**VOTER INFORMATION WEBSITES STUDY**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[]{.mark}

INTRODUCTION x

SECTION 1: UNDERSTANDING THE AUDIENCE x

SECTION 2: COMMON VOTER CONCERNS x

SECTION 3: PRELIMINARY PLANNING x

SECTION 4: FEATURES x

SECTION 5: MARKETING AND PROMOTION x

SECTION 6: SECURITY AND PRIVACY x

SECTION 7: DESIGNING A POSITIVE USER EXPERIENCE x

SECTION 8: ACCESSIBILITY x

APPENDIX A: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY x

APPENDIX B: DEFINITIONS x

APPENDIX C: INDEX OF EAC RECOMMENDATIONS x

APPENDIX D: LIST OF WEBSITES REVIEWED IN THIS STUDY x

APPENDIX E: EXEMPLARY WEBSITES x

**INTRODUCTION**

[]{.mark}

Section 245(a) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates that the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) conduct a thorough study of
issues and challenges presented by incorporating communications and
Internet technologies. Section 245(a)(2)(C) indicates that the EAC may
investigate the impact that new communications or Internet technology
systems in the electoral process have on voter participation rates,
voter education, and public accessibility. In addition, Section
241(b)(9) allows the EAC to periodically study election administration
issues, including methods of educating voters on all aspects of voter
participation.

[]{.mark}

Since the 1990s, pioneers in the election community have utilized the
Internet to post voter and election information. Many of the approaches
have produced impressive results and important insights, including
making elections more efficient; but posting voter information on the
Internet may have unintended consequences as well.

Early election websites focused on providing static information about
the election process, voter registration, or election night results.
Voters were often presented with a large amount of information and were
expected to filter out inapplicable information themselves -- a
sometimes overwhelming task. As a result, these websites evolved from
providing static election information to presenting dynamic and
customized information for and about an individual voter.

This study is based on a review of active voter information websites in
the fall of 2005 through 2006, from which 71 sites were identified as
voter information websites and selected for in-depth analysis. Common
functions of these websites were cataloged and quantified and presented
to a panel of experts for discussion and review. The EAC's goal in
undertaking this study is to provide guidelines that will assist
election administrators in developing Voter Information websites that
best serve voters.

Deciding *what* information to provide and *how* to provide it is the
most important step in developing a voter information website because
the information and method of delivery define the implementation
process. The recommendations that follow outline key considerations that
can be referenced when election officials consider constructing a voter
information website. The suggestions can be used as a how-to guide to
assist in developing new projects, or as a reference point for
established projects.

[SUMMARY OF FINDINGS]{.underline}

In interviews with election officials and the information technology
(IT) professionals working for election jurisdictions, some distinct
patterns emerged in the development of voter information websites.
Projects that were developed with dedicated time and thoughtful
consideration stood out. Likewise, projects that came together as
add-ons to existing sites rarely received high marks. Many of the
projects at the focus of this study were created as a result of use of
the Internet and associated technologies in daily operations. The
development of computerized voter registration lists and the software to
maintain them, removed the barrier to creating a database that a Voter
Information website can query.

[]{.mark}

This change lent itself to the development of voter information websites
that were primarily voter registration look-ups. These provided election
officials with state-wide access the basic utilities for per-voter
reporting required so that election officials could answer the basic
question, \"Am I registered to vote?\" from the authoritative database.
A natural progression was to provide voters with the ability to use
their Web browser to answer the question themselves.

[]{.mark}

Several officials commented that voter information websites have reduced
calls to the election department on Election Day. Increase in traffic
and frequency of lookups against the voter registration database were
also cited as evidence of the popularity of the website. Many websites
that provided voter registration took the next step to provide voters
with ballot information specific to their jurisdiction. Those that did
provide voters with information on candidates and contests increased
usage of their website.

[]{.mark}

As voter information websites progress from voter registration lookup to
interactive sample ballots, the complexity of the website and its
relevance to the voting public increases. Growing public acceptance of
these websites as a main source of voter information increases demand
and raises expectations.

[]{.mark}

Additional features make a website more complex, and with complexity
challenges that arise. As websites become more popular, there are
greater possible usability or privacy issues that arise. A popular
website can also strain under heavy usage during high-profile races,
performance issues can occur when election officials can least afford
them, and planning is required to anticipate spikes. Once voters have
grown accustomed to the voter information website, and have integrated
it into the routine they follow at each election, election bureaus may
have to field calls about uptime and availability.

[]{.mark}

Well designed and implemented websites can bring in many more users.
More users mean more voters will find answers online. If a regular visit
to the election jurisdiction's website is part of a voter\'s routine,
voters are more likely to assist in the maintenance of voter rolls by
checking their registration. A popular and informative voter information
website can be an invaluable tool for a jurisdiction to inform voters of
changes to election procedures, voting equipment, polling locations, and
to encourage informed participation.

**SECTION 1: UNDERSTANDING THE AUDIENCE**

[OVERVIEW]{.underline}

Understanding voters' interests is critical to effectively communicating
with the voting public. A voter information website's utility may be
tied to successfully pairing the information election administrators
wish to distribute with information voters seek.

To better provide the most useful information, election administrators
must understand the different concerns and common interests of the
audiences that use voter information websites. Though some questions and
concerns apply to all voters, there are concerns specific to
subcategories of users. Key audiences break into seven common
constituencies: Six categories of voters and two organizational
categories.

[]{.mark}

The seven identified voter information website audiences to consider
are:

VOTERS:

-   First-time voters

-   Infrequent voters

-   Consistent voters

-   Voters with special circumstances

-   UOCAVA voters

-   Absentee voters

ORGANIZATONS:

-   Advocacy organizations and Campaigns

-   The Media

*[First-Time Voters]{.underline}*

First-time voters require the whole gamut of election information,
including any peculiarities of the election or registration process
(e.g. first time voters must vote in person, etc.).

[]{.mark}

*[Infrequent Voters]{.underline}*

Infrequent voters are generally unfamiliar with the election process,
and may be concerned that their inactivity will result in
de-registration. This group of voters may need to be refreshed on where
to vote and whether or not they are still registered.

[]{.mark}

*[Voters with Special Circumstances]{.underline}*

This group typically uses voter information websites to obtain contact
information for local election officials. Accordingly, it is always
important for these voters to have easy access to information like phone
numbers, mailing addresses, and email addresses.

[]{.mark}

*[Consistent Voters]{.underline}*

Because of their high interest in the voting process, consistent voters
often rely on sources other than official voter information websites to
obtain information on upcoming elections. When consistent voters do use
an information website, they are usually looking for additional
information about an election, such as proposals and sample ballots.

*[UOCAVA Voters]{.underline}*

UOCAVA voters' main concern is typically registration since these voters
need to vote from their last official residence. In addition, UOCAVA
voters need the ability to check sample ballot information and look for
additional candidate information that may not be available from an
overseas location. UOCAVA voters also have increased interest in the
turnaround time for processing absentee ballot applications.
Consequently, this group of voters may find utilities that track
absentee ballot processing very useful.

[]{.mark}

*[Absentee Voters]{.underline}*

Absentee voters want to participate in the election but cannot do so in
person on Election Day. These voters need to know how to obtain and fill
in an absentee ballot.  Usually this can be done with static information
(footnote def). In-country absentee ballot voters are often consistent
voters, but because the absentee balloting process often takes place
weeks before major media coverage, many absentee ballot voters may vote
with less detailed information on the election. Absentee voters who hold
their ballots until closer to the election greatly benefit from voter
information websites that help them access local election information
from distant locations.

Voter information websites can also assist absentee voters through the
ability to remotely track the absentee ballot process, from application,
to delivery, and final processing in order to quickly resolve postal or
processing problems.

*[Organizations]{.underline}*

*Advocacy Organizations and Campaigns:*

Advocacy organizations and campaigns typically seek information such as
bulk registration lists. Real-time access to such lists allows advocacy
groups to verify new registrations as they progress. Advocacy groups may
also use voter information websites to verify individual voter
registrations---this study uncovered two websites that were specifically
created to screen for irregularities in voter registrations. [^1]/[^2]

[]{.mark}

*Media:*

Media outlets are generally eager to add voter information features to
election coverage, but they are hesitant to allow users to leave their
own websites. The benefit of partnering with media outlets is that it
allows election administrators to reach a larger audience, but media
outlets may prefer to display data differently than election
administrators.

**SECTION 2: COMMON VOTER CONCERNS**

[OVERVIEW]{.underline}

After reviewing the websites listed in APPENDIX D, several voter
questions consistently emerged as important common voter concerns[^3]:

-   Am I registered to vote?

-   Where do I vote?

-   Who/What is on the ballot?

-   How do I use voting equipment?

-   Did my vote count?

[]{.mark}

*[Am I registered to vote? Voter registration lookup:]{.underline}*

The information returned by a voter registration lookup includes items
located on a voter registration card, such as name, voting district, and
party affiliation. Some lookup tools also include a history of
attendance at the polls (but not a record of how they voted). Typically,
a voter is required to process a voter registration lookup before a
voter information website can display polling place location or sample
ballots.

[]{.mark}

*[Where do I vote? Polling place lookup:]{.underline}*

Some polling place lookup utilities link the address of a polling place
to a public mapping service such as Google Maps©, Yahoo! Maps© or
MapQuest©. Several election departments also reference maps generated by
internal Geographic Information Systems (GIS) departments.

