Voter Informati on Webs ites Study

U. S . E lect i on A ss i stance Comm i ss i o n
Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Summary of Findings 2

Section 1: Understanding The Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Section 2: Common Voter Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Section 3: Preliminary Planning 7

Section 4: Features 10

Section 5: Marketing And Promotion 13

Section 6: Security And Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Section 7: Designing A Positive User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Section 8: Accessibility 25

Appendix A: Scope And Methodology 27

Appendix B: Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Appendix C: Index Of Eac Recommendations 32

Appendix D: List Of Websites Reviewed In This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
1

Introduction

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.

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 indepth 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. 
2

Summary of Findings

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.
3

Section 1: Understanding the Audience

Overview

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.

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

Organizations:

Advocacy organizations and Campaigns

The Media

First-Time Voters

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.). 

Infrequent Voters

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. 

Voters with Special Circumstances

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. 

Consistent Voters

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. 
4

UOCAVA Voters

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. 

Absentee Voters

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

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

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. 

1 “Voting in Memphis”, ( www.shelbynet.com/voting - organization’s main page, 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 - organization’s main page, www.soundpolitics.com/

voterlookup.html - voter registration look-up page) was launched with the intention of monitoring reported 

inaccuracies in King County voter registration.
5

Section 2: Common Voter Concerns

Overview

After reviewing the websites listed in Appendix D, several voter questions consistently emerged 

as important common voter concerns3:

• 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? 

Am I registered to vote? Voter registration lookup:

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. 

Where do I vote? Polling place lookup:

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. Keep 

in mind that an address search answers the question: “Where is the polling location near this address?” The only way to answer the question where do I vote is to reference a voter registration file.

Who/What is on the ballot? Sample ballots: 

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:

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. 

Candidate Statements:

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. 

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.
6

Links to Candidates’ Official Websites:

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:

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:

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?

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. 

Provisional Ballots: Did my vote count?

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. 
7

Section 3: Preliminary Planning 

Overview

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

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.

4 This section assumes that the voter information website’s primary audience will be individual voters. 
8

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. 

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.
9

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. 

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 contextsensitive 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. 

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. 
10

Section 4: Features

Overview

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. 

Keep in mind that an address search answers the question: “Where is the polling location near 

this address?” The only way to answer the question where do I vote is to reference a voter 

registration file. 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. 

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 

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© 
11

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 postelection function that few websites performed.12 Given the provisions in HAVA that require 

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
12

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.
13

Section 5: Marketing and Promotion

Overview

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. 

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

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. 
15

Section 6: Security and Privacy

Overview

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.
16

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 “personal14” 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.

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.
17

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. 

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) 
18

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 lists17, 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 “phishing18” and “pretexting19,” or other social engineering schemes. 

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
19

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.
20

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
21

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. 
22

Section 7: Designing a Postive User Experience 

Overview

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 
23

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). 

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.
24

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. 

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. 
25

Section 8: Accessibility

Overview

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. 

20 The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) http://nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480.pdf
26

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. 

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. 

Recommendation 8.8: Indicate polling location accessibility information.

Whenever possible, polling place information should include details about accessibility such as 

identifying entrances with ramp access or where elevators are located.
27

Appendix A: Study Background and Methodology 

HAVA Mandate

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:

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

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 websites21 chosen for detailed study at a minimum could 

21 Listed in Appendix D. 
28

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:

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.

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

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.

Phone Interviews

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? 

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

emerged. 

22 Publius, Washington State, King County Washington, Johnson County Kansas
29

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.

General Development Path 

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

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. 

