting technologies.  Such standards might also be expanded inscope from the current set, which does not address factors such as ballot design, electionmanagement, or voter error.  For example, standards might require that a voting systemprevent or reduce overvotes or provide common procedures and standards for recounts.CRS-3Others have proposed that standards be broadened but remain voluntary, or that the matterbe left to state and local jurisdictions.  The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate congressionalelections (see CRS Report RL30747, Congressional Authority to Standardize NationalElection Procedures).  The Voting Rights Act (see 42 USC § 1973; see CRS Report 95-896, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, As Amended: Its History and Current Issues)prohibits discriminatory voting practices and, along with the Voting Accessibility for theElderly and Handicapped Act, also sets some requirements for elections with respect toaccessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a, 6, and ee).  Congress could also attach conditionsto the receipt of any funding provided for voting systems or election administration.  Other Issues in the 2000 ElectionReports of problems in Florida and elsewhere in the nation during the 2000 electionraised concerns about specific failures and the overall integrity of the election system:voting problems and irregularities; problems with ballots from military and overseas voters;the electoral college; and media projections of state outcomes before polls had closed.Voting Problems and Irregularities.  Allegations of voter intimidation andvoting irregularities in Florida and elsewhere prompted several investigations, includinga series of hearings conducted in Florida by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights[http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/flstrpt1.htm].  In March 2001, Attorney General JohnAshcroft announced a Justice Department voting rights initiative that includes increasingthe number of federal monitors who oversee the voting process, hiring a new seniorcounsel to supervise enforcement of federal laws and recommend changes, and adding anadditional eight lawyers to the voting rights staff (for more information on this initiative,see [http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2001/0307civilrightspressconf.htm]).Some are concerned that the National Voter Registration Act (42 USC 1973gg etseq.), the “Motor Voter” law, may have added ineligible voters to the registration rolls.For example, there were media reports that hundreds of felons had voted in the election,even though most states do not automatically restore voting rights for ex-offenders.  Therewere also reports that some new motor voter registrants were unable to cast ballots onelection day because their registrations could not be confirmed, even though the lawprovides for casting provisional ballots in such cases.  And in Florida, some eligible votersreportedly were improperly purged from the voter rolls when counties checkedregistration lists before the election.  A number of bills have been introduced to amend orrepeal the National Voter Registration Act. Military and Overseas Voters.  Members of the military and U.S. citizens wholive abroad are eligible to vote absentee in federal elections under the provisions of theUniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 USC 1973ff-6).  Controversyin Florida concerning military and overseas ballots centered on two issues — therequirement that ballots must be postmarked by election day and the deadline for countingthem (10 days after the election) — neither of which is addressed in federal law.  Becausefederal law leaves such details to the states, postmark requirements for returning ballotsvary by state.CRS-4The law is administered by the Secretary of Defense through the Federal VotingAssistance Program office in the Department of Defense [http://www.fvap.ncr.gov].  Afterthe election, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen directed the Defense DepartmentInspector General to investigate issues with military and overseas citizens’ ballots and torecommend changes to the law.  In Congress, a number of bills have been introduced toaddress problems with voting by those covered by the existing federal law (see CRSReport RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act:Background and Issues for the 107th Congress).Electoral College.  For the first time since 1888, the winner of the popular votein the election did not also win a majority of the electoral college vote.  Governor Bushwon 50,456,169 votes (271 electoral votes) and Vice President Gore won 50,996,116votes (266 electoral votes), a Gore plurality of 539,947 in the popular vote[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.president.html].  President Bush isthe fourth President to win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote, a list whichincludes Presidents J.Q. Adams (1824), Hayes (1876), and Harrison (1888).Although there have been hundreds of proposals introduced in Congress during thepast century and a half, electoral college controversy in the 2000 election has renewedcalls for abolishing or modifying it (see CRS Report RL30804, The Electoral College: AnOverview and Analysis of Reform Proposals; for an analysis of 107th Congress legislation,see CRS Report RL30844, The Electoral College: Reform Proposals in the 107thCongress).Uniform Poll Closing.  There is renewed congressional interest in uniform pollclosing legislation because of early and inaccurate media projections on election night. Inthe 2000 election, the networks projected a Gore victory in Florida before the polls hadclosed in the Florida panhandle, but subsequently withdrew the projection.   Furthermore,proponents of uniform poll closing argue that projections of the winner in key states maydepress voter turnout on the West Coast if it appears that the election is or will be decidedbefore polls close in the West.  Several uniform poll closing bills have been introduced inthe 107th Congress, and hearings were held on February 14, 2001.Alternative Methods for Registration and VotingAs Congress, the states, and various commissions and task forces explore ideas forreforming the elections process, recommendations may include alternative methods toregister and vote, some of which are currently used in some of the states.  Due to the factthat the states, rather than the federal government, have administered elections since thecountry was founded, laws and practices vary considerably with respect to the manycomplex details of the voting process.  Innovations in some states, which may now beconsidered more broadly, are universal absentee voting, early voting, same day voterregistration, declaring an election day holiday, and Internet voting.  Absentee voting.  Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot for specificreasons only, such as illness or travel, that would prevent the voter from casting a ballotin person on election day.  But recent trends in some states, including California andWashington,  allow any voter to request an absentee ballot, sometimes called “no fault”absentee voting.  In Oregon, elections are conducted entirely by mailCRS-5[http://www.sos.state.or.us/executive/policy-initiatives/vbm/execvbm.htm].  All registeredvoters automatically receive their ballots through the Postal Service, without needing tomake a ballot request, in contrast to absentee procedures in other states.Early voting.  In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election dayat voting places established in a county to accommodate an early voting program.Although there are many varied approaches to early voting — where satellite voting placesare located, how many days and hours are established for early voting, whether earlyvoting is a county option or whether it is required based on population — the number ofstates with some type of early voting program is growing.  According to the NationalConference of State Legislatures, 13 states now have some form of early voting.[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/taskfc/pps1/sld013.htm]Same day registration.  Potential voters may register to vote in person onelection day in six states: Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, andWyoming.  