[]{.mark}

*[Who/What is on the ballot? Sample ballots:]{.underline}*

A sample ballot presents voters with information that includes only
those contests in which the voter will vote. Sample ballots can either
be displayed as web pages or as documents (e.g. downloadable Microsoft
Word or Adobe PDF format). These documents and/or Web pages represent
the actual ballot style that the voter will see at the polling location.

*[Candidate Information:]{.underline}*

There are three main ways to supply candidate information: (1) official
candidate statements collected by election administrators, (2) links to
official candidate websites, and (3) links to third-party information
sites, such as the League of Women Voters.

[]{.mark}

[Candidate Statements:]{.underline}

Collecting candidates\' statements allows voters equal access to
candidate messages and provides a benefit to candidates. As voter
information websites become more widespread, it is likely that
candidates will welcome the opportunity to provide statements on such
sites.

[Links to Candidates\' Official Websites:]{.underline}

One concern about linking to a candidate's website is that it may appear
as though election administrators are endorsing one candidate or
another. However, this can be alleviated by alerting users when a link
takes them to an independent website.

[Links to Third-Party Information:]{.underline}

Similar to linking to candidates' official websites, election
administrators should clearly alert users when they are being directed
to websites hosted by third parties to avoid confusion concerning
endorsements.

[Other Ballot-Related Information]{.underline}:

Many elections include initiatives, amendments, or referenda which are
required to be worded as they would appear if adopted. Consequently,
they often include official legal wording that may pose a challenge to
voters with low literacy levels. To help clarify what a legal clause
means or what effect it would have, voter information websites may want
to provide links to explanations of the official language.

[How do I use voting equipment?]{.underline}

Poll worker outreach and training campaigns are typically more effective
tools for teaching voters how to use voting equipment than voter
information websites. Voters commonly expect that voting equipment is
either self-explanatory or someone at the polling place will assist
users.

[]{.mark}

[Provisional Ballots: Did my vote count?]{.underline}

HAVA requires states to provide voters with provisional ballots in
certain circumstances. When elections are contested, one of the first
areas contenders target are provisional votes. Consequently, it is
advisable to create a utility where voters can verify that provisional
ballots have been counted.

**SECTION 3: PRELIMINARY PLANNING**

[OVERVIEW]{.underline}

Much of the information voters seek online is static and does not need
to reference a database. For example, voter registration forms, absentee
voting procedures, election dates, and results are critical components
of election information websites, but they do not change over time and
are not specific to the voter. Adding information specific to voters
requires consideration of several factors that are not presented by
static sites.

The first step in creating a voter information website is to decide what
information will be posted on the site and how it will be displayed. The
project outline for developing and implementing a voter information
website will vary depending on these factors and the amount of
information each site seeks to convey.[^4]

[]{.mark}

**RECOMMENDATION 3.1:** **Answer the question "Am I registered to
vote?"**

This is one of the key questions voters ask on Election Day. Websites
that do not attempt or are currently unable to answer this question will
have limited efficacy. In addition, failing to answer this question may
lead to third party organizations creating their own utilities to answer
the question, reducing election administrators' ability to control
accuracy.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.2: Review legal considerations.**

Consider relevant laws and administrative rules that pertain to public
access to voter information. If the law does not currently anticipate
public access to voter information online, consult with legal counsel
and legislators during the planning stage to ensure continued compliance
with laws and rules.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.3: Update voter records as often as possible.**

Due to security concerns outlined in detail in SECTION 6: SECURITY AND
PRIVACY, the registry of record should not be exposed to the Internet.
However, as a general rule to ensure accuracy, online records should be
updated as often as they are changed on the registry of record. The
frequency of updates will be dictated by volume, capacity, and proximity
to Election Day. For example, in a jurisdiction with Election Day
registration, having pre-existing registrations online on Election Day
can greatly increase efficiency and decrease duplicate records

**RECOMMENDATION 3.4: Adopt a neutral voice.**

The most useful voter information website is the one that is updated and
maintained regularly during the campaign season by election
administrators themselves. Voter information websites should be
presented with a neutral voice, and should be absolutely free of
candidate promotion.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.5: Use effective design principles.**

Some of the websites reviewed in this study provided useful information,
but the designs made accessing information complicated.[^5] A good
website will present useful information in a simple and consistent
format. This area of planning may be enhanced through the use of an
expert consultant who can advise on industry standards. Further
discussion on this subject can be found in SECTION 5: ACCESSIBILITY.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.6: Contract out work as needed.**

Depending on a jurisdiction's resources, IT staff may not have the
breadth of knowledge or time to develop a web application internally.
Reports from the websites studied indicated that in-house development
hours were not regularly documented, and some cost estimates were under
reported.[^6] Deciding whether to contract out work also requires
consideration of the availability of internal staff during peak website
usage times.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.7: Review contractors' prior work.**

Although voter information websites are a relatively new specialty, it
may be useful to consult experts when planning one. Some things to
consider when selecting an expert are quality of service, average time
websites are inoperable, availability of technicians, cost, and quality
of work-product. For many of the websites reviewed in this study,
election administrators and internal IT staff worked in concert, so that
administrative, technological, and legal concerns could be integrated in
the planning.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.8: Consider commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and open
source solutions.**

None of the websites in this study used COTS or open source, but many
used components of each. Reviewing available options will help ensure
that whatever design method adopted conforms to state policy goals.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.9: Establish clear goals before development.**

Determine the features of your voter information website during the
planning process. Define your desired feature set before you begin
development. Have a clear understanding of how you're going to collect
the information necessary to build your voter information website before
dedicating resources or hiring contractors.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.10: Inventory data sources.**

Investigate current data sources and document their location, current
file format, frequency of updates, and duplication. This will allow
election administrators to coordinate information gathering and
aggregating data from disparate sources.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.11: Plan for high capacity peaks.\
**Promoting a voter information website will increase the site's
popularity, especially as Election Day approaches (See SECTION 5:
MARKETING AND PROMOTION). Determine in advance if the bandwidth
currently available will accommodate increased activities immediately
before, during, and after Election Day. In addition, assess IT resources
to enable emergent problems with the website to be efficiently resolved.

[]{.mark}

**RECOMMENDATION 3.12: Consider intellectual property and copyright
issues.**

Research websites that provide the capabilities each jurisdiction wishes
to implement and determine if any of the products currently online are
patented, copyrighted, or licensed. Consult with legal advisors to
ensure compliance with applicable intellectual property and licensing
laws.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.13: Document project development and system
functionality.**

At each stage of user interface design, project planners should develop
and document context-sensitive helpful hints for users. Documenting this
information will allow users to self-diagnose problems with the
interface and can also serve as technical guidelines for election call
center staff, who may be required to assist callers with the website.
Documentation also serves to inform potential future staff and
contractors who may be hired after the voter information website is
developed.

**RECOMMENDATION 3.14: Budget for development, hosting, capacity, and
promotion.**

It is important when planning a voter information website to account for
all resources involved, including production, design, bandwidth,
maintenance, programming, data collection, and staff hours. Costs
associated with sites that initially start as add-ons to preexisting
voter registration databases must take into account changes and
maintenance to systems over time. Sites that are built in-house should
use time tracking tools to accurately assess staff hours involved.
Further, although outside contractors generally track their own hours,
election jurisdictions should also incorporate internal staff hours used
to supplement contractor work.

In addition to planning and design costs, promotion can be a significant
cost. Creating a voter information website and failing to promote it may
leave it unused by the public. Investment in a voter information website
should include a promotion campaign. The more a voter information
website is promoted, the more voters will use it (correspondingly, it
should be noted that the more traffic a website receives, the more it
will cost to host). General guidelines and promotional considerations
are discussed in SECTION 5: MARKETING AND PROMOTION of this report.

[]{.mark}

**RECOMMENDATION 3.15: Track usage patterns.**

Using site-monitoring tools to observe usage patters is an indispensable
tool in keeping a voter information website reflective of voter concerns
and relevant. For example, site-monitoring tools can track how long
users spend on each page, how they navigate the site, and how often
files are downloaded. These patterns can change over time, so continual
monitoring is advisable.

**SECTION 4: FEATURES**

[OVERVIEW]{.underline}

The following list of features has been collected from various voter
information websites across the country.[^7] The features listed below
answer questions outlined in SECTION 2: COMMON VOTER QUESTIONS.[^8]

**RECOMMENDATION 4.1: Provide voters with the answer to the question
"Where do I vote?"**

Websites that do not attempt to answer "Where do I vote?" have limited
efficacy and will result in all voter questions concerning where to vote
being routed to a state or local call center. In addition, not answering
this question on a voter information website may encourage third party
organizations to create their own websites, which can limit accuracy.

When answering this question, include the street address of the polling
place. Some voter files do not provide complete street addresses for
polling locations. Websites built on voter files that reference a
polling location at a church or a school but do not include the address
can make it difficult to plot on a map. If polling places change
frequently between elections and the information is not always
available, inform voters when the information will be available again.

**RECOMMENDATION 4.2: Add map links to polling locations.**

Maps are a useful addition to the polling location identification
information provided to voters. This is especially beneficial to new
residents and when polling places are somewhat obscure. There are many
competing services that provide great mapping services for free.[^9]

**RECOMMENDATION 4.3: Do not provide voters with driving directions.**

Driving directions pose a potential privacy and liability risk and could
be an unnecessary distraction. Voters wishing to access directions to
polling place locations would be better served to use dedicated mapping
websites.

