UNITED STATES 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION

 

REPORT TO CONGRESS ON 

STATE GOVERNMENTS’ 

EXPENDITURES OF HELP 

AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

COVERAGE DATES: 

SECTIONS 101 AND 102 FUNDS

APRIL 2003 -- DECEMBER 2006 

SECTION 251 FUNDS

JUNE 2004 -- SEPTEMBER 2006 

 

July

2007
 

FOREWARD

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA or the Act) 

provided funds for States to improve the Federal voting 

process with new technologies and increased 

information and access for voters, election officials, 

and poll workers. 

To help finance these improvements, HAVA authorized 

election reform payments of more than $3 billion to 

State governments and required each State to provide 

matching contributions totaling approximately $122 

million nationwide. Before the formation of the United 

States Election Assistance Commission (EAC or the 

Commission), the U.S. General Services Administration 

(GSA) distributed payments under HAVA Title I, 

Sections 101 and 102 totaling $649.5 million to states 

between April 2003 and August 2003. EAC distributed 

additional payments under HAVA Title II, Section 251 

totaling more than $2.3 billion between June 2004 and 

December 2005. All funds appropriated under these 

provisions of HAVA have been distributed to States. 

GSA and EAC allocated funds to States on the basis of 

criteria contained in HAVA, such as the proportion of 

total voting age population of a State to the total 

voting age population of all States or the number of 

precincts in a State. As of December 31, 2006 for Title 

I, Sections 101 and 102 and September 30, 2006 for 

Title II, Section 251, States reported that they had 

spent HAVA funds of $1,781,943,111 and had a 

balance of unspent funds of $1,339,389,395. The 

balance includes interest earned on HAVA funds 

deposited in State election fund accounts. EAC 

estimates that States have earned approximately $152 

million of interest on HAVA funds. 

This report presents details on election reform 

payments received and spent by each State and related 

information. 
 

CONTENTS

 Page 

INTRODUCTION 1 

Purpose and Scope 1 

Background 1 

Methodology 5 

Summary 7 

Table 1. Total HAVA Sections 101, 102, and 251 Funds Received by 

States; Total State Expenditures of Funds; and Remaining 

Balance of Funds and Interest 

8 

 

DISTRIBUTION, EXPENDITURE, AND USE OF HAVA FUNDS 10 

Distribution and Expenditure 10 

Table 2. Receipt and Expenditure of 101 Funds as of December 31, 2006 10 

Table 3. Receipt and Expenditure of 102 Funds as of December 31, 2006 12 

Table 4. Receipt and Expenditure of 251 Funds as of September 30, 2006 13 

Use of HAVA Funds 15 

Table 5. Use of HAVA Funds 16 

OVERSIGHT OF HAVA FUNDS 17 

 

EAC Assistance 17 

Office of Inspector General Operations 18 

Table 6. Office of Inspector General Audits of States 19 

Table 7. Disposition of Audit Findings with Dollar Impacts, December 

2005 Through June 2007 20 

 

STATE MATCHING FUNDS 21 

Matching Requirement for Section 251 Funds 21 

Table 8. Status of State Matching Funds 22 

STATE PLANS 24 

State Plan Amendments 24 

Table 9. State Plan Federal Register Publication Dates 24 

APPENDIXES 

Appendix A. States that Received a Waiver of the Original Deadline for 

the Use of Section 102 Funds 

27 

Appendix B. States that Filed a Certification Under Section 251(b)(2) of 

HAVA for Using Requirements Payments to Improve 

the Administration of Elections for Federal Office 

28 

Appendix C. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Appropriate Use of 

Help America Vote Act funds 

29 

Appendix D. Model Standard Forms 269 for Title I, Section 101 and 

102 and Title II, Section 251 Funds 

57 

Appendix E. EAC Formal Advisories on Administration of HAVA Funds 59 
1

INTRODUCTION

 

PURPOSE AND 

SCOPE

This report provides information to the Congress, 

States, and the public about States’ use of HAVA funds 

from April 2003 through December 2006. The funds 

covered by this report were authorized under Sections 

101, 102, and 251 of HAVA. States also received funds 

under Section 261 of HAVA to address the accessibility 

of polling places by individuals with disabilities. The 

Commission did not include Section 261 funds in this 

report because they are administered by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

BACKGROUND Congress passed HAVA, in part, to provide funds to 

States to make election administration improvements 

and to establish the EAC to help in the administration 

of Federal elections. HAVA authorized $3.86 billion for 

distribution to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and 

American Samoa (hereinafter referred to as States). 

Congress appropriated about $3 billion in election 

reform payments under Sections 101, 102, and 251 of 

HAVA. All funds appropriated under these HAVA 

provisions have been distributed to States. 

Title I, Section 101 Funds 

States may use Title I, Section 101 funds to perform 

the following activities: 

 Comply with the requirements of Title III for 

uniform and nondiscriminatory election 

technology and administration requirements. 

 Improve the administration of elections for 

Federal office. 

 Educate voters about voting procedures, voting 

rights, and voting technology. 

 Train election officials, poll workers, and 

election volunteers. 
2

 Develop a State plan for managing 

requirements payments authorized under 

Section 251 of the Act. 

 Improve, acquire, lease, modify, or replace 

voting systems and technology and methods for 

casting and counting votes. 

 Improve the accessibility and quantity of polling 

places. 

 Establish toll-free telephone hotlines that voters 

may use to report possible voting fraud and 

voting rights violations; to obtain general 

election information; and to access detailed 

automated information on their own voter 

registration status, specific polling place 

locations, and other relevant information. 

To qualify for Section 101 funds, States had to certify 

to GSA that they would use the funds consistent with 

the provisions of HAVA. GSA distributed Section 101 

funds to States between April and August of 2003. 

Section 101 funds have no fiscal year limitations. 

Title I, Section 102 Funds 

States may only use Section 102 funds to replace 

punch card and lever voting systems that were in use 

during the November 2000 general Federal election.

To qualify for a Section 102 payment, States had to 

submit a notice to the Administrator of GSA including a 

certification that the State would comply with the 

following requirements: 

 The State would use the payment either 

directly or as a reimbursement for the costs of 

replacing punch card or lever voting systems 

by the required deadline. 

 The State will comply with applicable Federal 

laws. 

 The replacement voting systems would meet 

the requirements of HAVA Section 301. 
3

GSA distributed Section 102 funds to States between 

April and June 2003. In accordance with HAVA Section 

102, these funds were distributed based on the 

number of precincts within an eligible State that used 

punch card or lever voting systems during the 

November 2000 Federal general election. 

States had to replace these voting systems by 

November 2, 2004, unless a State filed for a waiver of 

that deadline with GSA under HAVA Section 

102(a)(3)(B). Twenty-three of the 30 States that 

received Section 102 payments requested and received 

a waiver of the 2004 deadline (see appendix A). 

States that received a waiver from GSA had until the 

first Federal election in the State in 2006 to replace the 

voting systems. On May 25, 2007, Congress extended 

the deadline for the use of Section 102 funds to the 

date of the first Federal election held in a State after 

March 1, 2008.1 However, the extension applies only 

to those States that received a waiver of the 2004 date. 

Section 251 Funds 

States may use Section 251 funds to perform the 

following activities: 

 Implement provisional voting. 

 Provide information to voters in the polling 

place. 

 Procure voting systems that comply with the 

requirements of Title III, Section 301 of HAVA.2

 Develop and implement a computerized 

statewide voter registration list. 

 

1

 The extension is contained in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and 

Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 110-28. 2

 Section 301of HAVA requires voting systems to permit the voter to verify the votes selected 

before the ballot is cast and to change the ballot before the ballot is cast and counted; notify the 

voter if more than a single candidate is selected and the impact of selecting more than one 

candidate, and allow the voter to correct the ballot; provide a voter education system for 

jurisdictions that use paper ballot, punch card, or central count voting systems; produce an 

auditable record, be accessible for individuals with disabilities; provide alternative language 

accessibility; and meet minimum error rates for counting ballots. 
4

 Implement identification requirements for firsttime voters who register to vote by mail. 

 Improve the administration of elections for 

Federal office. 

HAVA Section 251(b)(2) allows States to use Section 

251 funds to improve the administration of elections 

for Federal office if they certify to EAC that they have 

either (1) met the requirements of Title III or (2) will not 

spend more than the amount of the minimum payment 

applicable to the State. The minimum payment amount 

for the 50 States and the District of Columbia is 

currently $11,596,803. The minimum amount for each 

of the four territories covered by HAVA is currently 

$2,319,361. Thirteen States have filed certifications 

under Section 251(b)(2) (see appendix B). 

States qualified for Section 251 payments (also 

referred to as “requirements payments”) if they filed a 

certification with EAC declaring that the State (1) had 

filed and implemented a plan for uniform, 

nondiscriminatory administrative complaint 

procedures required by HAVA Section 402; (2) had 

appropriated matching funds equal to “5 percent of 

the total amount to be spent for such activities (taking 

into account the requirements payment and the 

amount spent by the state). . .”; (3) had, to the extent 

that any portion of the requirements payment be used 

for activities other than meeting the requirements of 

Title III, provided that the proposed uses are not 

inconsistent with the requirements of HAVA Title III 

and are consistent with the usage restrictions set forth 

in Section 251(b); (4) is in compliance with six Federal 

laws3

; and (5) that the State had filed a state plan that 

complies with HAVA requirements listed in Sections 

254, 255, and 256. 

Key parts of the State plan describe how the State will: 

 Use the requirements payments. 

 

3 The laws are the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and 

Handicapped Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter 

Registration Act of 1993, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973.
5

 Distribute and monitor the distribution of the 

payments to local units of government. 

 Establish an election fund for the deposit of 

“Amounts appropriated or otherwise made 

available by the State for carrying out the 

activities for which the requirements payment 

is made . . .,” Federal requirements payments, 

“other amounts appropriated under law,” and 

interest earned on the deposits. 

 “. . . maintain the expenditures of the State for 

activities funded by the payment at a level that 

is not less than the level of such expenditures 

maintained by the State for the fiscal year 

ending prior to November 2000.” 

EAC distributed Section 251 funds to States between 

June 2004 and December 2005. Section 251 funds 

have no fiscal year limitations. 

METHODOLOGY The Commission prepared this report based on 

information that States submitted in and with their 

annual financial reports. 

State Reporting Requirements 

GSA first established the annual financial reporting 

requirements for Section 101 and 102 funds. States 

were required to submit an Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Standard Form 269, Financial Status 

Report for each funding source that presents fiscal 

information such as total outlays, recipient’s share of 

outlays, and Federal share of outlays. States were 

required to file the first report with GSA no later than 

January 21, 2004, and to cover activity from the State’s 

first receipt of Title I funds to December 31, 2003. 

GSA also required each recipient to submit a 

description or list of actual purchases and 

expenditures. 

EAC revised the reporting requirements after it 

assumed oversight of Section 101 and 102 funds in 

2004. EAC continued the requirement for an annual 

report on Standard Form 269 and required States to 

provide the following information:
6

 Detailed lists of expenditures by program, 

function, or task for each authorized 

category of activities in HAVA Sections 

101(b) and 102(a)(2). 

 Numbers, types, and costs of voting 

equipment obtained. 

 An analysis and description of activities 

funded to meet HAVA requirements and how 

such activities conform to the submitted 

State plan. 

These annual reports are due by February 28 of each 

year and must cover the period from January 1 through 

December 31 of the previous year for as long as HAVA 

Section 101 and 102 funds remain in the State’s 

election fund. 

Section 258 of HAVA set the annual financial reporting 

requirement for Section 251 funds. The reports must 

include a narrative that presents the following 

information: 

 A list of expenditures for each category of 

authorized activities. 

 The number and types of voting equipment 

obtained. 

 An analysis and description of activities funded 

to meet HAVA requirements and how such 

activities conform to the state plan. 

These narrative reports and Standard Forms 269 are 

due March 30 of each year and must cover the previous 

Federal fiscal year (October 1 through September 30) 

for as long as Section 251 funds remain. 

EAC Report Preparation 

The data presented in this report is based on 

information States submitted in annual reports 

covering 2003 through 2006. To identify expenditures 

of HAVA funds, EAC primarily used the total Federal 

share of net outlays reported on the Standard Form 
7

269. This amount includes both expenditures and 

unliquidated obligations.4

 To categorize expenditures 

by type of authorized HAVA activity, EAC mainly 

extracted information from State narrative reports. 