EAC Project Team: 

Edgardo Cortés, Election Assistance Commission 

Karen Lynn-Dyson, Election Assistance Commission

Tamar Nedzar, Election Assistance Commission

Publius Project Team:

Vincent M. Keenan, Primary Investigator, Author

Rebecca Houtman, Writer, Editor

Liese Hull, Writer, Editor

Additional Writers, Researchers, and Contributors

Kenneth Paulus, Publius

Alan Gutierrez, Think New Orleans
30

Conference Participants:

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, Voter Information Website Conference Coordinator 

Sherif Abushadi, Technical consultant

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

Mark Backus, Network Security Engineer, CyberLogic Consulting 

Julia Bauler, Office of the Secretary of State of Indiana 

Jo-Anne Chasnow, Project Vote 

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

Kathleen Demers, Institute of Politics, Harvard University

Bobbie Egan, King County, Washington 

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 

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

Janice Winfrey, City of Detroit, City Clerk

David Tom, Director of Elections, San Mateo County, California

Additional Reviewing Experts

Doug Chapin, Pew Center on the States

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. 

23 http://www.eac.gov/Public_Meeting_092106.asp
31

Appendix B: Definitions

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. 

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.
32

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

3.1: Answer the question “Am I registered to vote?” (P.7)

3.2: Review legal considerations. (P.7) 

3.3: Update voter records as often as possible. (P.7)

3.4: Adopt a neutral voice. (P.7)

3.5: Use effective design principles. (P.8)

3.6: Contract out work as needed. (P.8) 

3.7: Review contractors’ prior work. (P.8)

3.8: Consider commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and open source solutions. (P.8)

3.9: Establish clear goals before development. (P.8) 

3.10: Inventory data sources. (P.8) 

3.11: Plan for high capacity peaks. (P.9)

3.12: Consider intellectual property and copyright issues. (P.9)

3.13: Document project development and system functionality. (P.9) 

3.14: Budget for development, hosting, capacity, and promotion. (P.9) 

3.15: Track usage patterns. (P.9)

Features – Recommendations

4.1: Provide voters with the answer to the question “Where do I vote?” (P.10)

4.2: Add map links to polling locations. (P.10)

4.3: Do not provide voters with driving directions. (P.10)

4.4: When including mapping programs, use the simplest versions available. (P.10)

4.5: Provide voters with a sample ballot. (P.11)

4.6: Display sample ballots exactly as they will appear on Election Day. (P.11)

4.7: Link sample ballots to helpful information. (P.11)

4.8: Do not link to incumbent government websites on a voter guide. (P.11)

4.9: Give voters the ability to track absentee ballots online. (P.11)

4.10: Allow users to check the status of provisional ballots online. (P.11)

4.11: Provide instructions for how to use voting equipment. (P.12)

4.12: Post Election Day times and polling location hours prominently. (P.12)
33

4.13: Provide other readily-available information neatly and in a logical manner. (P.12)

Marketing and Promotion - Recommendations

5.1: Consider different user audiences in promoting a voter information website. (P.13)

5.2: Repetition equals reinforcement. (P.13)

5.3: Use traditional media to promote voter information websites. (P.13)

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

(P.13)

5.5: Encourage election staff to direct voters to the voter information website. (P.14)

5.6: Adjust your capacity to account for your promotion. (P.14)

5.7: Identify and consider factors that may increase traffic. (P.14)

5.8: Make voter information website addresses simple and easy to remember. (P.14)

5.9: Build promotion around a single website address. (P.14)

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

programs. (P.14)

Security and Privacy - Recommendations

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

(P.15)

6.2: Do not expose data to the Internet that is not used by your voter information website. 

(unused registry data security) (P.16)

6.3: Avoid asking for too much information. (online transaction security)(P.16)

6.4: Review and comply with your jurisdiction’s security policies on encrypting data. (online 

transaction security) (P.16)

6.5: Make sure you know who is working with your voter information. (web development 

security and individual voter privacy) (P.17)

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.17)

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.17)

6.8: Avoid disclosing a voter’s birth date or current address. (individual voter privacy and 

security) (P.18)

6.9: Make sure your website is not a stalking tool. (P.18)

(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.18)
34

6.11: Make sure your website does not facilitate election fraud. (election security)(P.19)

6.12: Use implied information when possible. (individual voter privacy and transaction 

security)(P.19)