[]{.mark}

**RECOMMENDATION 4.4: When including mapping programs, use the simplest
versions available.**

Many of the websites reviewed in this study included mapping functions
that did not seem directly relevant to polling place location. For
example, the ability to zoom in and out of a map may not be necessary
and could provide a distraction to voters looking for a general
geographic orientation. In addition, more features mean more potential
for confusion and technical difficulties. The scale of polling place
identification maps should be relatively consistent. Despite features
that may be available (zoom-in, city view, 3D, etc.) through state
geographical information systems (GIS), highlighting map capabilities
over functionality is unnecessary. Be sensitive to avoid providing too
much information or too many features.

**RECOMMENDATION 4.5: Provide voters with a sample ballot.**

A Sample ballot is the most significant section of voter information
website when measured by the time a voter spends reviewing information
online. Polling location and registration data can be reviewed quickly;
however, sample ballots, especially if linked to additional reference
information, can take time to review. Jurisdictions contemplating a
voter information website should consider including sample ballot
display functionality in its site.

**RECOMMENDATION 4.6: Display sample ballots exactly as they will appear
on Election Day.**

Including information about races in multiple jurisdictions on a single
sample ballot may confuse voters. The goal should be to provide voters
with an exact replica of what they will see on Election Day. Voters can
react negatively when presented with too much information

**RECOMMENDATION 4.7: Link sample ballots to helpful information.**

The most popular feature of the more mature voter information websites
studied were "interactive sample ballots."[^10] An interactive sample
ballot is a ballot that has been tailored to a specific voter, and
provides links to additional information about candidates and proposals.
In many cases, these links are to pre-existing published non-partisan
voter guides, but they can also be links to campaign websites, campaign
finance information and other non-partisan sources. The few sites across
the country that have built interactivity into sample ballots have
tracked strong user popularity.

**RECOMMENDATION 4.8: Do not link to incumbent government websites on a
voter guide.**

Linking a sample ballot to an incumbent's official government-funded
website may persuade voters that election administrators are biased or
that incumbents are using shared resources to their benefit.

**RECOMMENDATION 4.9: Give voters the ability to track absentee ballots
online.**

A few voter information websites reviewed in this study included the
ability to check the status of an absentee ballot application.[^11] The
ability to follow the absentee ballot process is especially critical to
overseas and military voters.

**RECOMMENDATION 4.10: Allow users to check the status of provisional
ballots online.**

The websites in this study were primarily focused on delivering
voter-specific information prior to an election. The ability to verify
the status of a provisional ballot is one voter-specific post-election
function that few websites performed.[^12] Given the provisions in HAVA
that require notification of the status of a provisional ballot, voter
information websites provide an easy solution to communicating with
voters concerning provisional ballots while lessening the burden on
election administrators.

**RECOMMENDATION 4.11: Provide instructions for how to use voting
equipment.**

Providing information on how to use voting equipment is valuable when
there are changes to voting equipment. In addition, providing
instructions allows new voters and voters new to the jurisdiction with
information that can help alleviate wait times on Election Day. In
addition to static files, (word, PDF), interactive examples and videos
are good resources as well.

**RECOMMENDATION 4.12: Post Election Day times and polling location
hours prominently.**

While a single election calendar can cover an entire voting population,
do not miss any opportunity to remind voters of these important dates
and times.

**RECOMMENDATION 4.13: Provide other readily-available information
neatly and in a logical manner.**

This list of features is not exhaustive, and there have been many
instances of other information presented through a voter registry
lookup, such as candidate specific campaign finance information, and
disability access. Present other information where it makes sense.

**SECTION 5: MARKETING AND PROMOTION**

[OVERVIEW]{.underline}

There is a direct relationship between how much promotion a voter
information website receives and the capacity such a site has to
accommodate immediately prior to Election Day. In nearly every website
studied that tracked usage patterns, basic voter usage remained
consistent, but a marked increase was noted on or around Election Day.
Accordingly, election administrators must address the following issues:

1\) How much will the website be promoted?

2\) How much traffic should each jurisdiction anticipate?

In the course of reviewing websites for this study, two patterns
emerged. First, voter information websites were part of a larger
outreach campaign, such as a public service announcement. The other
approach used the voter information website as the central point of
distribution for election information. The second approach likely
maximizes traffic to voter information websites.

**RECOMMENDATION 5.1: Consider different user audiences in promoting a
voter information website.**

Understanding the audience of voter information websites is a key to the
success of your voter information website. See SECTION 1: UNDERSTANDING
THE AUDIENCE Understanding the Audience, for a breakdown of voter
interest categories. There is limited demographic information available
concerning usage of voter information websites. However, general trends
showing the demographics of the users of the Internet indicate that
Internet use shoots up in younger Americans.[^13]

**RECOMMENDATION 5.2: Repetition equals reinforcement.**

The single most effective way to promote a voter information website is
to reinforce the connection between voter questions and relevant
information on a jurisdiction's voter information website.

**RECOMMENDATION 5.3: Use traditional media to promote voter information
websites.**

While it is possible to advertise on the Internet, the same principles
that apply to political campaigns can help promote voter information
websites. Traditional media- radio, television and print advertising can
be critical to increase awareness of your services and drive users to
your website.

**RECOMMENDATION 5.4: Include your voter information website address on
all voter outreach and election materials.**

Any form of voter outreach by election officials and staff should
include reference to a voter information website. In addition, it is a
good idea when giving interviews to mention the website's address
whenever possible.

**RECOMMENDATION 5.5: Encourage election staff to direct voters to the
voter information website.**

Encourage election staff (and Secretaries of State or chief election
officials) to mention the voter information website as a resource to
anyone who asks for information. The amount of traffic you get on the
website will vary depending on how much you promote it and how effective
your promotion is

**RECOMMENDATION 5.6: Adjust your capacity to account for your
promotion.**

The amount of traffic on a voter information website will vary depending
on how much promotion it receives and how effective the promotion was.
During peak times, voter information websites can become inundated with
users, while off-peak times may result in few users. Election
jurisdictions should plan to meet the high demand times as necessary,
without taxing resources too heavily during low demand times.

**RECOMMENDATION 5.7: Identify and consider factors that may increase
traffic.**

Examples of some factors that may increase traffic are voting age
population, popularity of the Internet, and the presence of a college or
university within a jurisdiction. As each jurisdiction is different,
election administrators should take into account who might be using the
site and how demographics may influence usage.

**RECOMMENDATION 5.8: Make voter information website addresses simple
and easy to remember.**

Many states still have complicated Web addresses. This can be a problem
when working a quick reference into an interview, or when a voter tries
to recall a voter information website they've heard on the radio.
Whatever website address an election jurisdiction chooses should be easy
to remember.

There is not enough empirical data to conclusively recommend for or
against using a distinct URL. There is an obvious communication
advantage to *"statevotes.com"* over
*"www.state.st.us/departments/elections/vote"* but *statevotes.com* can
also easily be confused with *"statevotes.org"* which could be a website
set up by spammers or spoofers. A ".gov" address may help clarify
ownership, but as a precaution, any site that uses domains other than
.com address should also purchase the corresponding .com and .org
addresses. In order to avoid voters accessing incorrect or deliberately
misleading information created by outside parties.

**RECOMMENDATION 5.9: Build promotion around a single website address.**

Some proposed models of voter information website design include modular
components of statewide systems that are available for use by local
jurisdictions. While this allows local jurisdictions flexibility,
exposures to multiple official website addresses is also confusing.

**RECOMMENDATION 5.10: Allow official voter information websites to be
used as a tool for local voter outreach programs.**

Don't underestimate the value a voter information website can have for
third party organizations preparing voters for elections, and the
benefit such partnerships may present to election jurisdictions. A Web
address that is shared across multiple jurisdictions can be especially
useful to third-party organizations that often operate in multiple
jurisdictions.

**SECTION 6: SECURITY AND PRIVACY**

[OVERVIEW]{.underline}

Voter information websites allow access to potentially sensitive
information and should be carefully constructed to avoid jeopardizing
privacy voters or the integrity and security of the records. Voter
information can be compromised by falling into the wrong hands or by
being modified to the detriment of accuracy. This section is divided
into a discussion of concerns of the privacy of a voter and the security
of the website.

The Privacy of an individual voter's record sparked debate during
workgroup discussions. There are two schools of thought on the
distribution of public information. Because voter registration records
are public, it is legal to distribute this information without
considering individual privacy. Still, few voters consider the first
name, last name, middle name, city of residence, street address and
birthday \"public\" information.

Privacy on the Internet is a high-profile concern in the public
consciousness. The fear of exposure to fraud and identity theft inhibits
many people from supplying what appears to be personal information.

A voter information website assumes a single voter as the target user.
Website language was directed at "you" the voter and the information
supplied, registration status, polling locations, disability access,
sample ballots, etc, are intended to promote an efficient election day
voting experience. When voter information websites begin to combine
purposes it is often at the peril of a voter's personal privacy and
security.