It should be noted that some States did not submit all 

required annual reports; failed to uniformly complete 

Standard Form 269; did not provide supporting 

information that presented expenditures by category of 

HAVA authorized activities; or did not relate their 

expenditures to their State plan. Further, some States 

did not report the amount of State matching funds 

expended or the amount of interest earned on Federal 

and matching funds deposited in the State election 

funds. 

EAC sent letters to 52 States requesting that they 

clarify reports filed from 2004 through 2006. All but 

five States responded to these requests, but some of 

the data was still inconsistent and incomplete. 

Consequently, the information in this report is 

qualified to the extent that some States did not submit 

all required reports or did not report all required 

information. EAC has not yet requested corrections for 

reports filed in 2007. 

SUMMARY Overall, States have spent 60 percent ($1,781,943,111) 

of HAVA funds received ($2,968,860,616). Also, 60 

percent of States have expended more than 50 percent 

of their HAVA funds. In contrast, five States have spent 

less than 10 percent of their HAVA funds. These five 

States, however, account for approximately 27 percent 

($365,263,991) of the unexpended funds 

($1,339,389,395). A financial summary of HAVA 

payments to States, State expenditures, and balance of 

unspent funds is presented in Table 1. 

 

4

 Unliquidated obligations represent the amount of grants/contracts awarded or orders placed for which 

payments have not been made. 
8

Table 1. Total HAVA Sections 101, 102, and 251 Funds 1 of 2 

Received by States; Total State Expenditures 

of HAVA Funds; and Remaining Balance of 

Funds and Interest 

State 

Total HAVA 

Funds 

Received Expendeda 

Percentage 

of Funds 

Expended Balanceb 

Alabama $40,907,194 $12,947,460 31.65 $29,651,133 

Alaska 16,596,803 8,006,393 48.24 10,367,582

American Samoa 3,319,361 3,371,840 101.58 0

Arizona 47,600,072 13,740,471 28.87 37,432,722

Arkansas 27,761,472 16,423,388 59.16 14,365,587

California 348,900,661 280,638,373 80.44 78,030,487

Colorado 41,582,761 22,849,704 54.95 22,157,712

Connecticut 32,719,501 3,096,045 9.46 34,936,789

Delaware 16,596,803 7,735,905 46.61 9,374,974

District of Columbia 16,596,803 4,918,303 29.63 12,909,938

Florida 158,531,048 73,304,281 46.24 94,244,933

Georgia 77,304,946 73,140,615 94.61 5,324,478

Guam 3,319,361 1,866,693 56.24 1,452,668

Hawaii 16,596,803 6,191,808 37.31 10,674,907

Idaho 16,596,803 8,741,234 52.67 8,755,567

Illinois 143,529,899 94,511,610 65.85 55,379,615

Indiana 64,297,862 56,297,878 87.56 8,078,612

Iowa 28,739,383 24,232,850 84.32 4,662,077

Kansas 26,409,789 19,275,443 72.99 9,140,051

Kentucky 38,067,744 19,355,672 50.85 20,726,784

Louisiana 47,330,777 34,859,102 73.65 15,287,651

Maine 16,596,803 3,321,221 20.01 13,275,584

Maryland 49,752,770 35,713,473 71.78 17,297,799

Massachusetts 60,332,104 5,276,401 8.75 58,995,914

Michigan 94,699,081 67,003,920 70.75 32,459,061

Minnesota 44,492,574 37,688,821 84.71 6,690,119

Mississippi 27,869,654 20,139,498 72.26 9,171,324

Missouri 62,262,661 45,773,331 73.52 20,105,989

Montana 16,596,803 13,264,106 79.92 3,595,165

Nebraska 18,749,549 14,690,310 78.35 5,046,964

Nevada 21,166,810 12,497,029 59.04 9,359,448

New Hampshire 16,596,803 335,689 2.02 16,596,803

New Jersey 84,904,403 55,933,253 65.88 28,519,543

New Mexico 19,279,790 14,123,471 73.26 9,014,194

New York 219,512,672 3,144,170 1.43 224,694,515

North Carolina 74,259,370 49,200,344 66.25 33,102,811

North Dakota 16,596,803 8,367,713 50.42 8,838,732

Ohio 132,045,112 131,682,814 99.73 8,613,372

Oklahoma 32,659,638 2,619,668 8.02 30,039,970

Oregon 33,863,940 13,993,020 41.32 20,230,033

Pennsylvania 134,818,949 124,793,466 92.56 26,155,774

Puerto Rico 5,470,505 922,763 16.87 5,023,981

Rhode Island 16,596,803 14,117,981 85.06 2,478,822

South Carolinac 39,241,210 40,362,239 102.86 3,684,755

South Dakota 16,596,803 5,635,898 33.96 11,702,173

Tennessee 54,714,608 21,048,399 38.47 37,009,309

Texas 184,168,065 128,504,360 69.78 64,292,305

Utah 25,284,969 22,708,000 89.81 4,115,977
9

Table 1. Total HAVA Sections 101, 102, and 251 Funds 2 of 2 

Received by States; Total State Expenditures 

of HAVA Funds; and Remaining Balance of 

Funds and Interest 

State 

Total HAVA 

Funds 

Received Expendeda 

Percentage 

of Funds 

Expended Balanceb 

Vermont $16,596,803 $2,692,784 16.22 $15,030,010

Virgin Islands 3,319,361 1,286,780 38.77 2,444,869

Virginia 69,121,820 35,308,415 51.08 37,064,507

Washington 60,093,850 26,081,858 43.40 37,116,984

West Virginia 20,630,100 12,934,539 62.70 8,768,045 

Wisconsin 50,066,781 17,948,603 35.85 35,293,708 

Wyoming 16,596,803 7,323,706 44.13 10,606,567 

 

Total 2,968,860,616 1,781,943,111 60.02 1,339,389,395 

a Expenditures include cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations. For Sections 101 and 102, 

the expenditures are as of December 31, 2006. For Section 251, the expenditures are as of September 

31, 2006.

b The balance is greater than the difference between funds received and expenditures in most cases 

because it includes interest earned on funds deposited in State election fund accounts. 

c South Carolina reported that it overspent its Section 251 funds which resulted in total expenditures 

exceeding funds received. The balance shown in this table consists of remaining Section 101 and 102 

funds. 
10

DISTRIBUTION, EXPENDITURE, AND USE OF HAVA 

FUNDS

DISTRIBUTION AND 

EXPENDITURE

The amount of HAVA funds received, expended 

and the balance available by State are presented in 

Tables 2, 3, and 4 for HAVA Section 101, 102, and 

251 funds, respectively. 

Table 2. Receipt and Expenditure of HAVA Section 

101 Funds as of December 31, 2006 1 of 2 

 Amounts 

State Received Expendeda Balanceb 

Alabama $4,989,605 $1,102,215 $4,147,912 

Alaska 5,000,000 3,296,543c 2,853,704 

American Samoa 1,000,000 1,052,479 0 

Arizona 5,451,369 2,095,600 3,654,990 

Arkansas 3,593,165 3,892,935d 35,445 

California 27,340,830 24,900,973 2,439,857 

Colorado 4,860,301 1,665,713 3,717,849 

Connecticut 5,000,000 2,325,801 2,989,558 

Delaware 5,000,000 3,649,491 1,666,805 

District of Columbia 5,000,000 1,963,129 3,652,590 

Florida 14,447,580 11,872,342 3,644,953 

Georgia 7,816,328 6,901,893 1,558,359 

Guame,f 1,000,000 53,276 946,724 

Hawaiig 5,000,000 433,148 4,566,852 

Idaho 5,000,000 800,649 4,315,123 

Illinois 11,129,030 8,560,626 4,473,936 

Indiana 6,230,481 1,629,249 4,601,232 

Iowa 5,000,000 5,155,544 0 

Kansas 5,000,000 1,139,045 4,958,650 

Kentucky 4,699,196 325,730 4,845,170 

Louisiana 4,911,421 1,525,961 3,704,794 

Maineg 5,000,000 2,798,214 2,201,788 

Maryland 5,636,731 1,539,510 4,563,270 

Massachusetts 6,590,381 2,719,041 4,153,243 

Michigan 9,207,323 2,194,720 7,689,955 

Minnesota 5,313,786 5,313,786 0 

Mississippi 3,673,384 1,977,155 2,064,795 

Missouri 5,875,170 2,479,354 3,812,817 

Montana 5,000,000 3,384,175 1,421,407 

Nebraska 5,000,000 2,379,019 3,231,199 

Nevada 5,000,000 3,364,295h 1,874,529 

New Hampshiree 5,000,000 130,758 5,000,000 

New Jersey 8,141,208 2,942,585 5,198,623 

New Mexico 5,000,000 8,121,734 0 

New York 16,494,325 3,000,866 14,861,591 

North Carolina 7,887,740 6,823,759 1,535,420 

North Dakota 5,000,000 5,067,675 0 

Ohio 10,384,931 10,384,931 401,918 
11

Table 2. Receipt and Expenditure of HAVA Section 

101 Funds as of December 31, 2006 2 of 2 

Amounts

State Received Expendeda Balanceb 

Oklahoma $5,000,000 $712,756 $4,287,244 

Oregon 4,203,776 4,262,975 0 

Pennsylvania 11,323,168 10,937,961 1,473,509 

Puerto Rico 3,151,144 761,770 2,666,264 

Rhode Island 5,000,000 4,738,672 261,328 

South Carolinaf 4,652,412 1,520,877 3,434,231 

South Dakota 5,000,000 729,795 4,696,163 

Tennessee 6,004,507 829,020 5,526,329 

Texas 17,206,595 6,191,672 12,876,462 

Utah 3,090,943 1,379,319 2,065,322 

Vermont 5,000,000 2,692,784 2,668,024 

Virgin Islandsi 1,000,000 941,408 58,592 

Virginia 7,105,890 1,829,815 5,818,174 

Washington 6,098,449 6,357,496 0 

West Virginia 2,977,057 2,495,358 543,973 

Wisconsin 5,694,036 1,260,669 4,753,648 

Wyoming 5,000,000 789,779 4,903,336 

Total 349,182,262 197,396,045 176,817,659 

 

a

Expenditures include cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations. 

b

The balance is greater than the difference between funds received and expenditures in 

most cases because it includes interest earned on funds deposited in State election fund 

accounts. In those cases where states spent more than received, we reported a zero 

balance to avoid distorting the overall balance of funds remaining for other States. 

c

We increased by $7033 Alaska’s reported expenditures of $3,289,510 to account for all 

expenditures Alaska identified in its supporting narrative report. 

d

We increased by $6,714 Arkansas’ reported expenditures of $3,892,935 to account for 

all expenditures Arkansas identified in its supporting narrative report.

e

Guam reported on a fiscal year instead of calendar year (CY) basis for 2004. f

No current report; data is from the report for 2004.

g

No current report filed; data is from CY 2005 report. 

h

We increased by $20,051 Nevada’s reported expenditures of $3,344,244 to account for 

expenditures Nevada identified in its supporting narrative report. 

i

We allocated costs to Sections 101 and 251 on the basis of financial and narrative 

reports for 101 funds because the Virgin Islands incorrectly reported both Section 101 

and 251 funds in a report for Section101 funds. 
12

Table 3. Receipt and Expenditure of HAVA Section 

102 Funds as of December 31, 2006 1 of 2 

 Amounts 

State Received Expendeda Balanceb 

Alabama $51,076 $919 $52,824 

Alaska 0 0 0 

American Samoa 0 0 0 

Arizona 1,564,188 2,364,188 0 

Arkansas 2,569,737 226,648 2,226,422 

California 57,322,707 57,322,708 0 

Colorado 2,177,095 2,323,852 0 

Connecticut 0 0 0 

Delaware 0 0 0 

District of Columbia 0 0 0 

Florida 11,581,377 11,581,377 36,029 

Georgia 4,740,448 4,740,448 0 

Guam 0 0 0 

Hawaii 0 0 0 

Idaho 0 0 0 

Illinois 33,805,617 33,669,568 136,049 

Indiana 9,522,394 9,601,022 0 

Iowa 0 0 0 

Kansas 0 0 0 

Kentucky 469,256 469,229 17,549 

Louisiana 7,351,684 7,545,474 0 

Maine 0 0 0 

Maryland 1,637,609 1,637,609 0 

Massachusetts 1,519,497 1,446,076 73,421 

Michigan 6,531,284 6,432,323 446,182 

Minnesota 0 0 0 

Mississippi 1,778,067 1,883,992 0 

Missouri 11,472,841 12,119,621 0 

Montana 0 0 0 

Nebraska 0 0 0 

Nevada 0 0 0 

New Hampshire 0 0 0 

New Jersey 8,695,609 8,695,609 0 

New Mexico 0 0 0 

New York 49,603,917 0 54,791,749 

North Carolina 893,822 893,822 0 

North Dakota 0 0 0 

Ohio 30,667,664 31,854,565 0 

Oklahoma 0 0 0 

Oregon 1,822,758 1,711,406 111,352 

Pennsylvania 22,916,952 22,998,677 4,132,527 

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 

Rhode Island 0 0 0 

South Carolina 2,167,518 1,998,330 250,524 

South Dakota 0 0 0 

Tennessee 2,473,971 2,608,630 0 

Texas 6,269,521 6,266,685 2,836 

Utah 5,726,844 4,238,301 2,050,655 

Vermont 0 0 0 

Virgin Islands 0 0 0 

Virginia 4,526,569 4,625,702 111,636 
13

Table 3. Receipt and Expenditure of HAVA Section 

102 Funds as of December 31, 2006 2 of 2 

Amounts 

State Received Expendeda Balanceb 

Washington $6,799,430 $5,412,157 $1,799,988 

West Virginia 2,349,474 2,460,605 0 

Wisconsin 1,308,810 781,679 637,272 

Wyoming 0 0 0 

Total $300,317,736 $247,911,222 $66,877,015 a

Expenditures include cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations. As applicable, 

States were able to spend more than they received because of interest earned on funds 

deposited in State election fund accounts.

b

The balance is greater than the difference between funds received and expenditures in 

most cases because it includes interest earned on funds deposited in State election fund 

accounts. In those cases where states spent more than received, we reported a zero 

balance to avoid distorting the overall balance of funds remaining for other States.