Election day registration accommodates those who wish to participate in anelection but failed to register by the close of the registration period.  In some jurisdictions,eligible voters must go to the voter registrar’s office or board of elections to complete theform, while in others, they may do so at the polling place.Election day holiday.  According to the FEC, 12 states designate election day asa state holiday, although whether schools are closed and state employees are off variesstate-by-state [http://www.fec.gov/pages/faqvdayeprocedures.htm].  An additional 20states give state employees some time off to vote, and 26 states also provide for privatesector employees to take time off for voting.  Bills to make election day a federal holidayhave been introduced in Congress in the past, and several are pending in the 107thCongress.Internet voting.  Internet voting was used on a very limited basis during the 2000election cycle.  The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March, 2000 primary using theInternet, and also traditional polling places.  In the November election, the Department ofDefense conducted a pilot program in which 350 voters who are covered by theUniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act could request and vote an absenteeballot on the Internet.  Problems with existing voting equipment and failures in the recentelection have increased interest in Internet voting.  At the same time, Internet voting fromremote locations raises issues concerning voter identification, ballot secrecy, and accessfor all potential voters.  As election officials consider replacing or upgrading traditionalvoting equipment, it is unlikely that Internet voting will be widely adopted until securityand access issues are resolved (see CRS Report RS20639, Internet Voting: Issues andLegislation).National and State InitiativesImmediately after the November 2000 election, both national and state task forcesand other initiatives were established to address voting issues.  The National Associationof Secretaries of State [http://nass.stateofthevote.org] adopted a February, 2001 resolutioncalling for updated, voluntary national standards and federal funding for voting systemmodernization, among other actions.  The National Association of State Election Directors[http://www.nased.org] also adopted a resolution in February calling for increased federalCRS-6funding to develop updated and expanded standards.  The National Association ofCounties [http://www.naco.org] and the National Association of County Recorders,Election Officials and Clerks [http://www.nacrc.org] have jointly established a NationalCommission on Election Standards and Reform, which is examining several aspects ofelection administration.  The Election Center [http://www.electioncenter.net], anassociation of election and voter registration officials, has established an Elections ReformTask Force to review concerns about election systems and recommend changes.  TheNational Conference of State Legislatures [http://www.ncsl.org] has established anElections Reform Task Force to restore public confidence in state election systems andidentify model practices and laws for states to consider.  Several independent national efforts are also underway.  The National Commissionon Federal Election Reform [http://www.reformelections.org], chaired by formerPresidents Ford and Carter, is expected to release a report in September 2001 on ways toimprove the accuracy and fairness of federal elections.  The bipartisan Constitution Project[http://www.constitutionproject.org] has established an Election Reform Initiative todevelop consensus about improvements in election administration.  The California Instituteof Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are engaged in a joint effort[http://www.vote.caltech.edu] to determine how to improve the performance andreliability of voting systems.  More than a dozen states have established task forces or other efforts to examineelection reform needs [http://nass.stateofthevote.org/Issues/issues_elections.html], andsome have produced recommendations.  At least five (Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Iowa,and Missouri) have proposed adopting a uniform statewide voting system, as well as otherelection reforms, and several have also proposed adopting systems that help prevent votererror.  Reform legislation is pending in all 50 states, with more than 1,400 bills introducedin state legislatures this year on a wide range of election reform issues.[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/elections.cfm]LegislationNumerous bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress to make broad-reachingchanges to the electoral system or to enact more limited changes to specific aspects of theprocess.  A number of bills would establish an election day holiday, modify the existing lawfor voting by military personnel and overseas citizens, or change the National VoterRegistration Act.  Of the proposals that would make major changes, some would establisha commission to study the voting process and make recommendations for changes.  In afew cases, the commission would be a new, permanent federal agency charged withongoing responsibilities.  A second group of proposals would establish a study commissionor new agency and would also provide grant money to states and local governments topurchase new voting equipment or implement voting changes.  A few bills would providegrants to the states for specific activities to improve the voting process, but would notcreate a study commission (For further information on legislation, see CRS ReportRL30855, Election Reform Bills in the 107th Congress: A Comparison, and CRS ReportRL30773, Voting Technologies in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress).

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20898Updated September 25, 2003Elections Reform: Overview and IssuesKevin J. ColemanAnalyst in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance DivisionEric A. FischerSenior Specialist in Science and TechnologyResources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummaryThe remarkable circumstances of the November 2000 Presidential election areunlikely to be repeated, but Florida’s role in determining the outcome may beremembered as a turning point with respect to the nation’s election system. Previouslyobscure details of voting and vote counting became the focus of public attention, andvarious state and national commissions issued reports or recommendations on changingthe voting process. Some states made plans or began to replace voting equipment andadopt other improvements before the 2002 election cycle. Both sessions of the 107thCongress considered and debated federal election reform legislation, and the HelpAmerica Vote Act (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in October 2002. The Actcreates a new federal agency with election administration responsibilities, setsrequirements for voting and voter-registration systems and certain other aspects ofelection administration, and provides federal funding; but it does not supplant state andlocal control over election administration. Issues for the 108th Congress include funding,establishment of the new agency, and implementation by and impacts on the states. Foradditional information, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Election Reform. Thisreport will be updated periodically to reflect new developments.Voting Systems and Election AdministrationAfter election day 2000, the media first focused attention on specific problems withpunchcard voting, but broader questions soon arose about error rates, costs, countingstandards, accessibility, and other issues. Elections in the United States are administeredat the state and local level, and the federal government had not historically set mandatorystandards for voting systems, nor had it provided funding to state and local jurisdictionsfor the administration of elections. HAVA changed that. While initial reactions after theelection had tended to focus on technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, someconsensus emerged subsequently that the issues, and the solutions needed, are moreCRS-2complex and often involve trade-offs among diverse goals. HAVA reflects thosedevelopments — it funds replacement of punchcard and lever systems but