In general, a succinct transaction seems to be the most secure and
efficient method of distributing information about an individual voter.
This approach requires voter information websites to ask only for
information absolutely needed to complete the request and return only
the information a voter absolutely needs. The total information
exchanged on a voter information website, input and output, should be as
brief as possible, to protect the integrity of the election and the
interests of individual voters.

Recommendations in this section are followed by what is threatened in
parenthesis.

**6.1 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Do not expose the official registry file to
the Internet.** *(official voter registry file security)*

Information that is available on the Internet is exposed to threats of
tampering; computers exposed to the Internet are exposed to denial of
service attacks and the threat of intrusion. Create a copy of your
authoritative database to use for your voter information website and
regularly update it from the authoritative database. No one should ever
be able to change a voter's official status by compromising a website.

Security of a voter information website should be maintained and
revisited over time. If a voter information website is tampered with, a
voter may receive inaccurate information. Regular verification of the
accuracy of the data in your exposed database is advised.

**6.2 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Do not expose data to the Internet that is not
used by your voter information website.** *(unused registry data
security)*

This recommendation applies to the security of information that may be
in the exposed registry file, but not used in the online transaction.
Sensitive data such as driver's license numbers shouldn't be exposed on
the Internet if they are not necessary to the function of the website,
and application developers should work to avoid using such information.
When creating the database that will be accessed online, unnecessary
information should be removed completely, not left in place.

**6.3 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Avoid asking for too much information.**
*(online transaction security)*

Online voter searches should be as efficient as possible. Determine and
use the absolute minimum amount of information necessary to accurately
identify a voter record. Unnecessary information uses resources.
Consider the wasted time, computational cycles, database queries and
user attention it takes to input and process six data points for every
voter if three will suffice.

Websites that ask for excessive information can deter usage for other
reasons. If a website asks too many question end users may avoid it
because it seems onerous. Given the increase in identity related crime,
users may also be apprehensive about divulging "personal[^14]"
information over the Internet and asking for too much information may
seem invasive to the user and deter use. Election administrators should
be judicious when asking for information. Even if information is
technically not private, it is not safe to assume that all voters
consider their name, address, and birth date open to anonymous online
consumption as a matter of public record.

Asking for too much information poses another potential risk. While it
seems logical that the more information that can be verified, the
greater the accuracy, the possibility exists that identity thieves could
set out to collect information about a voter by creating a fake voter
information website. [^15]

**6.4 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Review and comply with your jurisdiction's
security policies on encrypting data.** *(online transaction security)*

Review your web policies on passing data through an encrypted
connection. When asked, many of the web administrators cited that the
information "was public anyway." If a voter information website limits
the amount of data requested and granted, the necessity of encryption in
this context is arguable, but does not appear to be harmful.

**6.5 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Make sure you know who is working with your
voter information.** *(web development security and individual voter
privacy)*

Chain of custody is important when dealing with voter registry data.
Determine if you will use contractors and who within your organization
will spearhead the project. Establish clear boundaries between tasks
required of your internal IT department and those of your contractors.
Know the chain of custody of your data. If contractors are going to be
handling sensitive information, make sure they understand the liability
and have a proven track record of security. Review policies on the use
of outsourced and overseas contractors when handling sensitive voter
data.

**6.6 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Use increased security if you set out to vet
the voter registry for accuracy, and avoid doing so at the expense of
voter security.** *(online transaction security and individual voter
privacy)*

This recommendation applies to the security of the online transaction
and voter privacy. One side of the privacy discussion contends that
since voter registration information is public, people are safer if they
know that it is available. In addition, the integrity of the voter
registration file is enhanced when voters can verify and correct
information in the file. This perspective has additional weight when
viewed through the lens of states that rely heavily on mail-in
balloting. Correct addresses in a mail-in ballot system may affect
whether a voter receives a ballot without soliciting one. Advocacy
groups have also expressed interest in the publication of addresses to
aid in voter registration activities. Address verification required to
maintain accurate registration files should be conducted as securely as
possible, separate from the ability to verify registration on a voter
information website. Unless effort has been made to authenticate a user,
it is impossible to keep information about voters in one locality from
being accessible everywhere. If a voter information website is designed
to be a tool for vetting voter addresses to increase accuracy, it can be
at the expense of voter privacy.

Although this school of thought raises important and legitimate
concerns, they are not necessarily the provenance of voter information
websites. Public access to voter records is necessary as a check on the
integrity of the election, but anonymous public access to all data in a
record is not necessary to prepare an individual voter for an election.
Concern for the safety of voters through unregulated anonymous access to
voter records is considerable, as is the potential damage done by
identity theft. [^16]

**6.7 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Display as little information as possible
about the voter - just enough to answer the voter's question.** *(online
transaction security and individual voter privacy)*

A voter registration website should reveal as little as possible about
individual voters. While a voter information website can serve as a tool
to check the accuracy of voter records, the public right to inspect
voter records can be achieved through official documented request, and
therefore does not need to be a primary design consideration.

The goal of limiting disclosure is to provide the voter with accurate
information while limiting access to information useful to potential
wrongdoers. Make sure you review your website to determine if it poses a
threat to voters, or the election process. The key to protecting voters
and the integrity of the election when creating a voter information
website is to carefully review the questions to be asked and the answers
received.

**6.8 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Avoid disclosing a voter's birth date or
current address.** *(individual voter privacy and security)*

A voter information website that displays a voter's birth data or
address can inadvertently facilitate criminal activity because it is
anonymous, and available anywhere, anytime. Although voter addresses and
birthdates are public, entering a government office and documenting a
request for an individual voter's information is more involved and can
be traced. Most voters recognize if a polling location is near a current
or former address, and can confirm \"is this in your neighborhood?\"
Allowing unfettered access to names, addresses and birth dates, is an
invitation to abuse them.

**6.9 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Make sure your website is not a stalking
tool.**

*(individual voter privacy and security)*

A stalker uses any means available to locate a target, and an
anonymously accessible online voter registration file can be a valuable
resource. Many states offer stalking victims the option to redact their
personal information from publicly accessible registration lists[^17],
but to use these programs the voter must opt-in. Since individuals must
be aware of potential threats before they can request participation in a
redaction program relying on this approach alone leaves voter
information exposed for anyone who does not know he or she has been
targeted. It is safer to avoid exposing address information.

**6.10 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Review you website to make sure it is not
useful for identity theft.** *(individual voter privacy and security)*

This recommendation applies to voter privacy and security. Every voter
is a potential target of identity theft at any time. Examine how much
voter information is disclosed and hypothetically consider if an
identity thief used your website, how much information could they obtain
and what could be done with it? Armed with a name, address and a birth
date, a criminal could easily pursue further information for purposes of
obtaining financial records or other information. Name, address and
birth date alone may not be sufficient to cause harm, they are starting
points for "phishing[^18]" and "pretexting[^19]," or other social
engineering schemes.

**6.11 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Make sure your website does not facilitate
election fraud.** *(election security)*

Anonymous access to the names, addresses and birth dates of infrequent
voters could be the basis for sophisticated Election Day fraud.

**6.12 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Use implied information when possible.**
*(individual voter privacy and transaction security)*

A valuable method of supplying information without exposing excess
information is implied information. Election authorities have all the
information in a voter's record so it is possible to design website
queries to leverage the information on file without divulging it. An
example of implied information: if a voter\'s identity is confirmed and
matches a registration record, that voter\'s polling location is
displayed; if the voter\'s identity does not match a registration
record, the voter is informed that he or she is not registered. The
voter is never told explicitly that he or she is registered, but may
deduce from the result of a polling location search whether or not that
is the case. This approach can be described symbolically as:

> if *registered* = *true* then display = *polling location*
>
> if *registered* = *false* then display = *not registered*

The scenario: *if registered = true then display = registered* does not
need to be displayed. (*Registered* is a characteristic of a voter,
whereas *polling location* is an independent data object, generally
considered "public" information.) Registration is implied, and by
eliminating its display, fewer characteristics of the actual voter are
divulged, while the voter still has the necessary information to vote.

In another example, data itself can be confirmed without exposure to the
user. A jurisdiction's registrar\'s office already possesses each
voter\'s name, address and birth date. An address can be verified by the
user supplying a street address number, rather than the site displaying
the entire address for the user to select. If the street numbers
submitted match the registrar\'s record, then the address can be
verified:

if *input* = *12345 Street* and *record* = *12345 Street* then display =
*polling location*

if *input* = *12345 Street* and *record* = *56789 Street* then display =
*contact your registrar*

In this case the address record is validated and no additional
information about the voter is displayed to the user who inputs the
data. There may be special circumstances that apply to specific voters,
such as a requirement to vote in person. Take care when displaying
information about voters. Depending on the sensitivity of the
information, you may want to consider a separate authenticated login.

**6.13 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Avoid displaying information about more than
one voter.** *(individual voter privacy and transaction security)*

The opposite of a limited disclosure approach might be termed a
\"multiple disclosure\" approach. Multiple disclosures go beyond limited
and full disclosures to expose information about more than one voter per
query. An example of this type of voter information website
implementation would be identifying all voters in residence at a
specific address. The site might request the input of an address and
display information on the names of the registered voters at the input
address:

if *input* = *12345 Street* then display = *voter 1 name, voter 2 name,
voter 3 name*

Thus, a user in possession of only an address can find information about
multiple voters. An entire apartment building could be exposed in such a
case.