Table 4. Receipt and Expenditure of HAVA Section 

251 Funds as of September 30, 2006 1 of 2 

 Amounts 

State Received Expendeda Balanceb

Alabama $35,866,513 $11,844,326 $25,450,397

Alaska 11,596,803 4,709,850 7,513,878

American Samoa 2,319,361 2,319,361 0

Arizona 40,584,515 9,280,683 33,777,732

Arkansas 21,598,570 12,303,805 12,103,720

California 264,237,124 198,414,692 75,590,630

Colorado 34,545,365 18,860,139 18,439,863

Connecticut 27,719,501 770,244 31,947,231

Delaware 11,596,803 4,086,414 7,708,169

District of Columbia 11,596,803 2,955,174 9,257,348

Florida 132,502,091 49,850,562 90,563,951

Georgia 64,748,170 61,498,274 3,766,119

Guamc 2,319,361 1,813,417 505,944

Hawaii 11,596,803 5,758,660 6,108,055

Idaho 11,596,803 7,940,585 4,440,444

Illinois 98,595,252 52,281,416 50,769,630

Indiana 48,544,987 45,067,607 3,477,380

Iowa 23,739,383 19,077,306 4,662,077

Kansas 21,409,789 18,136,398d 4,181,401

Kentucky 32,899,292 18,560,713 15,864,065

Louisiana 35,067,672 25,787,667 11,582,857

Mainee 11,596,803 523,007 11,073,796

Maryland 42,478,430 32,536,354 12,734,529

Massachusetts 52,222,226 1,111,284 54,769,250

Michigan 78,960,474 58,376,877 24,322,924

Minnesota 39,178,788 32,375,035 6,690,119

Mississippi 22,418,203 16,278,351 7,106,529

Missouri 44,914,650 31,174,356 16,293,172

Montana 11,596,803 9,879,931 2,173,758

Nebraska 13,749,549 12,311,291 1,815,765

Nevada 16,166,810 9,132,734 7,484,919

New Hampshiref 11,596,803 204,931 11,596,803

New Jersey 68,067,586 44,295,059g 23,320,920
14

Table 4. Receipt and Expenditure of HAVA 

Section 251 Funds as of September 

30, 2006 

2 of 2 

Amounts 

State Received Expendeda Balanceb

New Mexico $14,279,790 $6,001,737 $9,014,194

New York 153,414,430 143,304 155,041,175

North Carolina 65,477,808 41,482,763 31,567,391

North Dakota 11,596,803 3,300,038 8,838,732

Ohio 90,992,517 89,443,318 8,211,454

Oklahoma 27,659,638 1,906,912 25,752,726

Oregon 27,837,406 8,018,639 20,118,681

Pennsylvania 100,578,829 90,856,828 20,549,738

Puerto Rico 2,319,361 160,993 2,357,717

Rhode Island 11,596,803 9,379,309 2,217,494

South Carolinaf 32,421,280 36,843,032 0

South Dakota 11,596,803 4,906,103 7,006,010

Tennessee 46,236,130 17,610,749 31,482,980

Texas 160,691,949 116,046,003 51,413,007

Utah 16,467,182 17,090,380 0

Vermont 11,596,803 0 12,361,986

Virgin Islandsh 2,319,361 345,372 2,386,277

Virginia 57,489,361 28,852,898 31,134,697

Washington 47,195,971 14,312,205 35,316,996

West Virginia 15,303,569 7,978,576 8,224,072

Wisconsin 43,063,935 15,906,255 29,902,788

Wyoming 11,596,803 6,533,927 5,703,231

Total 2,319,360,617 1,336,635,844 1,095,694,721

 

a

Expenditures include cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations. As applicable, States 

were able to spend more than they received because of interest earned on funds deposited in 

State election fund accounts.

b

The balance is greater than the difference between funds received and expenditures in most 

cases because it includes interest earned on funds deposited in State election fund accounts. 

In those cases where states spent more than received, we reported a zero balance to avoid 

distorting the overall balance of funds remaining for other States.

c

Guam reported on a fiscal year instead of calendar year (CY) basis for 2004. Also, Guam did 

not file a current report; data is from the report for 2004. 

d

We decreased by $953,957 Kansas’ reported expenditures of $19,090,355 to exclude state 

matching costs. 

e

No current report filed; data is from fiscal (FY) 2005 report. 

f

No current report filed; data is from FY 2004 report 

g

We decreased by $451,607 New Jersey’s reported expenditures of $44,746,666 to account 

for matching costs and an error in carrying forward prior period expenditures. 

h

We allocated costs to Sections 101 and 251 on the basis of financial and narrative reports for 

101 funds because the Virgin Islands incorrectly reported both Section 101 and 251 funds in 

a report for Section 101 funds. 
15

USE OF HAVA

FUNDS

Reported use of HAVA funds disclosed the following 

information: 

 Seventy-six percent ($1,349,305,518) of the 

total reported expenditures ($1,781,941,110) 

were used for voting systems and statewide 

voter registration lists that comply with the 

requirements of HAVA Sections 301 and 303. 

 Sixteen percent ($287,644,904) of reported 

expenditures were used to improve the 

administration of Federal elections. This 

category includes expenses related to 

educating voters; creating a HAVA State plan; 

training election officials and poll workers; 

establishing voter hotlines; administering 

HAVA programs; improving polling place 

accessibility; establishing administrative 

complaint procedures; and other 

improvements. Voter education programs, 

used primarily to educate voters about new 

voting systems in the States, accounted for 

more than 26 percent ($75,660,888) of 

expenditures in this category. 

 Eight percent ($143,437,956) of reported 

expenditures were classified as uncategorized. 

The majority of this amount are unliquidated 

obligations, which State reports did not specify 

the nature of the obligations. 

 Less than one-tenth of one percent ($305,948) 

of all reported expenditures were used for 

meeting the Section 302 requirements 

regarding provisional voting and voter 

information postings at the polls. 

Table 5 presents a breakdown of total reported 

expenditures among the various activities authorized 

by HAVA. 
16

Table 5. Use of HAVA Funds

 Expenditures 

Description of 

Funds Usage 

Section 

101 

Section 

102 

Section 

251 Total 

Percent of 

Total for all 

Usage 

Voting systems $38,527,650 $247,911,222 $834,765,416 $1,121,204,287 62.92

Voter registration 

databases 32,878,231 0 195,223,000 228,101,231 12.80

Provisional voting 424,686 0 824,097 1,248,783 00.07

Voter information 

poll postings 49,060 0 204,703 253,763 00.01

IDs for first-time 

registrants 52,185 0 0 52,185 00.00

Improving the 

Administration of 

Federal Elections 91,164,800 0 196,480,104 287,644,904 16.15

Uncatagorizedc 34,299,431 0 109,138,525 143,437,956 08.05

 Total 197,396,043 247,911,222 1,336,635,845 1,781,941,110 100.00
17

OVERSIGHT OF HAVA FUNDS

EAC

ASSISTANCE

EAC and GSA informed States of the Federal 

administrative requirements that apply to HAVA funds. 

States were advised that they had to manage funds in 

accordance with the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

to States and Local Governments (the Common Rule); 

incur costs in accordance with OMB Circular A-87; and 

obtain audits in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. 

The Common Rule prescribes the minimum standards 

for administering Federal funds in areas such as 

accounting, purchasing, and property management. 

OMB Circular A-87 describes allowable costs and how 

they should be supported; while Circular A-133 

requires States and counties to obtain an audit of all 

their Federal assistance each year they spend more 

than $500,000 of Federal funds. 

To help States meet these requirements and the 

provisions of HAVA, the Commission performed the 

following activities: 

 Posted on www.eac.gov a guide for managing, 

recordkeeping, reporting and auditing funds. 

 Presented training on using and accounting 

for HAVA funds in conjunction with the 

National Association of Secretaries of State 

and the National Association of State Election 

Directors meetings. 

 Presented training on the negotiation of 

indirect cost rates. 

 Negotiated indirect cost rates with States. 

 Responded to questions from State 

administrators about the appropriate uses 

and reporting of HAVA funds. 

 Posted on www.eac.gov a list of frequently 

asked questions on reporting requirements 

and the proper use of HAVA funds (see 

appendix C). 
18

 Mailed to the States and posted on 

www.eac.gov sample Standard Forms 269 for 

reporting Title I, Section 101 and 102 and 

Title II, Section 251 funds, and sample 

narratives showing supporting information 

(see appendix D). 

 Published formal advisories on www.eac.gov

on maintaining effort when using 

requirements payments, treating income 

earned on HAVA funds, accounting for 

interest earned on HAVA funds, calculating 

the 5-percent matching requirement, and 

using county funds to match requirements 

payments (see appendix E). 

 Sent annual reminders to States about their 

reporting responsibilities. 

 Established a comprehensive, uniform review 

process for annual State financial reports. 

 Reviewed and resolved audits of HAVA funds 

prepared by State auditors and the EAC Office 

of Inspector General (OIG). Resolution 

documents are available at www.eac.gov.

Office of 

Inspector 

General 

Operations 

In accordance with Section 812 of HAVA, EAC 

established an Office of Inspector General on August 9, 

2005. According to the Inspector General Act, 

inspectors general shall do the following activities: 

 Audit and investigate agency programs and 

operations including programs carried out 

with HAVA funds by States and independent 

contractors. 

 Promote economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness in agency programs and 

operations. 

 Prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement of government resources. 
19

 Inform the agency head, management, and 

the Congress about problems and 

deficiencies in agency operations, and the 

progress of corrective action. 

Through December 2006, the OIG audits focused on 

State administration of HAVA Section 101, 102, and 

251 funds. The OIG issued 11 final reports on States 

that reported some of the largest expenditures of 

HAVA funds. The audited States reported more than 

59 percent of total reported expenditures of Section 

101, 102, and 251 funds through December 31, 2006. 

Table 6 lists the States audited as of June 8, 2007, 

amounts audited, reported expenditures, and HAVA 

funds received. 

Table 6. Office of Inspector General Audits of States

HAVA Funds Audited 

State Amount As of 

Reported 

Expenditures 

Total HAVA 

Funds 

Received 

California $14,922,867 12/31/04 $280,638,373 $348,900,661

New Jersey 16,771,106 12/31/05 55,933,253 84,904,403

Texas 29,912,682 12/31/05 128,504,360 184,168,065

Georgia 63,562,054 12/31/05 73,140,615 77,304,946

Pennsylvania 17,459,399 12/31/05 124,793,466 134,818,949

Illinois 30,090,394 12/31/05 94,511,610 143,529,899

Maryland 26,683,205 12/31/05 35,713,473 49,752,770

South Carolina 35,165,678 12/31/05 40,362,239 39,241,280

Ohio 114,741,683 6/30/06 131,682,814 131,682,814

Virginia 33,270,545 8/31/06 35,308,415 69,121,820

Indiana 56,297,878 8/31/06 56,297,878 64,297,862

 438,877,491 1,056,886,496 1,327,723,469
20

The 11 audits identified the potential return of funds 

used for questionable purposes and additional 

program funds from under-matching and lost interest 

of about $14.6 million, as shown in Table 7. 