6.13: Avoid displaying information about more than one voter. (individual voter privacy and 

transaction security)(P.20)

6.14: Avoid using lists (individual voter privacy and transaction security) (P.20)

6.15: Avoid information over-exposure. (individual voter privacy) (P.20)

6.16: Avoid asking for obscure information. (online transaction security) (P.21)

Designing a Positive User Experience - Recommendations

7.1: Move users quickly from general to specific information. (P.22)

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

(P.22)

7.3: Review design to ensure simplicity. (P.22)

7.4: Use broad and simple language; link to legal detail as necessary. (P.23)

7.5: Encourage voters with complex questions to contact election administrators. (P.23)

7.6: Use clear and consistent menus and icons. (P.23)

7.7: Use simple and recognizable visual language. (P.23)

7.8: Avoid excessive graphic design. (P.23)

7.9: Use “Frequently Asked Questions.” (P.24)

7.10: Avoid asking voters for information that is not readily-available. (P.24)

Accessibility – Recommendations

8.1: Establish Section 508 as a minimum requirement for usability. (P.25)

8.2: Follow foreign language requirements for printed materials on the website. (P.25)

8.3: Ensure that content is written at a basic or intermediate literacy level. (P.25)

8.4: Ensure that website design encompasses users of below-average Internet literacy. (P.26) 

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

(P.26)

8.6: Use simple technologies. (P.26)

8.7: Display pages in printer-friendly formats. (P.26)

8.8: Indicate polling location accessibility information. (P. 26)
35

Appendix D: List of Websites Reviewed in this Study24

State Jurisdiction Website 

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

Arizona Secretary of 

State

https://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/select_

language.do

Arkansas Secretary of 

State https://www.voterview.ar-nova.org/

Arkansas Pulaski County http://www.pulaskiclerk.com/

California San Mateo 

County http://www.shapethefuture.org/voters/default.asp

California Sacramento 

County

http://www.pollingplacelookup.saccounty.net/

LookupPollingPlace_SearchByDOB.aspx

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

Colorado Boulder County http://www.co.boulder.co.us/webapps/voter_reg/

promptforname.html

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

Colorado Larimer County https://www.co.larimer.co.us/elections/voter_inquiry.

cfm 

Colorado Weld County https://www.co.weld.co.us/departments/clerkrecorder/

voter_lookup/index.cfm

Connecticut Southington 

County http://registrars.southington.org/voterlist/voters.php

Connecticut Vernon County http://www.vernonelections.org/voterlookup.php

Delaware Secretary of 

State

https://registertovote.elections.delaware.gov/

VoterRegistration/controller?TransName=VOTERREG_

MAINMENU

District of 

Columbia 

Secretary of 

State http://www.dcboee.org/voterreg/vic_step1.asp

Georgia Secretary of 

State http://www.sos.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/locator.asp