**6.14 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Avoid using lists** *(individual voter
privacy and transaction security)*

This recommendation applies to voter privacy and transaction security.
There is no need to expose more than one voter's information to anyone
using the site. Refer to the section in this document on Privacy for
more details.

Similarly, using a list to confirm a voter\'s identity should be
discouraged:

if *input* = *John Smith* then display = *did you mean:*

-   *John Smith at 12345 Street in City X*

-   *John Smith at 56789 Street in City X*

-   *John Smith at 45678 Street in City Y*

-   *John Smith at 54321 Street in Town Z*

Here, information for all John Smiths in this particular jurisdiction is
exposed.

**6.15 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Avoid information over-exposure.**
*(individual voter privacy)*

This recommendation applies to voter privacy and transaction security.
Secondary clarification prevents the need to manually filter multiple
results. A secondary question like: *\"What city town or village do you
live in?\"* or *\"What is your middle initial?\"* can clarify a voter\'s
identity without exposing it.

if *input* = *John Smith* then display = *What city, town or village do
you live in?*

> if *input* = *City X* and *record* = *City X* then display = *polling
> location*
>
> if *input* = *Town Z* and *record* = *City X* then display = *contact
> your registrar*

**6.16 EAC RECOMMENDATION: Avoid asking for obscure information.**
*(online transaction security)*

This recommendation applies to transaction security. Sites can disrupt
the flow of a smooth user experience by asking for information outside
of what is expected. Election administrators should be careful to keep
the information requested within the end user\'s understanding of the
transaction. Requesting obscure information can be impractical for two
reasons: if the information requested is difficult to immediately
recall, a user may get frustrated and stop. It is not uncommon for sites
to ask for a driver\'s license number, zip+4 , voter ID, DMV ID, or even
a specially requested PIN personal identification number; however, doing
so forces the user to search for that information before they can obtain
information they seek. You may only get one chance at delivering
information to a voter online; you don\'t want to turn them away.

**SECTION 7: DESIGNING A POSITIVE USER EXPERIENCE**

[OVERVIEW]{.underline}

Websites must take into account the flow of information from page to
page---the "user experience". A good user experience is critical to the
success of a voter information website as it will encourage repeat users
and positive word-of-mouth advertisement. A positive user experience is
designed with the end-user in mind.

Poor design and complicated layout can deter usage. Common functions
should be grouped in high visibility locations, and more obscure or
detailed information can be in lower profile locations deeper into the
site for committed users, or users seeking answers to very specific
questions. In general, simplicity is the key. Voter information Websites
should use pictographic artifacts wherever possible to avoid excessive
reliance on text.

Crafting the user experience is one of the areas where outside design
experts may be a valuable resource. There is also a wealth of user
interface research available online, detailing good design practices for
page layout and navigation. Two U.S. Government sites that have already
addressed Web design and usability for government-related applications
are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\'
*www.usability.gov* and the General Services Administration\'s
*www.webcontent.gov*.

**RECOMMENDATION 7.1: Move users quickly from general to specific
information.**

Move from the general to the specific in your information architecture.
Different users will access voter information websites for different
reasons. It is imperative that voter information websites move users
quickly to the information they require so that users don't navigate
elsewhere.

As an example, not every voter will be a first time voter, so a voter
information website should avoid asking every visitor if they are a
first time voter. Most website users will not belong to a specialized
category, so emphasize these options as alternate branches off the main
path a voter will navigate through, not as obstacles. No one wants to
fill out a detailed questionnaire before they begin to use the system.

**RECOMMENDATION 7.2: Employ industry standard graphic design principles
and highlight the most popular features.**

Graphic design, layout and intuitive flow of the user experience are in
their respective industries scientific disciplines. There are experts in
the field that can advise election jurisdictions about the most
effective way to display material. Awkward design and layout were very
common among the websites studied. While there is no one standard format
for voter information websites, voters should easily see what
information they will be able to access on a voter information website.

**RECOMMENDATION 7.3: Review design to ensure simplicity.**

User interface design can take place parallel to the database and
software development. The key concern is whether or not information is
logical and available where users expect it. Watch people use the site
-- often small assumptions at this stage can result in major user
frustration in the end product. The user interface should be tested for
use on multiple browser platforms and operating systems. Usability
testing should be run on static mock-ups of the website.

**RECOMMENDATION 7.4: Use broad and simple language; link to legal
detail as necessary.**

Election laws can be complicated especially when every variable and
scenario is fully documented. Voter information websites need only
display broad concepts and do not need to be presented in full legal
detail. When complicated concepts are unavoidable, consider whether an
interactive narrated experience can help users navigate. For example:

*Are you a first time voter? YES \> Are you a student? YES \> Did you
register in person? etc.*

Review the section on ACCESSIBILITY in this document for a summary of
reading comprehension levels and simple, clear and accessible language.

**RECOMMENDATION 7.5: Encourage voters with complex questions to contact
election administrators.**

Even when a voter's question cannot be anticipated, it is still possible
to provide voters with the means to ask those questions directly.
Besides phone numbers, providing email addresses and Web forms for
voters to submit questions in their own words can assist election
administrators in effectively addressing voters' needs.

**RECOMMENDATION 7.6: Use clear and consistent menus and icons.**

Graphic elements can assist with website legibility and usability.
Development of a set of "common language icons" consistently used
throughout the site, will contribute to users\' sense of familiarity
while researching information.

**RECOMMENDATION 7.7: Use simple and recognizable visual language.**

Decreasing text and emphasizing easily identifiable graphics can help
users establish *where* and *how* to obtain information and/or move to
the next step. Buttons or similar elements that enact a behavior, such
as visually depressing when clicked, enhance users\' understanding. An
excess of graphics, however, can slow response times considerably during
peak usage. Where graphics are not required for navigation or other
essential uses, text-based alternatives should also be made available.
Also, all graphics should make use of alt text for compatibility with
speaking browsers (a Section 508 requirement).

[]{.mark}

**RECOMMENDATION 7.8: Avoid excessive graphic design.**

Poor or awkward design can be a hallmark of an underused website.
Because election administrators cannot pre-determine what equipment is
used to visit a voter information website, the design and layout should
be simple and readable by as many computer and software variations as
possible. Confusion or discomfort with voter information websites not
only limits what the voter gains by using the site, but may deter
further use.

**RECOMMENDATION 7.9: Use "Frequently Asked Questions."**

To address multiple scenarios without overwhelming voters, using
"Frequently Asked Questions" pages and links that move from general
questions (e.g. \"Are you a first-time voter?\", \"Do you have a
drivers\' license or state ID?\") to more specific is helpful.

[]{.mark}

**RECOMMENDATION 7.10: Avoid asking voters for information that is not
readily-available.**

Many people don't have their driver's license number or Zip +4
memorized, for example. Asking such questions may deter users from
further navigating on a voter information website.

[]{.mark}

**SECTION 8: ACCESSIBILITY**

[]{.mark}

[OVERVIEW]{.underline}

Accessibility addresses compliance with Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It also encompasses emerging technologies
intended to enhance user experiences, designing clear user interfaces,
designing for people whose first language isn't English, and designing
for people with limited literacy or Internet experience. For example,
voters who access the Internet through a public library or community
library may not have the permission or ability to install special
software or browser plug-ins such as Flash or Adobe Reader.

**RECOMMENDATION 8.1: Establish Section 508 as a minimum requirement for
usability.**

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that federal
agencies make their websites accessible to persons with disabilities.
Subpart B, 1194.22 of Section 508 sets out standards for website
compliance, which are located at: *www.section508.gov*. The United
States Access Board is the federal agency that developed the
accessibility standards; a standards guide, frequently asked questions,
and other resources are available on the Board's website at:
*www.access-board.gov*.

Although Section 508 dictates accessibility for users with disabilities,
508 requirements still may not address usability for all users.
Therefore, it is advisable that election jurisdictions implement
usability testing, which aims at designing the most practical and easy
to use website.

**RECOMMENDATION 8.2: Follow foreign language requirements for printed
materials on the website.**

Many jurisdictions have significant populations for whom English is a
second language. In designing a voter information website, election
jurisdictions should apply federal, state, and local laws regarding
printed material translation equally to online content.

**RECOMMENDATION 8.3: Ensure that content is written at a basic or
intermediate literacy level.**

Functional literacy is measured in gradations by The National Assessment
of Adult Literacy (NAAL). NAAL was conducted in 2003 by the U.S.
Department of Education to measure English literacy in American
adults.[^20] The 500 point NAAL scoring system was separated into four
ranges: Below Basic, Basic, Intermediate and Proficient. In 2003, the
average Document Literacy score for all adults fell within the
Intermediate range. More resources are available at: www.nces.ed.gov

Except where specific wording is legally required, written material
should not exceed a standard appropriate for the Intermediate level. In
addition, since roughly 1 in 5 adults read at the Basic level and 1 in 7
read at Below Basic, use of \"short, commonplace prose text\" wherever
possible is appropriate.

**RECOMMENDATION 8.4: Ensure that website design encompasses users of
below-average Internet literacy.**

To accommodate users who may not be familiar with the Internet or have
regular access to it, voter information websites should make user
interfaces as open as possible so that access to information does not
require changes to browser settings or personalization. Voter
information websites should not require specific browsers, restrict
usage by requiring specific software, or depend on browser features such
as cookies or JavaScript to operate properly.