Table 7. Disposition of Audit Findings with Dollar Impacts, 

December 2005 Through June 2007 

Audit Findings 

Agency Resolution of 

Findings 

State 

Questioned 

Expenditures 

Additional 

Fundsa Total Sustainedb Reinstatedc 

CA $3,860,361 $0 $3,860,361 $3,021,114 $839,247

NJ 131,924 0 131,924 64,514 67,410

TX 180,609 0 180,609 180,609 0

GA 0 0 0 0 0

PA 526,513 0 526,513 Pending 

IL 3,889 453,290 457,179 Pending 

MD 250,554 0 250,554 Pending 

SC 95,206 114,794 210,000 Pending 

OH 875 6,800,000 6,800,875 Pending 

IN 0 2,222,955 2,222,955 Pending 

VA 0 0 0 0 0

 

 Total 5,049,931 9,591,039 14,640,925 3,266,237 906,657

 

a

Additional funds consist principally of added matching funds and interest on matching funds that a 

State did not deposit into its election fund. 

b

Sustained findings consists of findings which with EAC agreed with the OIG. To resolve sustained 

expenditures/additional funds, States must repay either the State election fund or the U.S. Treasury. c

Reinstated expenditures/funds consist of findings in which the State provided subsequent information 

sufficient to justify its use of the expenditures/funds or otherwise justify its actions.

 In addition to the completed audits listed above, audits 

started to date during the 2007 Federal fiscal year are 

in process in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Missouri, 

Kentucky, and Wyoming. Generally, the OIG schedules 

States for audit on the basis of the highest amount of 

reported expenditures and will continue this strategy 

until all States are audited. 
21

STATE MATCHING FUNDS

 

MATCHING 

REQUIREMENT 

FOR SECTION 

251 FUNDS

States must certify that they have appropriated 

matching funds as a condition for receiving Section 

251 requirements payments. In that regard, Section 

253(b)(5) of HAVA stipulates that the State match must 

equal 5 percent of the State’s total program (“taking 

into account the requirements payment and the 

amount spent by the State”). A State’s matching 

requirement (for example Alabama’s) is computed as 

follows: (1) the State’s total requirements payment of 

$35,866,513 is divided by 95 percent to determine the 

total program amount of $37,754,225 and (2) the total 

program of $37,754,225 is multiplied by 5 percent to 

compute the matching requirement of $1,877,712. 

The total matching requirement for all States is 

$122,071,611. 

Although HAVA requires States receiving requirements 

payments to match those funds, 48 U.S.C. §1469(a)(d) 

provides a waiver to the United States Virgin Islands, 

Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American 

Samoa for all Federal matching funds under $200,000. 

This statute requires the EAC to grant an automatic 

waiver of the first $200,000 in matching HAVA funds 

to the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. 

Although the current matching requirement for these 

territories is $122,072, this amount may increase 

based on future appropriations of requirements 

payments by Congress. In addition, the EAC must 

consider on a case-by-case basis whether to grant a 

waiver of matching funds in excess of $200,000 to the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. 

Although exempt from the matching requirement, 

Guam reported expending $790,015 in matching funds 

as of December 31, 2006. 

As shown on Table 8, the total State expenditures of 

$222,545,545 exceeds the matching requirement of 

$122,071,611. This occurred because 14 States 

contributed in excess of their individual matching 

requirement. For example, Maryland’s matching 

requirement is $2,235,707, but it reported the 

expenditure of State funds totaling $54,140,189. 

 
22

In contrast, information reported by 41 States indicates 

that they need to contribute a total of $58,912,622 

(total matching requirement of $122,071,611 less 

matching contributions of $63,158,989) to meet their 

matching requirement. Table 8 presents details on the 

status of each State’s expenditure of matching funds. 

Table 8. STATUS OF STATE MATCHING FUNDS 1 of 2

 Amount 

State 

Section 251 

Payments 

State Matching 

Requirementa 

Reported 

Expenditure of 

State Funds 

Expenditures 

Applicable to 

Matching 

Alabama $35,866,513 $1,887,712 $623,386 $623,386

Alaska 11,596,803 610,358 767,760 610,358

American Samoa 2,319,361 122,072 0 0

Arizona 40,584,515 2,136,027 1,822,933 1,822,933

Arkansas 21,598,570 1,136,767 0 0

California 264,237,124 13,907,217 99,997,305 13,907,217

Colorado 34,545,365 1,818,177 558,596 558,596

Connecticut 27,719,501 1,458,921 1,387,089 1,387,089

Delaware 11,596,803 610,358 0 0

District of Columbia 11,596,803 610,358 572,000 572,000

Florida 132,502,091 6,973,794 1,925,394 1,925,394

Georgia 64,748,170 3,407,798 2,865,571 2,865,571

Guam 2,319,361 122,072 $790,015 122,072

Hawaii 11,596,803 610,358 631,633 610,358

Idaho 11,596,803 610,358 2,072,413 610,358

Illinois 98,595,252 5,189,224 6,721,153 5,189,224

Indiana 48,544,987 2,554,999 0 0

Iowa 23,739,383 1,249,441 765,000 765,000

Kansas 21,409,789 1,126,831 953,957 953,957

Kentucky 32,899,292 1,731,542 976,880 976,880

Louisiana 35,067,672 1,845,667 2,437,803 1,845,667

Maine 11,596,803 610,358 45,262 45,262

Maryland 42,478,430 2,235,707 54,140,189 2,235,707

Massachusetts 52,222,226 2,748,538 0 0

Michigan 78,960,474 4,155,814 3,072,468 3,072,468

Minnesota 39,178,788 2,062,041 3,029,018 2,062,04

Mississippi 22,418,203 1,179,905 856,755 856,755

Missouri 44,914,650 2,363,929 2,363,929 2,363,929

Montana 11,596,803 610,358 216,480 216,480

Nebraska 13,749,549 723,660 0 0

Nevada 16,166,810 850,885 509,498 509,498

New Hampshire 11,596,803 610,358 0 0

New Jersey 68,067,586 3,582,504 516,013 516,013

New Mexico 14,279,790 751,568 11,000,000 751,568

New York 153,414,430 8,074,444 7,542 7,542

North Carolina 65,477,808 3,446,200 0 0

North Dakota 11,596,803 610,358 0 0

Ohio 90,992,517 4,789,080 5,800,000 4,789,080

Oklahoma 27,659,638 1,455,770 338,290 338,290
23

Table 8. STATUS OF STATE MATCHING FUNDS 2 of 2

Amount 

State 

Section 251 

Payments 

State Matching 

Requirementa 

Reported 

Expenditure of 

State Funds 

Expenditures 

Applicable to 

Matching 

Oregon 27,837,406 1,465,127 602,670 602,670

Pennsylvania $100,578,829 $5,293,623 $0 $0

Puerto Rico 2,319,361 122,072 0 0

Rhode Island 11,596,803 610,358 0 0

South Carolina 32,421,280 1,706,383 0 0

South Dakota 11,596,803 610,358 165,160 165,160

Tennessee 46,236,130 2,433,481 926,882 926,882

Texas 160,691,949 8,457,471 6,092,210 6,092,210

Utah 16,467,181 866,694 899,494 866,694

Vermont 11,596,803 610,358 702,438 610,358

Virgin Islands 2,319,361 $122,072 0 0 

Virginia 57,489,361 3,025,756 0 0 

Washington 47,195,971 2,483,998 2,359,799 2,359,799 

West Virginia 15,303,569 805,451 0 0 

Wisconsin 43,063,935 2,266,523 2,452,730 2,266,523

Wyoming 11,596,803 610,358 579,840 579,840

 Total 2,319,360,617 122,071,611 222,545,545 63,158,989
24

STATE PLANS

STATE PLAN 

AMENDMENTS

To obtain Section 251 requirements payments, HAVA 

mandated that a State submit a plan describing how 

funds will be used. In addition, States are prohibited 

by Section 254(a)(11) of HAVA from making a material 

change in the administration of the State plan unless 

(1) a committee of stakeholders (such as local election 

officials and representatives of groups with disabilities) 

has revised its State plan in accordance with Section 

255; (2) the State has completed a 30-day public 

comment period in accordance with Section 256; and 

(3) EAC has published the revised state plan in the 

Federal Register for another 30 days in accordance 

with Section 255(b). 

Thirty States have revised their State plans since the 

initial publication of those plans in the Federal Register

in March 2004. In addition, eight States certified that 

they will use Section 251 funds to improve the 

administration of elections for Federal office (see 

Appendix B), but have not updated their plans to 

reflect this change in planned expenditures since 

submitting the certifications. Table 9 shows the 

original and revised dates that State plans were 

published in the Federal Register. State plans may be 

accessed on www.eac.gov. 

Table 9. State Plan Federal Register Publication 

Dates as of May 15, 2007 1 of 3 

State 

Original Plan 

Publication Datea

Additional Plan 

Publication Date(s)a 

Number of 

Revisions 

Alabama March 24, 2004 None 0 

Alaska March 24, 2004 April 7, 2005 1 

American Samoa March 24, 2004 June 29, 2006 1 

Arizona March 24, 2004 None 0 

Arkansas March 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 1 

Californiab March 24, 2004 September 30, 2004 1 

Colorado March 24, 2004 None 0 

Connecticut March 24, 2004 None 0 

Delaware March 24, 2004 October 27, 2005 1 

District of Columbia March 24, 2004 None 0 

Floridac March 24, 2004 September 30, 2004 1 

Georgia March 24, 2004 None 0 

Guam March 24, 2004 None 0 

Hawaii March 24, 2004 None 0 
25

Table 9. State Plan Federal Register Publication 

Dates as of May 15, 2007 2 of 3 

State 

Original Plan 

Publication Datea

Additional Plan 

Publication Date(s)a

Number of 

Revisions

Idaho March 24, 2004 None 0 

Illinoisb March 24, 2004 December 22, 2004; 

September 28, 2006 2 

Indiana March 24, 2004 September 28, 2006 1 

Iowa March 24, 2004 June 29, 2005 1 

Kansas March 24, 2004 September 30, 2004 1 

Kentucky March 24, 2004 February 27, 2007 1 

Louisiana March 24, 2004 September 28, 2006 1 

Maine March 24, 2004 None 0 

Maryland March 24, 2004 February 27, 2006 1 

Massachusetts March 24, 2004 None 0 

Michigan March 24, 2004 November 16, 2005 1 

Minnesota March 24, 2004 None 0 

Mississippi March 24, 2004 June 29, 2005 1 

Missouri March 24, 2004 None 0 

Montana March 24, 2004 August 25, 2005 1 

Nebraska March 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 1 

Nevadac March 24, 2004 September 30, 2004; 

August 25, 2005 2 

New Hampshire March 24, 2004 None 0 

New Jerseyb March 24, 2004 None 0 

New Mexico March 24, 2004 None 0 

New York March 24, 2004 None 0 

North Carolinab March 24, 2004 June 29, 2005 1 

North Dakota March 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 1 

New Mexico March 24, 2004 None 0 

Ohiob March 24, 2004 April 7, 2005 1 

Oklahomab March 24, 2004 March 11, 2005 1 

Oregonb March 24, 2004 None 0 

Pennsylvania March 24, 2004 September 30, 2004; 

September 30, 2005 2 

Puerto Rico March 24, 2004 January 24, 2005; 

February 27, 2006 2 

Rhode Island March 24, 2004 None 0 

South Carolina March 24, 2004 

September 30, 2004; 

August 25, 2005; 

September 28, 2006 

3 

South Dakotab March 24, 2004 March 11, 2005 1 

Tennessee March 24, 2004 September 30, 2004 1 

Texas March 24, 2004 March 11, 2005 1 

Utah March 24, 2004 None 0 

Vermont March 24, 2004 None 0 

Virgin Islands March 24, 2004 None 0 

Virginia March 24, 2004 September 12, 2005; 