also broaderimprovements to election administration.Kinds of Voting Systems. Currently, five different technologies are in use —paper ballots, lever machines, punchcards, optical scan, and electronic systems (directrecording electronic or DRE) — and most states use more than one kind. Each hasadvantages and disadvantages with respect to error rates, cost, speed, recounts,accessibility to disabled persons, and other characteristics. Differences in actualperformance in elections are difficult to measure accurately, and they depend on manyfactors other than the technology, such as the familiarity of voters with the equipment, thecomplexity and design of the ballot, local standards and practices, the condition of theequipment, and the level of competence of pollworkers.States also have different requirements for voting systems — for example, whetherthe full ballot must be displayed on one page, whether votes are tabulated in the precinctsor at a central location, whether straight-ticket voting is provided, and how accessibilityrequirements are to be met. Moreover, local election jurisdictions differ in how theyconfigure and use the systems to meet local needs. As a result, there is no consensus onwhether any system is best. Many believe that a diversity of systems promotes innovationand inhibits systematic fraud, and is therefore preferable. Others believe that a uniformvoting system, at least within each state, can be sufficiently secure, and would be moreefficient and more likely to ensure that all voters have equal opportunity to cast theirvotes. HAVA does not require any particular voting system. It does, however, setrequirements that will influence what systems state and local election officials choose.Beginning in 2006, voting systems used in federal elections must provide for errorcorrection by voters, manual auditing, accessibility, alternative languages, and federalerror-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.Electronic Voting Machine Controversy. The HAVA requirement for accessiblevoting systems (at least one per polling place), along with other factors, is expected todrive states toward adopting DREs. However, there is currently some controversy abouthow secure those systems are from tampering. Some experts have called for changes inthe systems before they are more widely adopted, ranging from more sophisticatedcomputer security to the printing of paper ballots that would be verified by the voter andhand-counted if the election results were contested. Others believe that procedural andother safeguards can make DREs sufficiently safe from tampering, that use of printedpaper ballots would create substantial problems, and that the controversy risks drawingattention away from the demonstrated utility of DREs in addressing known problems ofaccess to and usability of voting systems.Federal Funding. A central issue has been what role the federal governmentshould play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems,particularly with respect to funding and standards. Estimates of funding needs for votingequipment replacement have varied, depending on goals, from about $0.5–$5 billion.That does not include administrative costs, voter education programs, training ofpollworkers, and so forth. HAVA authorizes $3.86 billion in funding for programs toreplace equipment, improve election administration, improve accessibility, recruitpollworkers, and perform research and pilot studies. (See Funding section on p. 4.)CRS-3New Agency. Federal activities relating to election administration have previouslybeen performed by the Office of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal ElectionCommission (FEC). Other than the voluntary voting system standards, those activitieshave been limited essentially to clearinghouse functions, such as publications and reports,and some administrative responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act (P.L.103-31). HAVA replaces the OEA with a new, independent, bipartisan federal agency,the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The EAC is authorized for three fiscal years,beginning in 2003. Members are appointed to four-year terms and may be reappointedonce. The Act also establishes two boards, with broad-based state and local membership,and a committee to address aspects of voting system standards. The main duties of theEAC include carrying out grant programs, providing for testing and certification of votingsystems, studying election issues, and issuing voluntary guidelines for voting systems andthe requirements in the Act. The commission will not have any new rule-makingauthority and will not enforce the requirements in the Act. The law provides for technicalsupport and participation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology inrelevant commission activities.HAVA called for the appointment of commissioners within 120 days of enactment,which was February 26, 2003. In late May 2003, Democratic leaders in Congressrecommended appointing Ray Martinez and Gracia Hillman to the commission, and theWhite House announced on June 6 that the President planned to nominate RepublicansPaul DeGregorio and Deforest B. Soaries. On September 12, the White House announcedthe President’s intention to nominate Democrats Martinez and Hillman. HAVA requiresthe advice and consent of the Senate in making the appointments. The Senate has notindicated whether it will conduct hearings once formal nominations have been made orwhether the nominations will be sent directly to the floor without hearings.Standards. In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntary standards for computer-based voting systems, although not for voter registration systems. Most states have nowadopted those standards, which have recently been updated. HAVA establishes federalrequirements for voting systems, registration, provisional ballots, and other aspects ofelection administration, but leaves the methods of implementation to the states. The Actestablishes two enforcement processes. The U.S. Attorney General may bring civil actionwith respect to the above requirements, and states, as a condition for receipt of funds, areto establish administrative grievance procedures to handle complaints from individuals.Congressional Authority. Some observers expressed concern over Congress’sauthority to require states to meet election administration standards. However, the U.S.Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate congressional elections (see CRSReport RL30747, Congressional Authority to Standardize National Election Procedures).Prior examples of Congress’s use of that authority include, among other laws, the VotingRights Act (see 42 USC 1973; and CRS Report 95-896, The Voting Rights Act of 1965,As Amended: Its History and Current Issues), which prohibits discriminatory votingpractices and, and the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, whichsets some requirements for elections with respect to accessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a,6, and ee). Congress can also attach conditions to the receipt of any funding, such as forvoting systems or election administration. Such conditions are included in HAVA, forexample with respect to the grievance procedures described above.CRS-4Alternative Methods for VotingState laws and practices vary considerably with respect to the many complex detailsof the voting process. Innovations in some states, which may now be considered morebroadly, include large-scale absentee voting, early voting, and Internet voting.Absentee Voting. Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot only forspecific reasons that would prevent the voter from casting a ballot in person. But recenttrends in some states, including California and Washington, allow any voter to requestsuch a ballot, sometimes called “no fault” absentee voting. Oregon conducts its electionsentirely by mail — all registered voters receive their ballots through the Postal Service.While the percentage of votes cast by absentee or mail ballot has been increasing in recentelections, some observers have expressed concerns that the method is more vulnerable tocertain kinds of fraud and coercion of voters than is balloting at the polling place.Early Voting. In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election daythrough an early voting program. There are many approaches, and the number of statesusing it is growing. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least26 states have some form of early voting. Some have criticized early voting as distortingto the electoral process and being open to certain kinds of fraud and abuse.Internet Voting. Internet voting was used on a very limited basis during the 2000election cycle. The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March 2000 primary usingboth the Internet and traditional polling places, and in the November 2000 election, theDefense Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested andsubmitted ballots via the Internet; the experiment is slated to be repeated in 2004.Although interest has grown, Internet voting from remote locations raises concerns aboutvoter identification, ballot secrecy, and access for all potential voters. It is unlikely to bewidely adopted until such problems are resolved (see CRS Report RS20639, InternetVoting: Issues and Legislation). HAVA requires a study on this issue.Funding Under the Help America Vote ActHAVA establishes several grant programs (see table below for authorized amounts):Election Administration Improvements. Provides expedited, one-time formula paymentsfor general election administration improvements to states that apply, with a $5 millionminimum combined payment per state for this and the replacement program below.Administered by General Services Administration (GSA). (Sec. 101.)Replacement of Punchcard and Lever Machine Systems. Provides expedited, one-timeformula payments to replace punchcard systems and lever machines in qualifying states,with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for this and the improvementsprogram above. Administered by GSA. (Sec. 102.)Payments to Meet Election Requirements. Provides annual formula payments to states tomeet the Act's requirements. Requires a 5% match and submission of a state plan.Administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) created in the Act (seebelow). (Sec. 251-258.)Payments To Assure Accessibility. Provides payments to states to make polling placesaccessible to persons with disabilities. Requires application. Administered byDepartmentof Health and Human Services (HHS). (Sec. 265-265.)CRS-5Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems. Provides payments to state protectionand advocacy systems to ensure electoral participation by persons with disabilities.Requires application. Administered by HHS. (Sec. 291-292.)Grants for Research and Pilot Programs. Provides grants for research to improve votingtechnology (Sec. 271-273) and for pilot programs to test new voting technology (Sec.281-283). Requires application. Administered by EAC.Student Programs. Establishes three programs, one to recruit college students aspollworkers (Sec. 501-503), one to recruit high school students (Sec. 601), and one toprovide grants for the National Student and Parent Mock Election (Sec. 295-296).Funding Authorizations in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)Program Authorizations ($millions) per Fiscal Year2003 2004 2005 2006 TotalElection AdministrationImprovement325.0 325.0Punchcard/Lever MachineReplacement325.0 325.0Election Requirements 1,400.0 1,000.0 600.0 3,000.0Accessibility 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0Protection and Advocacy 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 40.0+Research 20.0 20.0Pilot Programs 10.0 10.0College Program 5.0 a a a 5.0+High School Program 5.0 a a a 5.0+Mock Election 0.2 a a a 0.2+EAC 10.0 10.0 10.0 30.0Total 2,160.2 1,045.0 645.0 10.0 3,860.2+a: sums necessary.+: amount shown plus sums necessary for subsequent years.FY2003 and FY2004 Funding. The FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2,H.Rept. 108-10, P.L. 108-7), signed into law on February 20, includes $1.5 billion forelection reform programs authorized by HAVA, including:! $650 million combined for the election administration improvement andvoting system replacement payments to be administered by GSA (withCRS-6no specific allocation designated for either program and a maximum of$500,000 for administrative costs),! $830 million for requirements grants (with a maximum of 0.1% to bepaid to any territory), and! $20 million for other programs — $13 million for accessibility grants, $2million for protection and advocacy programs,$1.5 million each for thecollege and high school programs, and $2 million for the EAC.P.L 108-7 also includes $15 million for one time payments to certain states that hadobtained optical scan or electronic voting systems prior to the November 2000 election.The President's budget request for FY2004 includes $500 million, one-half theamount authorized, to fund EAC requirements grants and administration. No funds arespecifically requested for the other programs described above. Funding below authorizedlevels may raise concerns among some observers about unfunded mandates or failure toresolve problems identified after the November 2000 election. However, mostrequirements in the Act do not go into effect immediately.The FY2004 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies AppropriationsAct, H.R. 2989, as passed by the House on September 20, 2003, includes $495 millionfor grant programs authorized under HAVA and $5 million for the EAC. The Senateversion, S. 1589, reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 8(S.Rept. 108-146), provides $500 million, of which not more than $800,000 is to be usedfor EAC administrative expenses.Title 1 Funding Administered byGSA. The General Services Administration(GSA) disbursed all section 101 (election administration improvements) and section 102(replacement of punch card and lever machine systems) funds to states in June 2003. Allstates and territories received payments for election administration improvements, basedon a formula using each state's voting age population. Payments for the replacement ofpunch card and lever voting systems were made to all states that applied for the program.Total disbursements for both programs were $649.5 million.State Implementation of the Help America Vote ActOne result of the delay in establishing the EAC is that states cannot apply forpayments to meet HAVA requirements, yet deadlines for meeting those requirementsexist and some have already passed. Furthermore, the ability of states to meet therequirements without additional federal funding is hampered by budget difficulties inmany states. The lack of funding and the impending deadlines create a difficult situationduring a transition period when far-reaching changes to the voting process have beenmandated by federal law. While the states have received some funding from GSA, thegreater part of federal funding will be disbursed by the EAC. Specific information onindividual state progress in meeting the requirements may be found atwww.electionline.org/index.jsp.

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20898Updated September 2, 2004Elections Reform: Overview and IssuesKevin J. ColemanAnalyst in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance DivisionEric A. FischerSenior Specialist in Science and TechnologyResources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummaryThe remarkable circumstances of the November 2000 Presidential election may beremembered as a turning point with respect to the nation’s election systems.  Previouslyobscure details of voting and vote counting have become the focus of public attention.Some states made plans or began to replace voting equipment and adopt otherimprovements before the 2002 election cycle.  Both sessions of the 107th Congressconsidered and debated federal election reform legislation, and the Help America VoteAct  (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in October 2002.  The act created a new federalagency with election administration responsibilities, set requirements for voting andvoter-registration systems and certain other aspects of election administration, andprovided federal funding; but it did not supplant state and local control over electionadministration.  Issues for the 108th Congress have included funding, establishment ofthe new agency, and implementation by and impacts on the states. Issues for the 109thCongress may well depend on the nature and extent of any problems identified in theNovember 2004 Presidential election, but may include funding, reauthorization ofHAVA programs, and the security of voting systems.  