[]{.mark}

**RECOMMENDATION 8.5: Ensure compliance with new technologies when
designing a voter information website.**

As access to the Internet continues to grow, users may access voter
information websites from PDAs or cell phones. Some of these other forms
of access require new considerations such as how their browsers render
sites, and what sorts of input mechanisms they allow. Voter information
websites should plan for compatibility with different Internet-ready
devices because variously-sized display areas, limited input devices,
and proprietary browsers will pose an ongoing design challenge to voter
information websites.

**RECOMMENDATION 8.6: Use simple technologies.**

To guarantee access to voters who use shared computers, limit the use of
plug-in technologies that require administrative privileges to install.
In addition, election jurisdictions should limit website features that
require frequent browser upgrades or special software to operate
correctly.

As an example, Adobe Reader is a common browser plug-in used to read
Adobe PDF files, but it may not be installed on every computer. If a
sample ballot is presented only in PDF format and a voter is using a
shared computer without the appropriate software, he or she may not be
able to view the ballot. On the other hand, if a voter information
database can provide a HTML representation of the ballot, all users will
be able to view the ballot.

**RECOMMENDATION 8.7: Display pages in printer-friendly formats.**

Printable sample ballots, legible maps of polling places, and short
biographies or statements by candidates (in districts where those are
supplied) can be saved and/or printed by users who do not have ready
access to the Internet, increasing their efficacy. In addition, creating
Web pages in printer-friendly formats further allow third party
organizations to help election jurisdictions inform voters by passing
out information directly from a voter information website.

**APPENDIX A: STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY**

[]{.mark}

[HAVA MANDATE]{.underline}

In June of 2005, staff at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
undertook a survey of public access portals available online to
determine trends in voter questions and what entities were sponsoring
online portals. The EAC found that there were several public access
portals in operation for the 2004 Presidential election. Sponsorship
ranged from locally-based governments to the independent sector and
private corporations. Many of the websites were found to be duplicative,
disorganized, and often erroneous. The EAC also found that voters
primarily wanted two questions answered on Election Day: (1) Am I
registered? and (2) Where do I vote?

Section 245(a) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates that the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) conduct a thorough study of
issues and challenges presented by incorporating communications and
Internet technologies. Section 245(a)(2)(C) indicates that the EAC may
investigate the impact that new communications or Internet technology
systems in the electoral process have on voter participation rates,
voter education, and public accessibility. In addition, Section
241(b)(9) allows the EAC to periodically study election administration
issues, including methods of educating voters on all aspects voter
participation.

To assist with collecting data, the EAC contracted Publius, a
non-partisan non-profit organization to organize and conduct a voter
information website design study and workgroup. This study is the
aggregation of expert opinion at the time the study was conducted. It is
ultimately exploratory in nature. The recommendations contained herein
outline the current development, function and usefulness of voter
information websites.

As election officials define, refine, design and utilize the
recommendations to build and maintain voter information websites a more
accurate sense of the utility of the recommendations presented and
uncovered in this study. Field experience, combined with these initial
reference recommendations, and the emergence of controls should result
in the possibility of a more quantitative study in the future.

At some point, the time will come to revisit voter information website
design and see how well these recommendations hold up.

[OVERVIEW:]{.underline}

Preliminary research was conducted online and over the phone. Findings
were compiled and presented to a panel of experts to spark comment and
discussion. The resulting expert opinion was reviewed and compiled to
produce the recommendations in this document.

[ONLINE RESEARCH]{.underline}

In November 2005, the EAC began a comprehensive survey of voter
information websites. This study reviewed hundreds of election
information websites from various jurisdictions across the county.
Seventy-one voter information websites[^21] chosen for detailed study at
a minimum could answer the question: "Am I registered to vote?" This
distinction meant that the site itself had to be able to reference a
voter registration file in order to qualify for in-depth study.

From November 2005 through February 2006 the selected voter information
websites were reviewed and documented in three stages:

1)  A thorough examination of information available online was
    categorized and distilled as discrete answers to anticipated voter
    questions. These anticipated questions were categorized in order to
    extrapolate the answer to the question: "What questions did the
    author of this website anticipate answering?" This extrapolated data
    was averaged across the studied websites and a distinct pattern
    emerged that substantiated the initial survey research: "Am I
    registered to vote?" and "Where do I vote?" were found to be the two
    most anticipated questions from voters.

2)  New vectors were introduced to the aggregate data, focusing on the
    websites that offered the most detailed information and those that
    had been in existence the longest. The goal was to see what features
    may have been anticipated and which features had been added as
    service expanded. Many of these features indicated that newer
    full-featured websites are already building on the functionality of
    more established sites. Features of these more robust sites were
    categorized and averaged, and the most common question extrapolated
    from feature-rich websites was: "What is on the ballot?"[^22]

[]{.mark}

3)  Finally, information delivery methods were categorized and averaged
    to understand how the information was delivered, and extrapolate
    what concerns were considered in the development of the delivery
    method. Categories were developed and delivery methodologies
    cataloged, which resulted in the detailed study of privacy discussed
    in this document.

[]{.mark}

[PHONE INTERVIEWS]{.underline}

The study then conducted follow-up phone interviews with the election
administrators responsible for the websites identified above to gather
further data about the policy and political motivations and execution of
these projects. Administrators were asked a variety of questions, such
as:

-   How did your project come into being?

-   Was it done in house?

-   What were the obstacles you encountered in setting up your site?

-   What went right?

-   What would you do differently?

-   Do you have future plans for changing or expanding the site?

-   How much did it cost to create the site?

-   How popular is your site with your constituency?

[]{.mark}

Many interviewees were asked other follow-up questions as new issues
emerged.

[]{.mark}

As part of the study, the contractor requested detailed website log-file
information. However, few of the sites in the study could furnish
log-file data, resulting in too few data to generate an accurate sample.

[]{.mark}

[GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PATH]{.underline}

Phone interviews with the administrators who were responsible for the
voter information on their websites revealed that there was no uniform
path to voter information website development. Some election
jurisdictions developed their websites through supplementary riders to
their voter registration database development contracts. Some projects
also started as add-on functionality to a voter registration file that
displayed more information than is recommended in this study. Some of
the most user-friendly voter information websites were done in-house, as
were some of the most unwieldy ones. Some election jurisdictions
contracted out the development of their websites while others hired
consultants to assist in development, assessing user experiences and
marketing.

[PROJECT CONCLUSION]{.underline}

From April to June 2006, additional websites, many newly created for the
2006 midterm election, were reviewed and added to the study. All 50
state election websites were reviewed for changes at this time.

On June 27, 2006, the EAC hosted the voter information website design
workgroup of technology experts, election administrators, advocacy
organizations and other stakeholders. Participants were presented with
the results of the second research study. A number of discussions that
focused on voter education and website design resulted from that meeting
and the research study. Feedback and recommendations from that meeting
have been documented and are cited throughout this best practices
document.

Edgardo Cortés, Election Assistance Commission

Karen Lynn-Dyson, Election Assistance Commission

Tamar Nedzar, Election Assistance Commission

Vince Keenan, Director, Publius, Voter Information Website Study Primary
Investigator

Kenneth Paulus, Publius

Sherif Abushadi, Technical consultant

Erika Aust, Office of the Secretary of State of Washington, Assistant
Director

Mark Backus, CyberLogic Consulting, Network Security Engineer

Julia Bauler, Office of the Secretary of State of Indiana

Jo-Anne Chasnow, Project Vote

Maria Delvalle-Koch, State of New Jersey, Division of Elections

Kathleen Demers, Harvard University, Institute of Politics

Bobbie Eagan Garner, Washington State

Jennifer Faison,

Alan Gutierrez, Think New Orleans

Russell Kasselman, Office of the Secretary of State of Washington

Tia Nelis, Project Vote and University of Illinois-Chicago

Andy Rivera, Advancement Project

Ari Schwartz, Center for Democracy and Technology

Cindy Southworth, National Network to End Domestic Violence

Janice Winfrey, City of Detroit, City Clerk

David Tom, San Mateo County

Cheryl O\'Donnell, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National
Field Director

*Additional Reviewing Experts*

*Doug Chapin, Pew Center on the States*

[]{.mark}

From July through September 2006, results for the research study and the
workgroup comments were reviewed and preliminary findings were developed
for presentation to the EAC. On September 21, the preliminary findings
were presented to the EAC at a public meeting in St. Louis.[^23]

The best practices final report was compiled through October and
November 2006, and revised in early 2007. Online comments from workgroup
participants were solicited and a third review of all 50 state websites
was also done at this time. EAC staff and Publius have worked together
to edit the document for final release.

**APPENDIX B: DEFINITIONS**

[]{.mark}

**Dynamic Data:** Data that is tailored to the individual viewer based
on the registration information supplied. For example, dynamically
generated ballots make use of a voter's registration information to
provide a list of contests exclusive to the individual voter.

Examples of dynamic data include: (1) registration status, (2) polling
place location on interactive maps, (3) type of voting equipment
specific to each polling place, (4) type of ballot used at a specific
polling place, (5) initiatives and amendments specific to each ballot,
and (6) calendars of upcoming elections.

**Election Information Website:** A website that provides information
about elections and the election process.

**Static Data:** Information displays that are the same for each viewer.
For example, static voter information websites display generic sample
ballots that may or may not resemble the actual ballot voters will see
on Election Day.