September 28, 2006 2 

Washington March 24, 2004 None 0 

West Virginia March 24, 2004 February 1, 2006 1 

Wisconsin March 24, 2004 None 0 
26

Table 9. State Plan Federal Register Publication 

Dates as of May 15, 2007 

3 of 3 

State 

Original Plan 

Publication Datea

Additional Plan 

Publication Date(s)a

Number of 

Revisions

Wyoming March 24, 2004 None 0 

a

Revised State plans are effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. b

State submitted a certification regarding Section 251 funds subsequent to the last revision 

and publication of the State plan. 

c

State recently submitted a revised State plan to EAC but the plan has not yet been published 

in the Federal Register.
27

APPENDIX A 

STATES THAT RECEIVED A WAIVER OF THE ORIGINAL 

DEADLINE FOR THE USE OF SECTION 102 FUNDS 

No. State Date of Waiver 

 

1 Arkansas December 23, 2003 

2 California December 23, 2003 

3 Colorado December 23, 2003 

4 Illinois July 8, 2003 

5 Indiana December 29, 2003 

6 Kentucky December 5, 2003 

7 Indiana December 5, 2003 

8 Massachusetts December 23, 2003 

9 Michigan December 30, 2003 

10 Mississippi December 16, 2003 

11 Missouri December 11, 2003 

12 New Jersey December 23, 2003 

13 New York December 23, 2003 

14 North Carolina December 11, 2003 

15 Ohio December 24, 2003 

16 Pennsylvania December 23, 2003 

17 Tennessee December 23, 2003 

18 Texas December 23, 2003 

19 Utah December 17, 2003 

20 Virginia December 4, 2003 

21 Washington December 12, 2003 

22 West Virginia December 17, 2003 

23 Wisconsin December 23, 2003 

 
28

APPENDIX B 

STATES THAT FILED A CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 

251(b)(2) of HAVA FOR USING REQUIREMENTS PAYMENTS 

TO IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS FOR 

FEDERAL OFFICE 

Certification Filed*

State 

State Has Met 

Title III 

Requirements

[251(b)(2)(A)] Date of Filing

State Will Use 

Up to Minimum

Amount 

[251(b)(2)(B)] Date of Filing

 

American Samoa Yes 12/26/2005 

California Yes 04/03/2006 

Florida Yes 08/28/2006 Yes 03/13/2006 

Illinois Yes 03/20/2007 

Kentucky Yes 01/16/2007 

Maryland Yes 05/15/2007 

New Jersey Yes 06/25/2007 

North Carolina Yes 03/28/2007 

North Dakota Yes 04/28/2005 

Ohio Yes 04/24/2007 

Oregon Yes 07/06/2006 

South Dakota Yes 03/15/2007 

Virginia Yes 04/13/2006 

*

EAC will forward certifications received under HAVA Section 251(b)(2)(A) to the Voting Section of 

the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, because the Division is charged with 

enforcing the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration 

requirements of Title III of HAVA. These certifications will also be forwarded to the OIG for 

potential review of compliance with the requirements of Title III during OIG audits.
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

29

This FAQ is not intended to provide specific advice about individual legal, business or 

other questions. It was prepared solely as a guide. If legal or other expert advice is 

required or desired with regard to a specific question or course of action, the services of 

an appropriate, competent professional should be sought. 

 Updated October 2006 

INTRODUCTION

 The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) created the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) and required election officials throughout the 

country to implement various election administration reforms. To assist with 

those efforts, Congress authorized and appropriated more than $3 billion. 

One of the primary responsibilities of the EAC is to provide the states, 

insular territories and the District of Columbia with the funding 

appropriated under HAVA and to provide information and training on the 

appropriate management and use of those funds. 

Over the past two years, EAC has answered dozens, if not hundreds, of 

questions from election administrators around the country regarding the 

appropriate use of HAVA funds. In order to provide all election 

administrators with information regarding the types of questions that EAC 

has received and the answers that it has given, we have compiled the 

following frequently asked questions. 

 Prior to considering the individual questions and answers there is 

some information that is fundamental to each of them and which covers the 

basic limitations on the uses of HAVA funds. 

Sources and Uses of HAVA Funds

 There are three sources of funding provided by HAVA for use to 

improve the administration of federal elections and to meet the requirements 

of Title III of HAVA (specifically to implement provisional voting, to improve 

voting technology, to develop and implement a statewide voter registration 

database, to provide information to voters, and to verify and identify voters 

according to the procedures set forth in HAVA). Those sources are Section 

101, Section 102 and Section 251 funds. 

 

The funds received by a state under Section 101 can be used for the 

following purposes: 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

30

A. Complying with the requirements under title III. 

B. Improving the administration of elections for Federal 

office. 

C. Educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting 

rights, and voting technology. 

D. Training election officials, poll workers, and election 

volunteers. 

E. Developing the State plan for requirements payments to 

be submitted under part 1 of subtitle D of title II. 

F. Improving, acquiring, leasing, modifying, or replacing 

voting systems and technology and methods for casting and 

counting votes. 

G. Improving the accessibility and quantity of polling places, 

including providing physical access for individuals with 

disabilities, providing non-visual access for individuals with 

visual impairments, and providing assistance to Native 

Americans, Alaska Native citizens, and to individuals with 

limited proficiency in the English language. 

H. Establishing toll-free telephone hotlines that voters may 

use to report possible voting fraud and voting rights 

violations, to obtain general election information, and to 

access detailed automated information on their own voter 

registration status, specific polling place locations, and other 

relevant information. 

Section 102 funds can be used ONLY for the purposes of replacing 

punch card and lever voting systems with voting systems that comply with 

Section 301(a) of HAVA. 

Section 251 funds can be used to implement any of the Title III 

requirements, including purchasing compliant voting systems, implementing 

provisional voting, providing information to voters in the polling place, 

developing and implementing a statewide voter registration list, and 

identifying voters. In addition, states and local governments can use HAVA 

funds to improve the administration of elections for Federal office when one 

of two conditions is met: (1) the state has met the requirements of Title III; 

or (2) the state notifies EAC of its intention to use an amount not to exceed 

the amount of the minimum payment that the state either did or could have 

received under the Section 252 formula for that purpose. 

The uses of Section 251 funds (and Section 101 funds, when used to 

meet the requirements of Title III) must be accounted for in the state’s plan 

as originally submitted or later amended. Any material change in the use of 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

31

251 funds (and Section 101 funds as specified above) from the approved state 

plan will require the state to revise its plan and submit the revisions to the 

EAC for publication and approval. 

 

Costs must be Allowable, Allocable and Reasonable

In addition to the restrictions on the uses of funds imposed by HAVA, 

when these funds were distributed by either the General Services 

Administration (GSA) or the EAC, those funds were made subject to several 

circulars developed by the Office of Management and Budget, specifically 

OMB Circulars A-87 (governs the use of federal funds to purchase goods for 

state and local governments), A-102 (governs the management of federal 

funds for state and local governments), A-122 (governs the use of federal 

funds to purchase goods for non-profits) and A-133 (dealing with audits). 

These circulars further restrict the appropriate uses of Federal funds 

requiring generally that costs paid for by HAVA funds are allowable, 

allocable (directly or through an indirect cost rate), and reasonable. 

Allowable Costs

A cost is allowable if it is necessary for the proper and efficient 

performance and administration of the federally sponsored program. Costs 

that fall within the specifically identified uses of HAVA funds in either 

Sections 101, 102 or Title III are allowable. 

Allocable Costs

A state can allocate an expense by charging only a portion equal to the 

percentage of use for HAVA related purposes to the HAVA grant. This can be 

accomplished by either using only that percentage of HAVA fund per unit 

cost or by seeking reimbursement from the other departments within the 

state for their portion of the usage. The question of allocability arises 

generally in one of two circumstances. First, is the cost allocable to the 

program to which it is billed? Just because a cost is allowable under one or 

more funding programs of HAVA do not mean that it is allocable to each and 

every program. For example, if an expense is not directly related to meeting 

any of the Title III requirements, it is allocable only to Section 101 funds and 

Section 251 funds pursuant to the provisions of Section 251(b) that allow for 

the use of Title II funds for the improvement of the administration of 

elections for federal office only up to the minimum payment amount. Second, 

is the cost allocable to benefit a Federal election? Most of the uses identified 

in HAVA require the funds to be used to benefit a Federal election. Thus, 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

32

costs that strictly benefit a state or local election are not allocable to the 

HAVA funding programs. 

Indirect Costs

In some circumstances, the expense may be an indirect one that can be 

covered by an indirect cost rate. In that instance, the state may submit an 

indirect cost rate proposal in which it identifies and supplies information 

regarding direct and indirect costs of operation. Circular A-87 and ASMB C10, Cost Principles and Procedures for Developing Cost Allocation Plans and 

Indirect Cost Allocation Plans and Indirect Cost Rates for Agreements with 

the Federal Government, provide guidance on negotiating indirect costs rates. 

An indirect cost rate provides a state with the basis for allocating 

administrative costs that are inextricably linked to other services provided by 

the Secretary of State such that they cannot easily be segregated into those 

costs that directly benefit the HAVA funding program and those that do not. 

For example, the cost of printers and copy machines that are used for both 

Federal and State election activities and that are below the State’s threshold 

for capitalized equipment may be expensed and included in the indirect cost 

pool. On the other hand, if you include an asset in the fixed capital assets 

section of your balance sheet and depreciate the asset, you should consider 

the asset as a capital expenditure and include only depreciation expense in 

the pool. Click here to see a power point presentation on indirect costs 

presented by KPMG on behalf of the EAC. 

Reasonable Costs

A state must do some assessment as to whether the costs are 

reasonable. This is done by determining that the cost is justified based upon 

factors such as the frequency of use, leasing versus purchasing, and actual 

cost for the good or service. 

SPECIFIC AREAS OF COST

 The following questions cover specific areas and items that states, 

insular territories and the District of Columbia have asked the EAC about 

using HAVA funds to purchase. In order to be permissible, the use of funds 

must be permitted by the HAVA source and meet other Federal funds 

requirements discussed above. The questions are categorized for ease of use. 

The reader can use any of the following links to jump to the category of 

interest. 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

33

Accounting for HAVA Funds 

Capital Improvements 

Cost Sharing 

Enforcement 

Equipment 

 Cellular Telephones 

 DeMinimis Use of Equipment 

 Leasing Equipment 

 Motorized Vehicles 

 Office Furniture and Equipment 

 Voting Systems 

Federal Elections 

Income from HAVA Funds 

Matching Funds 

Other Uses 

 Affirmative Action Plans 

 Conference Attendance 

 Get Out the Vote 

 Legal Fees 

 Reimbursements for Prior Expenses 

 Statewide Voter Registration Databases 

 Training Election Officials 

 Training Voters 

Equipment

 

The cognizant agency for the funding program has the authority to preapprove or waive the right to pre-approve the purchase of any capital 

equipment (generally equipment with a unit cost of $5,000 or more) or capital 

improvements with grant funds. (See Attachment B of A-87, Section 15. 

Equipment and other capital expenditures). For purposes of HAVA funds, 

EAC is the cognizant agency. EAC will acknowledge and use the state’s 

definition of capitalized equipment for purposes of requiring pre-approval of 

expenditure. Thus, if the state’s definition sets forth a dollar amount lower 

(but not higher) than $5,000, then the state’s amount will serve as the 

threshold for requiring pre-approval. Equipment below the threshold is 

considered supplies. (See Attachment B, Section 26. Materials and Supplies.) 

No pre-approval or waiver is required for supplies. 

EAC has waived its right to pre-approve ONLY the purchase of voting 

equipment that complies with Section 301 of HAVA and any computer 

equipment used solely for the purpose of developing or operating the 

statewide voter registration list. Conversely, the EAC has not waived its 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

34

right to pre-approve the use of HAVA funds for other items that may be 

required to meet the requirements of Title III or that may be used to improve 

the administration of elections for Federal office. 

 Prior to purchasing any equipment with HAVA funds you should 

determine the answers to the following: 

1. What is my state’s dollar threshold in determining the definition of 

what is equipment? 

2. What HAVA funding source will be used? 

3. Do I need to get EAC permission or ask them to waive the right to preapprove the purchase? 

4. Is the cost allowable? 

5. How will the cost be allocated? 

6. Is the cost reasonable? 

7. If Section 251 funds are used will this be a material change to the state 

HAVA plan? 

The answers to the questions listed below are not self contained. They 

are based in large part on the information that has been provided above 

regarding the stated uses of HAVA funds and the information provided with 

regard to determining whether an item is allowable, allocable and 

reasonable. That information is fundamental to ensuring an accurate 

answer, and proper use of HAVA funds. 