For additional information, seethe CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Election Reform.  This report will be updatedperiodically to reflect new developments.Voting Systems and Election AdministrationElections in the United States are administered at the state and local level, and thefederal government had not historically set mandatory standards for voting systems, norhad it provided funding to state and local jurisdictions for the administration of elections.HAVA changed that.  While initial reactions after the 2000 election had tended to focuson technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, a consensus emerged subsequentlythat the issues, and the solutions needed, were more complex and often involved trade-CRS-2offs among diverse goals.  HAVA reflects those developments — it funded replacementof punchcard and lever systems but also broader improvements to election administration.Kinds of Voting Systems.  Currently, five technologies are used — paper ballots,lever machines, punchcards, optical scan, and direct recording electronic (DRE) systems.Most states use more than one kind.  Each has advantages and disadvantages with respectto error rates, cost, speed, recounts, accessibility to disabled persons, and othercharacteristics.  Differences in actual performance in elections are difficult to measureaccurately and depend on many factors, such as the design and condition of the system,the familiarity of voters with it, the complexity and design of the ballot, local standardsand practices, and the level of competence and preparation of officials and pollworkers.There is no consensus on whether any one technology is best. States have differentpractices and requirements, such as whether the full ballot must be displayed on one page,whether votes are tabulated in precincts or centrally, whether straight-ticket voting isallowed, and how accessibility requirements are to be met.  Local jurisdictions also differin how they configure and use the systems to meet local needs.  Many believe that adiversity of systems is preferable because it promotes innovation and inhibits systematicfraud.  Others believe that a uniform voting system, at least within each state, can besufficiently secure, and would be more efficient and more likely to ensure that all votershave an equal opportunity to cast their votes.  HAVA does not require any particularvoting system, but it sets requirements that will influence what systems election officialschoose.  Beginning in 2006, systems used in federal elections must provide for errorcorrection by voters, manual auditing, accessibility, alternative languages, and federalerror-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.Electronic Voting Machine Controversy.  The HAVA requirement foraccessible voting systems (at least one per polling place) and other factors have begunto drive states to adopt DREs. However, controversy exists about how secure thosesystems are from tampering.  Some experts believe that the problem is serious enough torequire changes in the systems before they are more widely adopted, ranging from moresophisticated computer security to the printing of paper ballots that would be verified bythe voter and hand-counted if the election results were contested.  Others believe thatprocedural and other safeguards can make DREs sufficiently safe from tampering, that useof printed paper ballots would create too many problems, and that the controversy risksdrawing attention away from the demonstrated utility of DREs in addressing knownproblems of access to and usability of voting systems.  One state, Nevada, will requireDREs to provide a voter-verified paper trail for the November 2004 election.  See CRSReport RL32139 and CRS Report RL32526 for discussion of these issues and proposedlegislation. Federal Funding.  A central issue has been what role the federal governmentshould play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems,particularly with respect to funding and standards.  HAVA authorizes $3.86 billion infunding for programs to replace equipment, improve election administration, improveaccessibility, recruit pollworkers, and perform research and pilot studies.  (See “FundingUnder the Help America Vote Act,” below.)CRS-3New Agency.  Federal activities relating to election administration were previouslyperformed by the Office of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal ElectionCommission (FEC).  Other than the voluntary voting system standards, those activitieswere limited to clearinghouse functions and some administrative responsibilities underthe National Voter Registration Act (P.L. 103-31).  HAVA replaced the OEA with  theElection Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent, bipartisan federal agency, andauthorized funding for it through FY2005.  Members are appointed to four-year terms andmay be reappointed once.  The act also established two boards, with broad-based state andlocal membership, and a technical committee, to address aspects of voting systemstandards and certification.  The main duties of the EAC include carrying out grantprograms, providing for testing and certification of voting systems, studying electionissues, and issuing voluntary guidelines for voting systems and the requirements in theact.  The commission does not have any new rule-making authority and does not enforceHAVA requirements.  The law provides for technical support and participation by theNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in relevant commission activities.HAVA called for the appointment of four commissioners within 120 days ofenactment in October 2002.  The White House forwarded nominees to the Senate October3, 2003, and the Senate confirmed them on December 9. The commissioners met in aprivate session on January 5, 2004, and held their first public meeting on March 23.Subsequently, the EAC has held several additional public meetings and hearings on issuessuch as the security of electronic voting systems and best practices in electionadministration.  It released a recommended set of best practices for local electionadministrators in August.  The EAC boards and technical committee have also met, andthe agency has begun distributing requirements payments (see section on funding below).Standards and Requirements.  In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntarystandards for computer-based voting systems, although not for voter registration systems.Most states have now adopted those standards, which have recently been updated.  HAVAcodifies the development and regular updating of those standards, which it calls voluntaryguidelines.  It also establishes federal requirements for voting systems, registration,provisional ballots, and other aspects of election administration.  It leaves the methods ofimplementation to the states but requires the EAC to issue voluntary guidance.  The actestablishes two enforcement processes.  The U.S. Attorney General may bring civil actionwith respect to the above requirements, and states, as a condition for receipt of funds, areto establish administrative grievance procedures to handle complaints from individuals.Congressional Authority.  Some observers expressed concern before HAVAover Congress’s authority to require states to meet election administration standards.However, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate congressionalelections (see CRS Report RL30747).  Prior examples of Congress’s use of that authorityinclude, among other laws, the Voting Rights Act (see 42 USC  1973; and CRS Report95-896), which prohibits discriminatory voting practices and, and the Voting Accessibilityfor the Elderly and Handicapped Act, which sets some requirements for elections withrespect to accessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a, 6, and ee).  Congress can also attachconditions to the receipt of any funding, such as for voting systems or electionadministration.  Such conditions are included in HAVA, for example, with respect to thegrievance procedures described above.CRS-4Election Security.  Concerns about terrorist attacks have led to questions aboutthe security of federal elections.  