[]{.mark}

Examples of static data include: (1) how to apply for an absentee
ballot, (2) election dates, (3) polling place hours of operation, (4)
registration deadlines, (5) district maps and boundaries, (6) how to
become a poll worker, and (7) instructions and/or frequently asked
questions.

**Voter Information Website:** A website that provides information
specific to an individual voter by referencing the current voter
registration file. Voter information websites are distinct from election
information websites in that they utilize public access to official
voter registration records.

**Voter Registration Look-up Mechanism:** A utility that determines a
voter's identity in order to display voter-specific registration
information. Such a utility may require that the user enter identifying
information; or information may be retrieved by drilling down through
several menus.

**Voters with Special Circumstances:** Voters with special circumstances
include voters who recently moved to a new jurisdiction, voters who have
had their voting rights restored following a felony, deceased voters,
and voters with limited reading comprehension.

**APPENDIX C: INDEX OF EAC ADVISORIES IN THIS DOCUMENT**

***The following are the EAC Recommendations that were presented in this
document. Following each recommendation is the page number where it can
be found.***

**[Preliminary Planning - Recommendations]{.underline}**

> 3.1: Answer the question "Am I registered to vote?" (P.9)
>
> 3.2: Review legal considerations. (P.9)
>
> 3.3: Update voter records as often as possible. (P.9)
>
> 3.4: Adopt a neutral voice. (P.9)
>
> 3.5: Use effective design principles. (P.10)
>
> 3.6: Contract out work as needed. (P.10)
>
> 3.7: Review contractors' prior work. (P.10
>
> 3.8: Consider commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and open source
> solutions. (P.10)
>
> 3.9: Establish clear goals before development. (P.10)
>
> 3.10: Inventory data sources. (P.10)
>
> 3.11: Plan for high capacity peaks. (P.10)
>
> 3.12: Consider intellectual property and copyright issues. (P.11)
>
> 3.13: Document project development and system functionality. (P.11)
>
> 3.14: Budget for development, hosting, capacity, and promotion. (P.11)
>
> 3.15: Track usage patterns. (P.11)

[]{.mark}

**[Features - Recommendations]{.underline}**

4.1: Provide voters with the answer to the question "Where do I vote?"
(P.12)

4.2: Add map links to polling locations. (P.12)

4.3: Do not provide voters with driving directions. (P.12)

4.4: When including mapping programs, use the simplest versions
available. (P.12)

> 4.5: Provide voters with a sample ballot. (P.13)
>
> 4.6: Display sample ballots exactly as they will appear on Election
> Day. (P.13)
>
> 4.7: Link sample ballots to helpful information. (P.13)
>
> 4.8: Do not link to incumbent government websites on a voter guide.
> (P.13)
>
> 4.9: Give voters the ability to track absentee ballots online. (P.13)
>
> 4.10: Allow users to check the status of provisional ballots online.
> (P.13)
>
> 4.11: Provide instructions for how to use voting equipment. (P.14)
>
> 4.12: Post Election Day times and polling location hours prominently.
> (P.14)
>
> 4.13: Provide other readily-available information neatly and in a
> logical manner. (P.14)

[]{.mark}

**[Marketing and Promotion - Recommendations]{.underline}**

[]{.mark}

> 5.1: Consider different user audiences in promoting a voter
> information website. (P.15)
>
> 5.2: Repetition equals reinforcement. (P.15)

5.3: Use traditional media to promote voter information websites. (P.15)

> 5.4: Include your voter information website address on all voter
> outreach and election materials. (P.15)
>
> 5.5: Encourage election staff to direct voters to the voter
> information website. (P.16)
>
> 5.6: Adjust your capacity to account for your promotion. (P.16)
>
> 5.7: Identify and consider factors that may increase traffic. (P.16)
>
> 5.8: Make voter information website addresses simple and easy to
> remember. (P.16)
>
> 5.9: Build promotion around a single website address. (P.16)
>
> 5.10: Allow official voter information websites to be used as a tool
> for local voter outreach programs. (P.17)

**[Security and Privacy - Recommendations]{.underline}**

> 6.1: Do not expose the official registry file to the Internet.
> *(official voter registry file security)* (P.18)
>
> 6.2: Do not expose data to the Internet that is not used by your voter
> information website. *(unused registry data security)* (P.19)
>
> 6.3: Avoid asking for too much information. *(online transaction
> security)*(P.19)
>
> 6.4: Review and comply with your jurisdiction's security policies on
> encrypting data. *(online transaction security)* (P.19)
>
> 6.5: Make sure you know who is working with your voter information.
> *(web development security and individual voter privacy)* (P.20)
>
> 6.6: Use increased security if you set out to vet the voter registry
> for accuracy, and avoid doing so at the expense of voter security.
> *(online transaction security and individual voter privacy)* (P.20)
>
> 6.7: Display as little information as possible about the voter - just
> enough to answer the voter's question. *(online transaction security
> and individual voter privacy)* (P.20)
>
> 6.8: Avoid disclosing a voter's birth date or current address.
> *(individual voter privacy and security)* (P.21)
>
> 6.9: Make sure your website is not a stalking tool. (P.21)
>
> *(individual voter privacy and security)*
>
> 6.10: Review you website to make sure it does not facilitate identity
> theft. *(individual voter privacy and security)*(P.21)
>
> 6.11: Make sure your website does not facilitate election fraud.
> *(election security)*(P.22)
>
> 6.12: Use implied information when possible. *(individual voter
> privacy and transaction security)*(P.22)
>
> 6.13: Avoid displaying information about more than one voter.
> *(individual voter privacy and transaction security)*(P.22)
>
> 6.14: Avoid using lists *(individual voter privacy and transaction
> security)* (P.23)
>
> 6.15: Avoid information over-exposure. *(individual voter privacy)*
> (P.23)
>
> 6.16: Avoid asking for obscure information. *(online transaction
> security)* (P.23)

[]{.mark}

**[Designing a Positive User Experience - Recommendations]{.underline}**

> 7.1: Move users quickly from general to specific information. (P.25)
>
> 7.2: Employ industry standard graphic design principles and highlight
> the most popular features. (P.25)
>
> 7.3: Review design to ensure simplicity. (P.26)
>
> 7.4: Use broad and simple language; link to legal detail as necessary.
> (P.26)
>
> 7.5: Encourage voters with complex questions to contact election
> administrators. (P.26)
>
> 7.6: Use clear and consistent menus and icons. (P.26)
>
> 7.7: Use simple and recognizable visual language. (P.26)
>
> 7.8: Avoid excessive graphic design. (P.26)
>
> 7.9: Use "Frequently Asked Questions." (P.27)
>
> 7.10: Avoid asking voters for information that is not
> readily-available. (P.27)

[]{.mark}

**[Accessibility -- Recommendations]{.underline}**

[]{.mark}

> 8.1: Establish Section 508 as a minimum requirement for usability.
> (P.28)
>
> 8.2: Follow foreign language requirements for printed materials on the
> website. (P.28)
>
> 8.3: Ensure that content is written at a basic or intermediate
> literacy level. (P.28)
>
> 8.4: Ensure that website design encompasses users of below-average
> Internet literacy. (P.29)
>
> 8.5: Ensure compliance with new technologies when designing a voter
> information website. (P.29)
>
> 8.6: Use simple technologies. (P.29)
>
> 8.7: Display pages in printer-friendly formats. (P.29)
>
> **APPENDIX D: LIST OF WEBSITES REVIEWED IN THIS STUDY**[^24]

  ------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[State]{.underline}**   **[Jurisdiction]{.underline}**   **[Website]{.underline}**

  Alabama                   Mobile                           <http://www.mobile-county.net/probate/>

  Arizona                   SOS                              <https://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/select_language.do>

  Arkansas                  SOS                              <https://www.voterview.ar-nova.org/>

  Arkansas                  Pulaski                          <http://www.pulaskiclerk.com/>

  California                San Mateo                        <http://www.shapethefuture.org/voters/default.asp>

  California                Sacramento                       <http://www.pollingplacelookup.saccounty.net/LookupPollingPlace_SearchByDOB.aspx>

  Colorado                  Adams                            <http://webapps.co.adams.co.us/ElcPoll/VoterSearch.cfm>

  Colorado                  Boulder                          <http://www.co.boulder.co.us/webapps/voter_reg/promptforname.html>

  Colorado                  El Paso                          <http://car.elpasoco.com/VoteRegQuery.asp>

  Colorado                  Larimer                          [https://www.co.larimer.co.us/elections/voter_inquiry.cfm]{.underline}

  Colorado                  Weld                             <https://www.co.weld.co.us/departments/clerkrecorder/voter_lookup/index.cfm>

  Connecticut               Southington                      <http://registrars.southington.org/voterlist/voters.php>

  Connecticut               Vernon                           <http://www.vernonelections.org/voterlookup.php>

  Delaware                  SOS                              <https://registertovote.elections.delaware.gov/VoterRegistration/controller?TransName=VOTERREG_MAINMENU>

  District of Columbia      SOS                              <http://www.dcboee.org/voterreg/vic_step1.asp>

  Georgia                   SOS                              <http://www.sos.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/locator.asp>

  Illinois                  City of Rockford                 <http://www.voterockford.com/voters/regStatus.aspx>