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

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

24 Websites reviewed in this study were active as of the study dates: October 2005 through April 2007.
36

State Jurisdiction Website 

Illinois Kane County http://www.kanecountyelections.org/VoterInformation/

VoterInfo.asp

Illinois Lake County http://www.co.lake.il.us/cntyclk/elections/

voterservices/regvoter.asp

Illinois Vermilion 

County http://www.co.vermilion.il.us/ctyvoterReg.asp

Illinois Will County https://www.willcountydata.com/voternewinquiry/voter_

lookup_input.htm

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

Illinois Champaign 

County

https://www.champaigncountyclerk.com/elections/

registration_status.html

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

Illinois Madison County http://app1.co.madison.il.us/CountyClerk/VoterPolling/

VoterRegistration.cfm

Indiana Secretary of 

State

http://www.indianavoters.com/PublicSite/Public/

PublicVoterRegistration.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupp

ort=1

Kansas Secretary of 

State https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org

Kansas Johnson County http://voter.jocoelection.org/search.aspx

Kentucky Secretary of 

State https://cdcbp.ky.gov/VICWeb/index.jsp

Louisiana Secretary of 

State http://sos.louisiana.gov/polllocator

Maine Secretary of 

State http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/votreg.htm

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

Maryland Secretary of 

State

http://mdelections.umbc.edu/voter_registration/v2/

vote_prod.php

Massachusetts City of Boston http://www.cityofboston.gov/elections/voter/

Michigan Secretary of 

State https://www.michigan.gov/vote
37

State Jurisdiction Website 

Michigan Detroit http://detroitvoter.info

Michigan Statewide NonGovernmental http://www.publius.org

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

Montana Yellowstone https://secure.co.yellowstone.mt.us/elections/secure/

rvoterinfo.asp

Nebraska Secretary of 

State https://www.votercheck.necvr.ne.gov/

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

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

North 

Carolina 

Secretary of 

State http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/votersearch/seimsvot.htm

North Dakota Secretary of 

State http://www.nd.gov/sos/forms/pdf/votereg.pdf

Ohio Secretary of 

State

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sosapps/elections/

voterquery.aspx

Ohio Butler County http://www.butlercountyelections.org/index.

cfm?page=voterSearch

Ohio Hancock County http://66.194.132.88/search.aspx

Ohio Warren County http://www.co.warren.oh.us/bdelec/search/where_to_

vote/index.htm

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

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

Ohio Hamilton 

County http://www.hamilton-co.org/BOE/votersearchs.asp

Pennsylvania Secretary of 

State

http://www.dos.state.pa.us/voting/cwp/view.

asp?a=1206&Q=446253

Pennsylvania Allegheny 

County http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/votedistricts/

Rhode Island Secretary of 

State http://www.sec.state.ri.us/vic/
38

State Jurisdiction Website 

South 

Carolina 

Secretary of 

State 

https://webprod.cio.sc.gov/SCSECVoterWeb/

voterInformationSearch.do

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

Texas Montgomery 

County http://www.co.montgomery.tx.us/election/vrlookup.asp

Texas Collin County http://www.collincountytexas.gov/elections/voter_

registration/voter_registration_card_voter.jsp

Texas Dallas County http://dalcoelections.org/voters.asp

Texas Denton County http://elections.dentoncounty.com/

go.asp?Dept=82&Link=292

Texas Fort Bend 

County http://vote.co.fort-bend.tx.us/WebVoter/default.asp

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

Texas Midland County http://www.co.midland.tx.us/elections/VoterDatabase/

input.asp

Texas Nueces County http://www.co.nueces.tx.us/countyclerk/elections/

search/

Texas Tarrant County http://inet.tarrantcounty.com:8010/ElectionCGI/

gac1fw1p

Texas Travis County http://www.traviscountytax.org/showVoterSearch.do

Utah Utah County http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/ClerkAud/Elections/

VoterSearch.asp

Utah Davis County http://www.daviscountyutah.gov/clerkauditor/elections/

registered_voter_search/registered_voter_search.cfm

Virginia State Board of 

Elections

http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Voter_Information/

Where_Do_I_Vote/Polling_Place_Lookup_request.asp

Washington Secretary of 

State https://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/lookup.aspx

Washington King County https://www.metrokc.gov/elections/pollingplace/

voterlookup.aspx

Washington Whatcom 

County

http://www.whatcomcounty.us/auditor/election_

division/general_information/voter_lookup/IE6/Index.asp
39

State Jurisdiction Website 

Washington Statewide NonGovernmental http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html

West Virginia Secretary of 

State http://www.wvvotes.com/voters/am-i-registered.php 
EAC Commissioners 

Chair Rosemary E. Rodriguez 

Vice Chair Donetta L. Davidson 

Commissioner Gineen Beach 

Commissioner Gracia M. Hillman 

EAC Staff 

Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director 

Juliet Hodgkins, General Counsel

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1225 New York Avenue, NW 

Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005 

866-747-1471 

HAVAinfo@eac.gov 

www.eac.gov