 Leasing Equipment

1. May a state lease equipment? 

Leasing equipment is considered an allowable expense under OMB 

Circular A-87, according to the limitations and conditions of Attachment B, 

37. Rental Costs of Buildings and Materials. The limitations include that 

“sale and lease back” arrangements cannot cost the state or local government 

more than when it owned the property. The costs include expenses such as 

depreciation or use allowance, maintenance, taxes, and insurance. A “lessthan-arms-length” agreement (i.e., a state government established a 

corporation to own the property then leases it back to the state) cannot cost 

the state or local government more than if title had vested in the state or 

local government. 

Rental costs under leases which are required to be treated as capital 

leases under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are allowable 

only up to the amount that would be allowed had the state or local 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

35

government purchased the property on the date the lease agreement was 

executed. The provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board 

Statement 13, Accounting for Leases, determine whether a lease is a capital 

lease. The determination is based on factors such as if the lease transfers 

ownership of the property to the lessee by the end of the lease term; contains 

a bargain purchase option; the lease term is equal to 75 percent or more of 

the estimated economic life of the leased property unless the lease term falls 

within the last 25 percent of the total estimated economic life of the leased 

property; or the present value at the beginning of the lease term of the 

minimum lease payments excluding executory costs such as insurance, 

maintenance, and taxes to be paid by the lessor, including any profit, equals 

or exceeds 90 percent of the excess of the fair value of the leased property to 

the lessor at the inception of the lease. 

 DeMinimis Uses of Equipment

2. May HAVA funds be used to support de minimus uses of 

equipment by the State for non-HAVA related purposes? 

No. The State can allocate only that portion of the equipment purchase 

cost that will go to benefit the state’s HAVA program. Alternatively, the 

expenses may qualify as an indirect cost in which case the state may submit 

an indirect cost rate proposal in which it identifies and supplies information 

regarding direct and indirect costs of operation. 

Cellular Telephones

3. May HAVA funds be used to purchase cellular phones in 

administering elections and maintaining contact with polling places 

on Election Day? 

Cellular phones would generally be considered an allowable cost. 

However, because this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the 

Title III requirements, the expense could be allocated only to Section 101 

funds or Section 251 funds pursuant to Section 251(b). Before a final decision 

can be made with regard to this expense, the question of cost reasonableness 

must be considered and answered. For example, it may be more reasonable 

to purchase prepaid cellular phones rather than to purchase phones with 

monthly plans that will only be used infrequently or periodically. 

Motorized Vehicles
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

36

4. May a State use HAVA funds to purchase motorized vehicles 

for use in voter outreach efforts? 

While motorized vehicles are an allowable cost when they are used for 

voter education pursuant to Section 101(b)(1)(C) of HAVA, there are 

significant issues related to allocability and cost reasonableness that must 

still be considered in assessing the appropriateness of such an expense. For 

example, if the vehicle will not be used exclusively for the purpose of voter 

outreach or other activities associated with improving the administration of 

federal elections and are used for purposes unrelated to improving the 

administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated 

with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA 

grant. Even in this instance, the appropriate percentage of cost could only be 

allocated to the funding programs under Section 101 or Section 251(b). As for 

the reasonableness analysis, it may be more reasonable to rent a vehicle 

rather than to purchase, insure and maintain vehicles that will only be used 

infrequently or periodically. 

5. May a State use HAVA funds to purchase forklifts used to move 

and store voting equipment within a warehouse? 

Forklifts used exclusively for stacking, moving and storing voting 

equipment are an allowable cost for this stated purpose. Because this 

expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements, 

such a cost can be allocated ONLY to Section 101 funds or Section 251 funds 

pursuant to Section 251(b). However, allocability and cost reasonableness 

must still be considered. For example if the forklift will not be used 

exclusively for the purpose of moving stored voting equipment and are used 

for purposes unrelated to improving the administration of federal elections, 

only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal 

elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, it may be more 

reasonable to rent a forklift rather than to purchase and maintain forklifts 

that will only be used infrequently or periodically. 

 Office Furniture and Equipment

6. May HAVA funds be used to purchase office furniture (tables, 

cabinets and desks) for the new voting systems equipment and 

statewide voter registration database equipment? 

Office furniture would generally be considered an allowable cost as 

long as such cost is not covered by the maintenance of effort requirements 

imposed by Section 254(a)(7). The purchase of office furniture is only 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

37

allowable if it can be demonstrated that the furniture would improve the 

administration of Federal elections. As such, those costs could only be 

allocated to the funding programs under Sections 101 and 251(b). Factors 

such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For 

example if the office furniture will not be used exclusively for the purpose of 

improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of 

costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to 

the HAVA grant. Furthermore, the cost for the furniture must be reasonable 

as compared to what the election jurisdiction is getting. 

7. May HAVA funds be used to purchase storage cabinets, 

security cages and shelving for storage of ballots to secure and store 

ballots as required by state and federal law? 

Storage cabinets and shelving are allowable costs as long as they are 

not covered by the required maintenance of effort. See Section 254(a)(7). 

Because this expense would not be directly related to meeting any of the Title 

III requirements, it could be allocated only to funding programs under 

Sections 101 and 251(b). Cost principles such as allocability and cost 

reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the security cages 

and shelving will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the 

administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated 

with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA 

grant. 

8. May HAVA funds be used to purchase high speed letter openers 

to process absentee ballots? 

High speed letter openers are an allowable cost for this stated purpose. 

As this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III 

requirements, the cost can be allocated only to the Section 101 funding 

program or to Section 251 funds pursuant to Section 251(b). Allocability and 

cost reasonableness must be considered in assessing the propriety of this type 

of expense. If the letter opener will not be used exclusively for the purpose of 

opening absentee ballots and other mail unrelated to improving the 

administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated 

with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA 

grant. Similarly, depending on the volume of mail it may be more reasonable 

to manually open the letters. 

9. May HAVA funds be used for a mail processing system that will 

assemble, sort, label and affix proper postage amounts for all 

outgoing mail, including absentee ballots from the Elections Office? 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

38

This type of mail processing system is an allowable cost for the stated 

purpose. Because this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the 

Title III requirements, it may be allocated only to the funding programs 

established in Section 101 or Section 251 funds pursuant to Section 251(b). 

However, allocability and cost reasonableness must be considered to fully 

assess the appropriateness of such an expense. For example, if the mail 

processing system will not be used exclusively for the purpose of processing 

mail related to improving the administration of federal elections, only that 

percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can 

be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, depending on the volume of mail it 

may be more reasonable to manually process the mail. 

Voting Systems

10. May a State use HAVA funds to purchase absentee voting 

equipment? 

States and its counties may use funds distributed under Section 101 or 

Section 251 to purchase voting equipment used to conduct absentee voting as 

long as that equipment meets the requirements of Section 301(a) of HAVA. 

The definition of voting system in Section 301(b) of HAVA includes 

equipment used to administer absentee voting. As such, no pre-approval from 

the EAC is required prior to purchase. However, cost reasonableness must 

still be considered in selecting the equipment. The cost must be reasonably 

related to the value of the equipment purchased. 

11. May a State or local government use HAVA funds to purchase 

additional accessible voting equipment? 

Yes. States and its counties may use funds distributed under Section 

101 or Section 251 to purchase additional accessible voting equipment as long 

as that equipment meets the requirements of Section 301(a) of HAVA. 

12. May HAVA funds be used to purchase voting systems with 

Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) capabilities? 

The answer depends on whether the purchase of VVPAT is part of the 

purchase of a compliant voting system (under Section 301(a)) or if it is 

purchased as a retrofit for a compliant voting system. If it is a component of 

a voting system that is being purchased, then section 251 funds can be used 

to the same extent that they are available to meet the requirements of Title 

III. However, if the VVPAT is purchased as a retrofit, then 251 funds can be 

used ONLY to the extent that they can be used to improve the administration 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

39

of federal elections (see 251(b)(2)), as VVPAT is not a required component of 

voting systems under section 301(a) and would serve only to improve the 

administration of elections. Also, Section 101 funds can be used. Section 102 

funds would not be appropriate for a retrofit VVPAT because VVPAT is not a 

requirement of Section 301. 

13. Does the EAC give opinions as to whether a specified voting 

system would be considered compliant with HAVA Section 301(a)? 

No. EAC does not believe that it was the intention of Congress for this 

Commission to pre-clear or approve the purchase of voting systems by states 

and local governments. Rather, Congress intended that EAC provide 

information and guidance on the meaning and implementation of HAVA. 

Furthermore, EAC has waived its right to pre-approve the expenditure of 

HAVA funds on compliant voting systems. 

14. Does HAVA Section 301(a)(3)(C) mean that if HAVA funds are 

used after January 1, 2007 to purchase a voting system (or any 

additional voting units), the funds can only be used to purchase 

voting units that meet the accessibility requirements of Section 

301(a)(3)? 

The January 1, 2007 date referenced in Section 301(a)(3)(C) applies to 

when the funds are provided, not when the equipment is purchased. The 

HAVA funds (provided under sections 101, 102, or 251) the States currently 

have were all provided prior to January 1, 2007. If a jurisdiction already 

meets the accessibility requirements under Section 301(a)(3) and they wish to 

purchase additional voting systems, the State would not be required to 

procure additional voting equipment that is accessible to persons with 

disabilities. Nevertheless, the equipment procured with those funds must 

meet all other HAVA section 301 requirements. If states receive additional 

HAVA funding from the EAC after January 1, 2007 and wish to use that 

funding to purchase new voting systems, then all equipment purchased with 

the new funding must meet the requirements of Section 301(a)(3). If mixed 

funding sources are used in future voting system procurements, states will 

have to separately account for restricted and unrestricted money separately if 

the State wishes to purchase non-accessible equipment. 

Capital Improvements 

A capital improvement is an improvement to any structure (building) 

or component erected as a permanent fixture on real property (land) that 

adds to its value and useful life. The cognizant agency for the funding 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

40

program, EAC in this case, has the authority to pre-approve or waive the 

right to pre-approve the purchase of any capital equipment (generally 

equipment with a unit cost of $5,000 or more) or capital improvements made 

with grant funds. (See Attachment B of A-87, Section 15. Equipment and 

other capital expenditures). EAC does not waive its right to pre-approve 

capital improvments.

Prior to making any capital improvements with HAVA funds you 

should determine the answers to the following: 

1. What is my states dollar threshold in determining the definition of a 

capitol improvement? 

2. What HAVA funding source will be used? 

3. Do I need to get EAC permission or ask them to waive the right to 

preapprove the improvement? EAC permission is required. 

4. Is the cost allowable? 

5. How will the cost be allocated? 

6. Is the cost reasonable? 

7. If Section 251 funds are used will this be a material change to the state 

HAVA plan? 

If the facility to be improved is not owned by the State or local 

government, the State or local government must have a guarantee of 

use of that facility for at least the length of time that the State could 

claim full depreciation of the improvement according to standard 

accounting procedures. 

The answers to the questions listed below are not self contained. They 

are based in large part on the information that has been provided above 

regarding the stated uses of HAVA funds and the information provided with 

regard to determining whether an item is allowable, allocable and 

reasonable. That information is fundamental to ensuring an accurate 

answer, and proper use of HAVA funds. 

15. Can a State or local government use HAVA funds to upgrade 

wiring so that the election office can connect its locality LAN to 

access the Internet? 

Generally, upgrading wiring is an allowable cost for this purpose. 

Upgrading wiring is justified if it improves the administration of Federal 

elections. It can be paid for using Section 101 funds or Section 251 funds up 

to the minimum payment identified in Section 252. However allocability and 

cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the internet 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

41

wiring will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the 

administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated 

with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA 

grant. 

16. May HAVA funds be used to make polling places used in 

Federal elections accessible to people with disabilities if those 

polling places will be used in future elections? 

Generally, making polling places accessible is an allowable cost. 

However, this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III 

requirements. As such, this cost can be allocated only to funding programs 

under Section 101 or Section 251(b). 

17. Can a locality be reimbursed with HAVA funds for ADA 

modifications to polling places made before HAVA became law on 

October 29, 2002? 

No. HAVA provides only for reimbursement of expenses related to 

voting system purchases. There is no provision for the reimbursement of 

expenses incurred to improve access to polling places. 

18. Can a locality use HAVA funds to make modifications to a 

storage space in order to provide appropriate storage for voting 

equipment? 