Current federal law prohibits troops or other armedpersonnel under federal control from being present at polling places except “to repelarmed enemies of the United States” (18 USC 592), and state laws vary concerning therole of police in securing polling places.  Currently, the President does not appear to havethe authority to postpone elections, for example in response to a terrorist attack, althoughstates may do so and occasionally have in response to emergencies.  Congress couldpotentially grant such authority to the President (see CRS Report RL32471).Alternative Methods for VotingState laws and practices vary with respect to the many complex details of the votingprocess.  Innovations in some states include large-scale absentee voting, early voting, andInternet voting.  Absentee Voting.  Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot only forspecific reasons that would prevent the voter from casting a ballot in person.  Butaccording to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 26 states allow anyvoter to request such a ballot, sometimes called “no fault” absentee voting.  Oregonconducts its elections entirely by mail — all registered voters receive their ballots throughthe Postal Service. While the percentage of votes cast by absentee or mail ballot has beenincreasing in recent elections, some observers have expressed concerns that the methodis more vulnerable to certain kinds of fraud and coercion of voters than is balloting at thepolling place.Early Voting.  In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election daythrough an early voting program.  There are many approaches, and the number of statesusing early voting is growing.  According to the NCSL, 31 states have some form of it.Some observers have criticized early voting as distorting to the electoral process andbeing open to certain kinds of fraud and abuse.  Proponents argue that early voting canincrease turnout and lessen the risk of certain kinds of distortions.Internet Voting.  Internet voting was used on a very limited basis during the 2000election cycle.  The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March 2000 primary usingboth the Internet and traditional polling places, and in the November 2000 election, theDefense Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested andsubmitted ballots via the Internet; the experiment was slated to be repeated on a largerscale in 2004 but was cancelled, largely because of security concerns.  Although interesthas grown, Internet voting from remote locations raises concerns about voteridentification, ballot secrecy, risk of cyberattack, and access for all potential voters.  It isunlikely to be widely adopted until such problems are resolved (see CRS ReportRS20639).  HAVA requires a study on this issue.Funding Under the Help America Vote ActHAVA established several grant programs (see table below for authorized amounts):! Election Administration Improvements. Provided expedited, one-time formulapayments for general election administration improvements to states that applied,with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for this and theCRS-5replacement program below. 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 inqualifying states, with a $5 million minimum combined payment per state for thisand the improvements program above. Administered by GSA. (Sec. 102.)! Payments to Meet Election Requirements. Provides annual formula payments tostates to meet the act’s requirements. Requires a 5% match and submission of astate plan. Administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) createdin the act (see below). (Sec. 251-258.)! Payments to Assure Accessibility. Provides payments to states to make pollingplaces accessible to persons with disabilities. Requires application. Administeredby Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (Sec. 265-265.)! Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems. Provides payments to stateprotection and advocacy systems to ensure electoral participation by persons withdisabilities. Requires application. Administered by HHS. (Sec. 291-292.) ! Grants for Research and Pilot Programs. Provides grants for research to improvevoting technology (Sec. 271-273) and for pilot programs to test new votingtechnology (Sec. 281-283). Requires application. Administered by EAC.! Student Programs. Establishes three programs, one to recruit college students aspollworkers (Sec. 501-503), one to recruit high school students (Sec. 601), andone to provide grants for the National Student and Parent Mock Election (Sec.295-296).Help America Vote Act (HAVA) FundingProgram Authorization ($millions) per Fiscal Year Actuala FY03-052003 2004 2005 2006 Total TotalElection AdministrationImprovement325.0 325.0 325.0Punchcard/LeverMachine Replacement 325.0 325.0 325.0Election Requirements 1,400.0 1,000.0 600.0 3,000.0 2,368.0Accessibility 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 33.0Protection and Advocacy 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 40.0+ 12.0Research 20.0 20.0Pilot Programs 0.0 10.0College Program 5.0 b b b 5.0+ 2.25High School Program 5.0 b b b 5.0+ 2.25Mock Election 0.2 b b b 0.2+ 0.2EAC 10.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 14.0Total 2,160.2 1,045.0 645.0 10.0 3,860.2+ 3,082.0a: funds appropriated for FY2003 and FY2004, plus the Administration request for FY2005.b: sums necessary.+: amount shown plus sums necessary for subsequent years.CRS-6Appropriations. 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 forelection reform programs authorized by HAVA, including:! $650 million combined for the election administration improvement and votingsystem replacement payments to be administered by GSA (with no specificallocation designated for either program and a maximum of $500,000 foradministrative costs), ! $830 million for requirements grants (with a maximum of 0.1% to be paid to anyterritory), and! $20 million for other programs — $13 million for accessibility grants, $2 millionfor protection and advocacy programs,$1.5 million each for the college and highschool programs, and $2 million for the EAC.P.L. 108-7 also included $15 million for one-time payments to certain states thathad obtained optical scan or electronic voting systems prior to the November 2000election.  The President’s budget request for FY2004 included $500 million, one-half theamount authorized, to fund EAC requirements grants and administration. No funds werespecifically requested for the other programs described above.  The final omnibusappropriations 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 forrequirements payments, $500 million for election reform programs, $10 million foraccessibility grants, $5 million for protection and advocacy systems, and $1.2 million forthe EAC. The President’s budget request for FY2005 includes $65 million for electionreform, of which $40 million is additional funding for requirements grants and $10million is for EAC administrative expenses. The request also includes $5 million forprotection and advocacy systems and $10 million for accessibility grants.  The HouseTransportation and Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee mark-up includes anadditional $5 million for the EAC. Title I Funding Administered by GSA. The General Services Administration(GSA) disbursed all Section 101 (election administration improvements) and Section 102(replacement of punch card and lever machine systems) funds to states in June 2003. Allstates and territories received payments for election administration improvements, basedon a formula using each state’s voting age population. Payments for the replacement ofpunch card and lever voting systems were made to all states that applied for the program.Total disbursements for both programs were $649.5 million.State Implementation of the Help America Vote ActWith the publication of state plans in the Federal Register on March 24, states andterritories were eligible to receive $2.3 billion in federal requirements payments,following a 45-day public comment period and filing of a certification with the EAC.  The$2.3 billion includes funds appropriated in FY2003 and FY2004 which could not beallocated until establishment of the EAC and publication of the state plans. The GSA isdisbursing the funds, as it did with Title I payments.  As of August 2004, the GSA hasdistributed $1.2 billion in EAC-approved requirements payments. 