  Illinois                  DuPage                           <http://cms.dupageelections.com/pages.asp?pageid=984>

  Illinois                  Kane                             <http://www.kanecountyelections.org/VoterInformation/VoterInfo.asp>

  Illinois                  Lake                             <http://www.co.lake.il.us/cntyclk/elections/voterservices/regvoter.asp>

  Illinois                  Vermilion                        <http://www.co.vermilion.il.us/ctyvoterReg.asp>

  Illinois                  Will                             <https://www.willcountydata.com/voternewinquiry/voter_lookup_input.htm>

  Illinois                  City of Chicago                  <http://chicagoelections.com/voterinfo/default.aspx>

  Illinois                  Champaign                        <https://www.champaigncountyclerk.com/elections/registration_status.html>

  Illinois                  Cook                             <http://www.voterinfonet.com/sub/am_i_registered.asp>

  Illinois                  Madson                           <http://app1.co.madison.il.us/CountyClerk/VoterPolling/VoterRegistration.cfm>

  Indiana                   SOS                              <http://www.indianavoters.com/PublicSite/Public/PublicVoterRegistration.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1>

  Kansas                    SOS                              [https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org](https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org/)

  Kansas                    Johnson                          <http://voter.jocoelection.org/search.aspx>

  Kentucky                  SOS                              <https://cdcbp.ky.gov/VICWeb/index.jsp>

  Louisiana                 SOS                              <http://sos.louisiana.gov/polllocator>

  Maine                     City of Portland                 <http://www.portlandmaine.gov/voter/voterlook.asp>

  Maine                     SOS                              <http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/votreg.htm>

  Maryland                  SOS                              <http://mdelections.umbc.edu/voter_registration/v2/vote_prod.php>

  Massachusettes            City of Boston                   <http://www.cityofboston.gov/elections/voter/>

  Michigan                  Publius                          [http://www.publius.org](http://www.publius.org/)

  Michigan                  Detroit                          [http://detroitvoter.info](http://detroitvoter.info/)

  Michigan                  SOS                              <https://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mivote/>

  Missouri                  Kansas City                      <http://www.kceb.org/electioninfo/electioninfo.php>

  Montana                   Yellowstone                      <https://secure.co.yellowstone.mt.us/elections/secure/rvoterinfo.asp>

  Nebraska                  SOS                              <https://www.votercheck.necvr.ne.gov/>

  Nevada                    Clark                            <http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/election/home.asp>

  Nevada                    Washoe                           <http://www.co.washoe.nv.us/voters/regsearch.php>

  North Carolina            SOS                              <http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/votersearch/seimsvot.htm>

  North Dakota              SOS                              <http://www.nd.gov/sos/forms/pdf/votereg.pdf>

  Ohio                      Butler                           <http://www.butlercountyelections.org/index.cfm?page=voterSearch>

  Ohio                      Hancock                          <http://66.194.132.88/search.aspx>

  Ohio                      Warren                           <http://www.co.warren.oh.us/bdelec/search/where_to_vote/index.htm>

  Ohio                      Wood                             <http://www.co.wood.oh.us/boe/VoterSearch.htm>

  Ohio                      SOS                              <http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sosapps/elections/voterquery.aspx>

  Ohio                      Franklin                         <http://www.co.franklin.oh.us/boe/apps/voter/index.asp>

  Ohio                      Hamilton                         <http://www.hamilton-co.org/BOE/votersearchs.asp>

  Pennsylvania              SOS                              <http://www.dos.state.pa.us/voting/cwp/view.asp?a=1206&Q=446253>

  Pennsylvania              Allegheny                        <http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/votedistricts/>

  Rhode Island              SOS                              <http://www.sec.state.ri.us/vic/>

  South Carolina            SOS                              <https://webprod.cio.sc.gov/SCSECVoterWeb/voterInformationSearch.do>

  Tennessee                 City of Memphis                  <http://www.shelbynet.com/wconnect/vhistfile.htm>

  Texas                     Montgomery                       <http://www.co.montgomery.tx.us/election/vrlookup.asp>

  Texas                     Collin                           <http://www.collincountytexas.gov/elections/voter_registration/voter_registration_card_voter.jsp>

  Texas                     Dallas                           <http://dalcoelections.org/voters.asp>

  Texas                     Denton                           <http://elections.dentoncounty.com/go.asp?Dept=82&Link=292>

  Texas                     Fort Bend                        <http://vote.co.fort-bend.tx.us/WebVoter/default.asp>

  Texas                     Harris                           <http://www.harrisvotes.org/non_frames/geninfo.htm>

  Texas                     Midland                          <http://www.co.midland.tx.us/elections/VoterDatabase/input.asp>

  Texas                     Nueces                           <http://www.co.nueces.tx.us/countyclerk/elections/search/>

  Texas                     Tarrent                          <http://inet.tarrantcounty.com:8010/ElectionCGI/gac1fw1p>

  Texas                     Travis                           <http://www.traviscountytax.org/showVoterSearch.do>

  Utah                      Utah                             <http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/ClerkAud/Elections/VoterSearch.asp>

  Utah                      Davis                            <http://www.daviscountyutah.gov/clerkauditor/elections/registered_voter_search/registered_voter_search.cfm>

  Virginia                  SOS                              <http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Voter_Information/Where_Do_I_Vote/Polling_Place_Lookup_request.asp>

  Washington                SOS                              <https://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/lookup.aspx>

  Washington                King                             <https://www.metrokc.gov/elections/pollingplace/voterlookup.aspx>

  Washington                Whatcom                          <http://www.whatcomcounty.us/auditor/election_division/general_information/voter_lookup/IE6/Index.asp>

  Washington                Sound Politics                   <http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html>

  West Virginia             SOS                              <http://www.wvvotes.com/voters/am-i-registered.php>

                                                             
  ------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[^1]: \"Voting in Memphis\", (
    *[www.shelbynet.com/voting](http://www.shelbynet.com/voting)* -
    organization\'s main page,
    [*www.shelbynet.com/wconnect/vhistfile.htm*](http://www.shelbynet.com/wconnect/vhistfile.htm) -
    voter registration look-up page) was launched to check voter
    registration in three Tennessee counties against death records (SSID
    confirmation).

[^2]: \"Sound Politics\",
    ([*www.soundpolitics.com*](http://www.soundpolitics.com/) -
    organization\'s main page,
    [*www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html*](http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html) -
    voter registration look-up page) was launched with the intention of
    monitoring reported inaccuracies in King County voter registration.

[^3]: For purposes of this study, the question: "Who won?" was excluded
    because it does not require tying results to a voter registration
    lookup utility.

[^4]: This section assumes that the voter information website's primary
    audience will be individual voters.

[^5]: City of Chicago website (prior to November 2006 revision).

[^6]: *Example of cost accounting challenges:* CanIvote.org sponsored by
    the National Association of Secretaries of State was widely reported
    at cost of under \$10,000, but the actual cost accounting for the
    functionality of an aggregated website like CanIvote.org requires
    acknowledgement of the costs of the systems that actually provide
    the functionality. Although CanIVote.org can be advertised as "being
    able to provide registration information," its cost is the cost of
    creating a site that links to that service, not the service itself.

[^7]: See Appendix D for a list of websites reviewed in this study.

[^8]: This section assumes that websites will reference an online voter
    registration file to answer the question, "Am I registered to vote?"

[^9]: Such as Google Maps© and Yahoo Maps©

[^10]: *www.publius.org (1996-present)*

[^11]: *Macomb County, MI:
    http://itasw0aep001.macombcountymi.gov/AbsenteeBallot/faces/SearchAbsentee.jspx*

[^12]: *State of Indiana:
    http://www.indianavoters.com/PublicSite/Public/PublicProvisional.aspx*

[^13]: "... while total usage in the United States is now at 71.1% of
    the population, among those in the 16-24 age group it is 90.8%."
    from the UCLA World Internet Project (2004)
    http://www.international.ucla.edu/bcir/research/article.asp?parentid=7488

[^14]: In this case, information that is perceived as "personal" such as
    name address and birth date regardless or official public record
    status.

[^15]: A theoretical fake website could be an exact duplicate of the
    official site, but collects information a voter submits then
    indicate that "the database is unavailable please check back later."
    If the official government website asks for first name, last name,
    date of birth and zip code or unique voter ID (or middle name,
    address, social security number or driver's license number) up
    front, before demonstrating any functionality voters could submit
    significant personal information before, if ever, they discover a
    scam.

[^16]: *\"We have taken the approach that \[information available online
    to the public\] is for the functionality of what you need to do to
    vote.\" (David Tom, San Mateo County - June 2006 EAC Working Group
    meeting)*

[^17]: As in the "Safe at Home" Address Confidentiality Program employed
    by several states

[^18]: Fighting Back Against Identity Theft, US Federal Trade
    Commission:
    *www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/consumers/about-identity-theft.html#Howdothievesstealanidentity*

[^19]: Fighting Back Against Identity Theft, US Federal Trade
    Commission:
    *www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/consumers/pretexting.html*

[^20]: The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)
    *http://nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480.pdf*

[^21]: Listed in Appendix D.

[^22]: Publius, Washington State, King County Washington, Johnson County
    Kansas

[^23]: *http://www.eac.gov/Public_Meeting_092106.asp*

[^24]: Websites reviewed in this study were active as of the study
    dates: October 2005 through April 2007