Generally, making modifications to a warehouse to store voting 

equipment is an allowable cost. However, this expense is not directly related 

to meeting any of the Title III requirements. Only Section 101 funds or 

Section 251(b) funds may be used for this expense. However allocability and 

cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the warehouse 

modification will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the 

administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated 

with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA 

grant. Similarly, it may be more reasonable to select a different warehouse 

rather then retrofit the current structure. 

19. May HAVA Section 101 or 251 funds be used to purchase a 

building to be used for warehouse voting system equipment? 

Generally, purchasing a warehouse to store voting equipment is an 

allowable cost. This expense is not directly related to meeting any of the 

Title III requirements. Thus, only Section 101 or Section 251(b) funds may 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

42

be used. Factors such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be 

considered in determining the appropriateness of the expense. For example, 

if the warehouse will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the 

administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated 

with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA 

grant. Similarly, it may be more reasonable to rent a warehouse rather then 

purchase one. 

20. Can HAVA Section 102 funds be used to buy, rent or improve a 

warehouse to store voting systems? 

No. Section 102 of HAVA grants payments to states for the purpose of 

replacing punch card and lever voting systems not for the storage or 

warehousing of such equipment. 

21. May HAVA funds be used to rent space to store voting 

equipment purchased to meet HAVA requirements? 

Generally, renting a warehouse to store voting equipment is considered 

to be an allowable cost. This expense is not directly related to meeting any 

of the Title III requirements. Thus, only Section 101 or Section 251(b) funds 

may be used. Factors such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still 

be considered in order to determine the appropriateness of this type of 

expense. If the warehouse will not be used exclusively for the purpose of 

improving the administration of federal elections (e.g., rental space would be 

used to house equipment other than voting systems that would be used in 

federal elections), only that percentage of costs associated with the 

administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. 

Rental costs of buildings and equipment are covered by OMB Circular 

A-87, see the section on Rental costs of buildings and equipment. Rental 

costs under leases which are required to be treated as capital leases under 

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are allowable only up to 

the amount that would be allowed had the state or local government 

purchased the property on the date the lease agreement was executed. The 

provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement 13, 

Accounting for Leases, determine whether a lease is a capital lease. The 

determination is based on factors such as if the lease transfers ownership of 

the property to the lessee by the end of the lease term; contains a bargain 

purchase option; the lease term is equal to 75 percent or more of the 

estimated economic life of the leased property unless the lease term falls 

within the last 25 percent of the total estimated economic life of the leased 

property; or the present value at the beginning of the lease term of the 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

43

minimum lease payments excluding executory costs such as insurance, 

maintenance, and taxes to be paid by the lessor, including any profit, equals 

or exceeds 90 percent of the excess of the fair value of the leased property to 

the lessor at the inception of the lease. 

Other Uses of HAVA Funds

The following questions deal with spending of HAVA funds on 

conference attendance, training, voter outreach and other non equipment or 

non capital improvement expenses; and costs incurred prior to getting HAVA 

funds, reimbursements. 

The answers to the questions listed below are not self contained. They 

are based in large part on the information that has been provided above 

regarding the stated uses of HAVA funds and the information provided with 

regard to determining whether an item is allowable, allocable and 

reasonable. That information is fundamental to ensuring an accurate 

answer, and proper use of HAVA funds. 

Prior to spending HAVA funds on non-equipment purchases or capital 

improvements you should determine the answers to the following: 

1. What HAVA funding source will be used? 

2. Do I need to get EAC permission or ask them to waive the right to preapprove the use of funds? EAC permission is required. 

3. Is the cost allowable? 

4. How will the cost be allocated? 

5. Is the cost reasonable? 

6. If Section 251 funds are used will this be a material change to the state 

HAVA plan? 

Conference Attendance

22. May HAVA funds be used to send elections office employees to 

an election industry association conference to see available voting 

equipment? 

Generally, HAVA funds may be used to attend an election industry 

association conference to see available voting equipment if such funds were 

not a part of the state’s maintenance of effort requirement. HAVA funds may 

not be used to pay dues to the association. Because this expense is not 

directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements, only Section 101 

or Section 251(b) funds may be used. 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

44

Training Voters

23. May a State or local government use HAVA funds to 

 produce public service announcements about new voting 

equipment; 

 take new equipment out to the public (e.g., senior centers, 

schools, grocery stores, malls or shopping centers) in 

advance of the first election in which the new equipment 

will be used; 

 produce customized written material on voters’ rights and 

responsibilities for use on Election Day; 

 mail information to voters about voting equipment 

purchased to replace punch card/lever machines; 

 produce and run radio and TV spots about registration 

deadlines, rights and responsibilities, absentee voting, 

information about grievance procedures, provisional ballots 

and ID requirements? 

Generally, Section 101 funds may be used to educate voters concerning 

voting procedures, voting rights, and voting technology. Section 251 can only 

be used for the educational costs that benefit federal elections, as those funds 

are restricted to improving the administration of federal elections funds, and 

subject to Section 251(b). However cost reasonableness must be considered. 

Furthermore, the state should carefully consider the prudence of funding an 

ongoing expense such as printing and distribution charges with a one-time 

funding source like these HAVA funds. These costs will inevitably be 

assumed by the state or local government upon the exhaustion of federal 

funds. 

24. May HAVA section 101 funds be used to buy children’s coloring 

books (educational)? 

No. Pursuant to the language of HAVA, the funds must be expended to 

educate “voters” or groups of people who meet state voting requirements. As 

coloring books are traditionally geared towards the young (who are not 

eligible to vote) this use of HAVA 101 Funds appears not to meet the fund’s 

educational use requirements. 

Training Election Officials

25. May HAVA funds be used to create video training aids or 

instruction lead training, or employ a full time training manager for 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

45

Officers of Election on new voting equipment, provisional ballots 

and/or ID requirements for first time mail registrants? 

Yes. Section 101 funds may be used to train election officials, poll 

workers, and election volunteers. Section 251 can only be used for the 

educational costs that benefit federal elections, as those funds are restricted 

to improving the administration of federal elections funds subject to the 

requirements of Section 251(b). The state should carefully consider the 

prudence of funding an ongoing expense such as printing and distribution 

charges with a one-time funding source like these HAVA funds. These costs 

will inevitably be assumed by the state or local government upon the 

exhaustion of federal funds. 

26. May HAVA funds be used to provide food during a training of 

election officers (poll workers) on new voting equipment before the 

initial use? 

Generally, HAVA funds may be used to purchase food consumed 

during training. The provision of food is covered by Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A-87, Attachment B, Cost Principles for State, Local and 

Indian Tribal Governments see Meetings and Conferences. Meals associated 

with meetings and conferences are allowable. However, meals that are used 

for entertainment purposes and alcohol are not allowable. 

Get Out the Vote

27. May HAVA section 101 funds be used to buy “voting is cool” 

bracelets? 

No. In order to fit within the allowable expense of voter education, the 

item procured must provide information on voting procedures, rights or 

technology. Items intended to “get out the vote” or merely encourage voting 

do not meet this requirement. Items that are not fundamentally educational 

may be considered advertising or public relations costs prohibited by Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-87, Attachment B, Cost Principles for 

State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments advertising and public relations 

costs. 

28. May HAVA section 101 funds be used to buy “Top Ramen” as a 

humorous means to attract the attention of college students to the 

importance of voting? 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

46

No. In order to fit within the allowable expense of voter education, the 

item procured must provide information on voting procedures, rights or 

technology. Items intended to “get out the vote” or merely encourage voting 

do not meet this requirement. Items that are not fundamentally educational 

may be considered advertising or public relations costs prohibited by Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-87, Attachment B, Cost Principles for 

State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments advertising and public relations 

costs. 

Legal Fees

29. May HAVA funds be used to employ legal counsel to advise and 

or represent the Secretary of State and/or State Election 

Commissioners in litigation pertaining to the implementation of the 

State HAVA plan? 

According to the plain language of HAVA in Sections 101(b)(2) and 

251(f), funds distributed under Sections 101 and 251 cannot be used to pay 

for costs associated with litigation unless the exceptions in Sections 

101(b)(2)(A) and 251(f)(1) which permit legal expenses covering the 

implementation of HAVA (not a State provision that is more strict than the 

provisions of HAVA). 

30. Whether HAVA funds (101 and 251) can be spent to determine 

whether the proposed uses of HAVA funds for litigation are 

allowable, allocable, and reasonable? 

Yes. However, grantees generally seek advice from the agency that 

administers the grant on what constitutes an allowable cost. A State may be 

able to obtain the information that it needs without the necessity of a legal 

opinion by consulting with other state departments that are administering 

federal grant programs at the state level. Grantees are encouraged to 

request the assistance of the EAC in determining the permissibility of certain 

costs rather than expending HAVA funds to make this determination. Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Attachment B, Cost Principles for 

State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments see Defense and prosecution of 

criminal and civil proceedings, and claims, allows for legal expenses required 

in the administration of a federal program. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database

31. May HAVA funds be used to pay to maintain and support a 

HAVA compliant statewide voter registration system? 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

47

Yes. Maintenance of a statewide voter registration system can be paid 

for from Section 251 funds or Section 101 funds. However, cost 

reasonableness must still be considered. The state should carefully consider 

the prudence of funding an ongoing expense such as printing and distribution 

charges with a one-time funding source like these HAVA funds. These costs 

will inevitably be assumed by the state or local government upon the 

exhaustion of federal funds. 

Reimbursement for Prior Expenses

32. May HAVA Section 251 funds be used to reimburse a state for 

statewide voter registration database costs incurred prior to award 

of the funds? 

The EAC has concluded that (for the purposes of requirements 

payments) any pre-award cost “incurred pursuant to negotiation and in 

anticipation of grant award”, as required by Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A-87, Attachment B, Cost Principles for State, Local and 

Indian Tribal Governments see Section 31, Pre Award Costs; is reimbursable 

if the cost was included in a (later) approved HAVA state plan and it was 

incurred after Congress appropriated HAVA requirements payment funding 

on February 20, 2003. In order to be properly attributed as a pre-award 

grant cost, a cost must have been necessary to incur in order to meet the 

scheduled requirements of the grant. Requirements payments provided 

states to meet HAVA Title III requirements include a mandate for the 

creation of a Statewide Voter Registration Database (42 U.S.C. §15483(a)) on 

or before January 1, 2004 (42 U.S.C. §15483(d)) or apply for a waiver (for 

good cause shown) to extend the deadline to January 1, 2006. The EAC has 

concluded that it is reasonable for a State to conclude that pre-award 

expenditures on Statewide Voter Registration Databases were necessary in 

order to meet HAVA timelines. Pre-award costs expended to procure a voter 

registration database that will meet HAVA requirements fits the use 

limitation. The cost must not have been allocated to meet the states 

maintenance of effort requirement or 5% matching fund requirement. In 

order to properly allocate a pre-award cost to a grant, recipient must get the 

written approval of the awarding agency, the EAC. 

33. What voting machine purchases made prior to the passage of 

HAVA are reimbursable under HAVA? 

Voting machine purchases made prior to the passage of HAVA and 

after January 1, 2001 are reimbursable under Sections 102 and 251. In 

addition, Section 251(c)(1) of HAVA permits reimbursement of voting 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

48

machine purchases made after the federal general election in 2000. If Section 

102 funds are used to reimburse expenses incurred to purchase voting 

systems those purchases (1) must have been made after January 1, 2001; (2) 

must have been made to replace punch card or lever voting systems used on 

or before the deadline for submitting certifications established in Section 102; 

and (3) must have been used to purchase voting systems that comply with 

Section 301(a) of HAVA. In addition, the amount of reimbursement per 

precinct cannot exceed the pro rata amount distributed by the General 

Services Administration. If Section 251 funds are used as reimbursement for 

HAVA compliant voting machine purchases made on a multi-year contract, 

then pursuant to Section 253(a)(5) the amount of the state’s matching funds 

must be increased in an amount equal to the amount of the reimbursement. 

If Section 251 funds are used as reimbursement for voting machine purchases 

made on other than a multi-year contract, the provision requiring an 

increased matching funds does not apply. 

34. May states use Section 251 funds to reimburse a county or local 

government for its purchase of voting equipment? 

Yes. The funds can only be used to reimburse the purchase of voting 

systems that meet the requirements of Section 301(a) of HAVA; purchase 

must have occurred after the November 2000 election; and if the money is 

used to reimburse a purchase of voting equipment on a multi-year contract, 

then the state must increase its maintenance of effort expenditure by the 

amount of the payment and additional matching funds are required under 

Section 253(b)(5). 