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20898Updated February 4, 2005Elections Reform: Overview and IssuesKevin J. Coleman and Eric A. FischerAnalyst in American National Government and Senior Specialist in Science and TechnologyGovernment and Finance Division and Resources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummarySince the November 2000 Presidential election, previously obscure details ofvoting and vote counting have become the focus of ongoing public attention andlegislative action at the state and federal levels.  Some states made plans or began toreplace voting equipment and adopt other improvements before the 2002 election cycle.Both sessions of the 107th Congress considered and debated federal election reformlegislation, and the Help America Vote Act  (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted inOctober 2002.  The act created a new federal agency with election administrationresponsibilities, set requirements for voting and voter-registration systems and certainother aspects of election administration, and provided federal funding; but it did notsupplant state and local control over election administration.  Issues for the 108thCongress included funding, establishment of the new agency, and implementation byand impacts on the states. Issues for the 109th Congress may well depend on the natureand extent of any problems identified in the November 2004 Presidential election, butmay include funding, reauthorization of HAVA programs, and the security of votingsystems.  This report will be updated periodically to reflect new developments.Voting Systems and Election AdministrationElections in the United States are administered at the state and local level, and thefederal government had not historically set mandatory standards for voting systems, norhad it provided funding to state and local jurisdictions for the administration of elections.HAVA changed that.  While initial reactions after the 2000 election had tended to focuson technological fixes such as eliminating punchcards, a consensus emerged subsequentlythat the issues, and the solutions needed, were more complex and often involved trade-offs among diverse goals.  HAVA reflects those developments — it funded replacementof punchcard and lever systems but also broader improvements to election administration.CRS-2Kinds of Voting Systems.  Currently, five technologies are used — paper ballots,lever machines, punchcards, optical scan, and direct recording electronic (DRE) systems.Most states use more than one kind.  Each has advantages and disadvantages with respectto error rates, cost, speed, recounts, accessibility to disabled persons, and othercharacteristics.  Differences in actual performance in elections are difficult to measureaccurately and depend on many factors, such as the design and condition of the system,the familiarity of voters with it, the complexity and design of the ballot, local standardsand practices, and the level of competence and preparation of officials and pollworkers.There is no consensus on whether any one technology is best. States have differentpractices and requirements, such as whether the full ballot must be displayed on one page,whether votes are tabulated in precincts or centrally, whether straight-ticket voting isallowed, and how accessibility requirements are to be met.  Local jurisdictions also differin how they configure and use the systems to meet local needs.  Many believe that adiversity of systems is preferable because it promotes innovation and inhibits systematicfraud.  Others believe that a uniform voting system, at least within each state, can besufficiently secure, and would be more efficient and more likely to ensure that all votershave an equal opportunity to cast their votes.  HAVA does not require any particularvoting system, but it sets requirements that will influence what systems election officialschoose.  Beginning in 2006, systems used in federal elections must provide for errorcorrection by voters, manual auditing, accessibility, alternative languages, and federalerror-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.Electronic Voting Machine Controversy.  The HAVA requirement foraccessible voting systems (at least one per polling place) and other factors have begunto drive states to adopt DREs. However, controversy exists about how secure thosesystems are from tampering.  Some experts believe that the problem is serious enough torequire changes in the systems before they are more widely adopted, ranging from moresophisticated computer security to the printing of paper ballots that would be verified bythe voter and hand-counted if the election results were contested.  Others believe thatprocedural and other safeguards can make DREs sufficiently safe from tampering, that useof printed paper ballots would create too many problems, and that the controversy risksdrawing attention away from the demonstrated utility of DREs in addressing knownproblems of access to and usability of voting systems.  One state, Nevada, will requireDREs to provide a voter-verified paper trail for the November 2004 election.  See CRSReport RL32139 and CRS Report RL32526 for discussion of these issues and proposedlegislation. Federal Funding.  A central issue has been what role the federal governmentshould play in addressing the concerns that have been raised about voting systems,particularly with respect to funding and standards.  HAVA authorizes $3.86 billion infunding for programs to replace equipment, improve election administration, improveaccessibility, recruit pollworkers, and perform research and pilot studies.  (See “FundingUnder the Help America Vote Act,” below.)New Agency.  Federal activities relating to election administration were previouslyperformed by the Office of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal ElectionCommission (FEC).  Other than the voluntary voting system standards, those activitieswere limited to clearinghouse functions and some administrative responsibilities under theCRS-3National Voter Registration Act (P.L. 103-31).  HAVA replaced the OEA with  theElection Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent, bipartisan federal agency, andauthorized funding for it through FY2005.  Members are appointed to four-year terms andmay be reappointed once.  The act also established two boards, with broad-based state andlocal membership, and a technical committee, to address aspects of voting systemstandards and certification.  The main duties of the EAC include carrying out grantprograms, providing for testing and certification of voting systems, studying electionissues, and issuing voluntary guidelines for voting systems and the requirements in the act.The commission does not have any new rule-making authority and does not enforceHAVA requirements.  The law provides for technical support and participation by theNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in relevant commission activities.HAVA called for the appointment of four commissioners within 120 days of enactmentin October 2002.  The White House forwarded nominees to the Senate October 3, 2003,and the Senate confirmed them on December 9. The commissioners met in a privatesession on January 5, 2004, and held their first public meeting on March 23.Subsequently, the EAC has held several additional public meetings and hearings on issuessuch as the security of electronic voting systems and best practices in electionadministration.  It released a recommended set of best practices for local electionadministrators in August.  The EAC boards and technical committee have also met, andthe agency has begun distributing requirements payments (see section on funding below).Standards and Requirements.  In the 1980s, the FEC developed voluntarystandards for computer-based voting systems, although not for voter registration systems.Most states have now adopted those standards, which have recently been updated.  HAVAcodifies the development and regular updating of those standards, which it calls voluntaryguidelines.  It also establishes federal requirements for voting systems, registration,provisional ballots, and other aspects of election administration.  It leaves the methods ofimplementation to the states but requires the EAC to issue voluntary guidance.  The actestablishes two enforcement processes.  The U.S. Attorney General may bring civil actionwith respect to the above requirements, and states, as a condition for receipt of funds, areto establish administrative grievance procedures to handle complaints from individuals.Congressional Authority.  Some observers expressed concern before HAVA overCongress’s authority to require states to meet election administration standards.  However,the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate congressional elections (seeCRS Report RL30747).  Prior examples of Congress’s use of that authority include, amongother laws, the Voting Rights Act (see 42 USC  1973; and CRS Report 95-896), whichprohibits discriminatory voting practices and, and the Voting Accessibility for the Elderlyand Handicapped Act, which sets some requirements for elections with respect toaccessibility (see 42 USC 1973aa-1a, 6, and ee).  Congress can also attach conditions tothe receipt of any funding, such as for voting systems or election administration.  Suchconditions are included in HAVA, for example, with respect to the grievance proceduresdescribed above.Election Security.  Concerns about terrorist attacks have led to questions aboutthe security of federal elections.  Current federal law prohibits troops or other armedpersonnel under federal control from being present at polling places except “to repel armedenemies of the United States” (18 USC 592), and state laws vary concerning the role ofpolice in securing polling places.  Currently, the President does not appear to have theauthority to postpone elections, for example in response to a terrorist attack, althoughCRS-4states may do so and occasionally have in response to emergencies.  Congress couldpotentially grant such authority to the President (see CRS Report RL32471).Alternative Methods for VotingState laws and practices vary with respect to the many complex details of the votingprocess.  Innovations in some states include large-scale absentee voting, early voting, andInternet voting.  Voters in many states can request an absentee ballot only for specificreasons that would prevent the voter from casting a ballot in person.  But according to theNational Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 26 states allow any voter to requestsuch a ballot, sometimes called “no fault” absentee voting.  Oregon conducts its electionsentirely by mail — all registered voters receive their ballots through the Postal Service.While the percentage of votes cast by absentee or mail ballot has been increasing in recentelections, some observers have expressed concerns that the method is more vulnerable tocertain kinds of fraud and coercion of voters than is balloting at the polling place.In some states, voters may cast a ballot in person before election day through an earlyvoting program.  There are many approaches, and the number of states using early votingis growing.  According to the NCSL, 31 states have some form of it.  Some observers havecriticized early voting as distorting to the electoral process and being open to certain kindsof fraud and abuse.  Proponents argue that early voting can increase turnout and lessen therisk of certain kinds of distortions.  Internet voting was used on a very limited basis duringthe 2000 election cycle.  The Arizona Democratic party conducted a March 2000 primaryusing both the Internet and traditional polling places, and in the November 2000 election,the Defense Department conducted a small pilot program in which voters requested andsubmitted ballots via the Internet; the experiment was slated to be repeated on a largerscale in 2004 but was cancelled, largely because of security concerns.  Although interesthas grown, Internet voting from remote locations raises concerns about voteridentification, ballot secrecy, risk of cyberattack, and access for all potential voters.  It isunlikely to be widely adopted until such problems are resolved (see CRS ReportRS20639).  HAVA requires a study on this issue.Funding Under the Help America Vote ActHAVA established several grant programs (see table below for authorized amounts):! Election Administration Improvements. Provided expedited, one-timeformula payments for general election administration improvements tostates that applied, with a $5 million minimum combined payment perstate for this and the replacement program below. Administered byGeneral Services Administration (GSA). (Sec. 101.)! Replacement of Punchcard and Lever Machine Systems. Providedexpedited, one-time formula payments to replace punchcard systems andlever machines in qualifying states, with a $5 million minimum combinedpayment per state for this and the improvements program above.Administered by GSA. (Sec. 102.)! Payments to Meet Election Requirements. Provides annual formulapayments to states to meet the act’s requirements. Requires a 5% matchand submission of a state plan. Administered by the Election AssistanceCommission (EAC) created in the act (see below). (Sec. 251-258.)CRS-5! Payments to Assure Accessibility. Provides payments to states to makepolling places accessible to persons with disabilities. Requiresapplication. Administered by Department of Health and Human Services(HHS). (Sec. 265-265.)! Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems. Provides payments tostate protection and advocacy systems to ensure electoral participation bypersons with disabilities. Requires application. Administered by HHS.(Sec. 291-292.) ! Grants for Research and Pilot Programs. Provides grants for research toimprove voting technology (Sec. 271-273) and for pilot programs to testnew voting technology (Sec. 281-283). Requires application.Administered by EAC.! Student Programs. Establishes three programs, one to recruit collegestudents as pollworkers (Sec. 501-503), one to recruit high schoolstudents (Sec. 601), and one to provide grants for the National Studentand Parent Mock Election (Sec. 295-296).Help America Vote Act (HAVA) FundingProgram Authorization ($millions) per Fiscal Year Actuala FY03-052003 2004 2005 2006 Total TotalElection AdministrationImprovement 325.0 325.0 325.0Punchcard/LeverMachine Replacement325.0 325.0 325.0Election Requirements 1,400.0 1,000.0 600.0 3,000.0 2,328.3Accessibility 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 23.0Protection and Advocacy 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 40.0+ 7.0Research 20.0 20.0Pilot Programs 0.0 10.0College Program 5.0 b b b 5.0+ 2.45High School Program 5.0 b b b 5.0+ 2.25Mock Election 0.2 b b b 0.2+ 0.4EAC 10.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 18.0Total 2,160.2 1,045.0 645.0 10.0 3,860.2+ 3,031.4a: funds appropriated for FY2003 and FY2004, plus the Administration request for FY2005.b: sums necessary.+: amount shown plus sums necessary for subsequent years.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 forelection reform programs authorized by HAVA, including:! $650 million combined for the election administration improvement andvoting system replacement payments to be administered by GSA (with nospecific allocation designated for either program and a maximum of$500,000 for administrative costs), CRS-6! $830 million for requirements grants (with a maximum of 0.1% to be paidto any territory), and! $20 million for other programs — $13 million for accessibility grants, $2million for protection and advocacy programs,$1.5 million each for thecollege and high school programs, and $2 million for the EAC.P.L. 108-7 also included $15 million for one-time payments to certain states thathad obtained optical scan or electronic voting systems prior to the November 2000election.  The President’s budget request for FY2004 included $500 million, one-half theamount authorized, to fund EAC requirements grants and administration. No funds werespecifically requested for the other programs described above.  The final omnibusappropriations 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 requirementspayments, $500 million for election reform programs, $10 million for accessibility grants,$5 million for protection and advocacy systems, and $1.2 million for the EAC. The President’s budget request for FY2005 included $65 million for electionreform, of which $40 million was additional funding for requirements grants and $10million was for EAC administrative expenses.  The request also included $5 million forprotection and advocacy systems and $10 million for accessibility grants.  The HouseTransportation and Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee mark-up included anadditional $5 million for the EAC.  The omnibus appropriations bill for FY2005, H.R.4818 was signed into law on December 8, 2004 and included $14 million for the ElectionAssistance Commission, of which $2.8 million was to be transferred to the NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology, 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 HelpAmerica Vote College Program.Title I Funding Administered by GSA. The General Services Administration(GSA) disbursed all Section 101 (election administration improvements) and Section 102(replacement of punch card and lever machine systems) funds to states in June 2003. Allstates and territories received payments for election administration improvements, basedon a formula using each state’s voting age population. Payments for the replacement ofpunch card and lever voting systems were made to all states that applied for the program.Total disbursements for both programs were $649.5 million.State Implementation of the Help America Vote ActWith the publication of state plans in the Federal Register on March 24, states andterritories were eligible to receive $2.3 billion in federal requirements payments, followinga 45-day public comment period and filing of a certification with the EAC.  The $2.3billion includes funds appropriated in FY2003 and FY2004 which could not be allocateduntil establishment of the EAC and publication of the state plans. The GSA is disbursingthe funds, as it did with Title I payments.  As of August 2004, the GSA has distributed$1.2 billion in EAC-approved requirements payments. 

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6949/m1/1/high_res_d/RS20898_2005Jun29.pdf

Elections Reform: Overview and Issues

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library