35. May a State reimburse a County that has fully satisfied the 

payment obligation to the voting system vendor for the purchase of 

voting equipment made prior to the State receiving HAVA funds? 

Section 251(c) of HAVA contemplates using Title II funds for the 

purpose of reimbursing States for expenses associated with voting equipment 

that meets the requirements of HAVA purchased prior to the availability of 

funds under HAVA. This concept of reimbursement applies to the county or 

other local government unit that purchases voting equipment in lieu of such 

purchases on a state level. HAVA funds may reimburse and replace county 

funds that were obligated after October 29, 2002, (or obligated prior to 

January 1, 2001 under a multi-year contract) in advance of the receipt of 

federal funds. Thus, if the county has already earned those reimbursement 

payments, it can re-appropriate the funds to uses it deems proper, subject to 

any conditions established by the State in granting funds to counties. 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

49

36. May HAVA funds be used to reimburse counties for vendor 

voting system maintenance fees? 

Yes. Either Section 101 or Section 251(b) funds can be used for 

expenses related to maintenance of voting systems. Under Section 251(b), a 

state is limited to the amount that it would have been entitled to as a 

minimum payment until the state meets the requirements of Title III.

Affirmative Action Plans

37. Does Executive Order 11246, dealing with affirmative action 

plan requirements, apply to a State because it received more than 

$65 million from the federal government under HAVA? 

No. The provisions of Executive Order 11246 apply to contractors and 

subcontractors with the federal government. The funds provided by EAC 

under HAVA do not meet the definition of a contract as stated in the Federal 

Acquisition Regulations, Part 2.101, and as defined by the Government 

Accountability Office in Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (GAO Red 

Book, Volume II, page 10-10). 

Accounting for HAVA Funds

38. What is the proper year to account for retroactive 

reimbursement payments made under HAVA for the Single Audit 

Act? 

The funds should be included in the audit of the fiscal year in which 

the funds were expended, which is the fiscal year in which the funds were 

received from the Federal Government and then appropriated to use by the 

state or county. So, if the funds were received in FY05 (October 1, 2004 – 

September 30, 2005) and appropriated in FY05 by the state or county as 

reimbursement for expenses made in a previous fiscal year by the state or 

county, then the funds should be covered by the FY05 audit. 

39. What is the grant period for HAVA funds?

EAC has established the grant period for HAVA Title II funds as the 

period beginning on the date of disbursement of the funds to the state and 

ending when the state and/or a political subdivision of the state expends all of 

the funds distributed by EAC to the state, all matching funds, and all 

interest earned on either the federal funds or state matching funds. 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

50

40. When do the grant period end and the record keeping 

requirement start for HAVA funds? 

The record keeping requirement begins upon the close of the grant 

period, when the last and closing report is filed. The grant period closes 

when the state (or political subdivisions of the state on its behalf) has 

expended all federal, state and interest funds contained in the election fund. 

41. If a sub-grantee (State grant of HAVA funds to a county or local 

government) misspends HAVA funds will the EAC recover the funds 

directly from the sub-grantee? 

No. The EAC will not be engaged in recouping funds from a local 

government that were misspent by a local government or which were 

overpaid to a local government under a subgrant, the obligation is on the 

state. The EAC will recoup any funds misspent by a local government from 

the state government. 

42. What CFDA number do I use when reporting my expenditure of 

HAVA funds? 

The following CFDA numbers have already been assigned to HAVA 

funding programs: (The Secretary of State's office should be able to tell you 

which HAVA funds were provided to a county.) 

 39.011 - Title I, sections 101 and 102 - "early money" election reform 

payments made to States (distributed by the General Services 

Administration in 2003); 

 93.617 - Title II, section 261 - grants to States for voting access for 

individuals with disabilities (aka EAID, distributed by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services in 2003, 2004, and 2005); 

 93.618 - Title II, section 291 - grants to State protection and advocacy 

systems to promote voting access for individuals with disabilities 

(distributed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 

2003, 2004, and 2005); 

 90.400 - Help America Vote College Program - grants to promote the 

participation of college students as nonpartisan poll workers 

(distributed by EAC before 9/30/04); and 

 90.401 – Sections 251- 258 - Requirements Payments to States – 

(distributed by the EAC in 2004 and 2005) 

43. Does the state need to notify the EAC of the states compliance 

and intent to use 251 funds for "other election improvements"? 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

51

Yes. Consistent with Section 251(b) in order to use remaining Title II 

funds for the improvement of the administration of elections for federal office, 

the state must submit a verification that all of the Title III requirements 

have been met (not just the voting system requirements) or certify prior to 

the time that all Title III requirements are met that the state will not use 

more than the minimum payment amount. This does not alleviate the 

responsibility that the state has to assure that its spending is in keeping with 

its state plan. Thus, if the proposed spending on improving election 

administration is not reflected in the state plan and represents a material 

change the state plan must be changed prior to the change in spending. 

Income from HAVA Funds

44. May a state or county rent or lease out its voting systems? 

Generally, a state or county can rent or lease out its voting systems. 

Common Rule, 41 C.F.R. § 105-71.32 Equipment, prohibits a grantee from 

using a piece of equipment purchased using grant funds to compete unfairly 

with the private sector. If a State rents or leases its voting machines out it 

must do so in a way that does not thwart competition with the private sector. 

The price paid by the lessee must be a competitive price. Equipment is 

defined by the common rule as "tangible, non-expendable, personal property 

having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or 

more per unit. A grantee may use its own definition of equipment provided 

that such definition would at least include all equipment defined above.” If 

the voting systems meet the definition of “equipment” either under the 

Common Rule or state laws, rules or regulations, the restriction must apply. 

Income from leasing voting equipment to other jurisdictions would be 

considered program income, see OMB Circular A-102, Common Rule, 41 

C.F.R. § 105-71.25 Program Income. The only appropriate treatment of 

income classified as program income during the grant period is for the county 

to dedicate the income to uses permitted under HAVA, Section 251. Section 

251 allows the use of HAVA funds to implement the requirements of Title III 

and, after those requirements is met, to improve the administration of 

elections for federal office. After the expiration of the grant period, the 

income generated by the lease of voting systems may be used by the county 

as it chooses. (See Question 39 for the definition of grant period). 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

52

Cost Sharing

45. Must a county, the sub-grantee of HAVA funds, enter into an 

agreement with each municipality for the use of Federal Funds or is 

the agreement between the state and county sufficient? 

The state must follow its own laws and procedures regarding the 

distribution of grant funds when issuing a subgrant, but must also assure 

that the subgrantee is aware of the limitations imposed by the federal grant. 

A state must follow its own law as to whether a cost sharing agreement is 

required or some other form of grant agreement is needed. EAC suggests 

that there be some documentation that supports the transfer of these funds 

to the local governments, whether it be a certification by the governments 

they will comply with the limitations or that the governments receive funds 

on a cost reimbursement basis after providing a request for the funds and 

proof that they were spent in accordance with the state and federal 

restrictions. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102, The Common 

Rule, 41 C.F.R. § 105-71.37, Subgrants, covers the requirements for states 

that issue subgrants of federal funds. 

Matching Funds

46. May a state use its Elections Board staff compensation as an inkind match to help meet the Help America Vote Act’s (HAVA) 5% 

matching requirement (Section 253(b)(5) of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 

15403(b)(5))? 

 In-kind contributions may be accepted to meet the 5% matching 

requirement, as HAVA does not specifically require a “hard” or cash match, 

but doing so may violate HAVA’s maintenance of effort provision. The 

services costs of the individuals who shifted from other administrative or 

managerial activities within the Elections Board to HAVA specific projects 

activities must be consistent with the authorized uses to meeting the 

requirements of Title III and improving the administration of elections for 

federal office. The State has an obligation under HAVA Section 254(7) to 

maintain its expenditures “for activities funded by the payment at a level 

that is not less than the level of such expenditures maintained by the State 

for the fiscal year ending prior to November 2000.” A State is required to 

maintain its previously defined expenditures on activities funded by 

Requirements Payments in addition to its 5% matching obligation. If the 

individuals were previously paid by the State to work on improving the 

administration of Federal elections as either a direct cost, as an election 

administrator, or as an indirect cost, as a manager or member of the support 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

53

staff and assuming all State expenditures have remained constant, using 

these costs to serve as an in-kind match towards the States 5% matching 

obligation accomplishes nothing more than shifting State expenditures from 

meeting HAVA’s maintenance of effort provisions to meeting the statute’s 

matching requirement. In the end, there has been no increase in State 

spending. While in-kind contributions, such as employee compensation, may 

be used to meet HAVA’s matching requirement, such contributions must 

create an overall increase in State spending. 

47. How do I calculate the amount needed for our state’s 5% 

match?

According to HAVA Section 253(b)(5), the State match is 5% of total 

amount to be spent (taking into account the Federal amount + the State 

amount). The formula for determining the amount of state matching funds 

based on the federal funds requested is: 

(Federal Dollars/.95) = Federal Dollars + State Match 

Deriving from that formula an equation that would allow us to figure the 

Federal dollars from the available State match: 

Federal Dollars = 19 x State Match 

48. Can a State use its state matching funds to satisfy the 

maintenance of effort requirement? 

No, a State may not use state matching funds to satisfy the 

requirement that it maintain its effort. Both maintenance of effort and 

matching funds requirements are considered cost sharing methods, ways by 

which Congress and thereby the Federal Government get states to share in 

the expense of funding a particular endeavor. Maintenance of effort 

requirements are considered different from matching fund requirements in 

that the intent, generally, is to assure that the Federal funding actually 

increases the amount of funding to a particular program or task. 

While there is no legislative history on this particular issue, a plain reading 

of HAVA must result in an understanding that Congress included two 

separate and distinct cost sharing requirements, matching funds and 

maintenance of effort. Congress did not intend for one of these cost sharing 

methods to cancel the other. Rather, it is apparent that Congress intended 

that the state both contribute to the improvement of election systems through 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

54

the 5% match requirement as well as the fact that the Federal and state 

funding would increase the funding to election administration efforts. 

Federal Election

49. Does the HAVA, specifically section 301, definition of "election 

for federal office", found at 42 USC 1973ff-6, include a presidential 

primary which is an election of delegates to a national political 

convention? 

Federal campaign finance laws and regulations define these types of 

elections as federal elections (See 11 C.F.R. Part 100.2(c)(2) and (3)) and case 

law interpreting 42 U.S.C. Section 1973i relating to prohibited election 

offenses consider a presidential preference primary to be an election for 

federal office. While HAVA does not define an election for federal office, the 

statements of law regarding other election processes are instructive as to the 

meaning of the term for purposes of HAVA. State law may interplays. Some 

states have a definition of federal election that excludes a presidential 

preference primary. While these statutes may be enacted for reasons related 

to the cost of an election, etc., they must be considered. 

50. What is a federal election?

The Voting Section, U.S. Department of Justice (charged with 

enforcing the requirements of HAVA Title III), addressed this issue: HAVA 

does not contain a definition of the term "election for federal office." 

However, Section 3 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 

1973gg-1(1)&(2), defines "election" and "federal office" as those terms appear 

in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(1) & (3)). It is 

the Department's view that the requirements of Title III of HAVA were 

intended to apply in any general, special, primary, or runoff election for the 

office of President or Vice President, including presidential preference 

primaries, and any general, special, primary, or runoff election for the office 

of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the 

Congress from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the four 

Territories. The EAC has taken the same approach with regard to the 

federal funding programs that the agency oversees (HAVA Title I "early 

money" and Title II requirements payments). 

Enforcement

51. Will restrictions of Section 251 be lifted on a by-county basis 

when a county meets the requirements of Title III of HAVA? 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

55

No. The plain language of Section 251(b)(2) of HAVA requires that the 

state have implemented the requirements of Title III prior to using more 

than what the state could have obtained as a minimum payment for activities 

to improve the administration of elections for federal office. Thus, the Section 

251 restrictions will not be lifted on a county-by-county basis. 

52. What types of penalties might be imposed against a State if a 

county’s voting system is found non-compliant with HAVA? 

The Department of Justice is given enforcement authority over Title 

III of HAVA. Any claim, law suit, or request for remedies including penalties 

would be sought against the State for its failure or one of its county’s failure 

to comply with HAVA, would be brought by the Department of Justice. 

53. How will the EAC treat noncompliant precincts after the 

deadline for replacement of punch card and lever voting systems 

under Section 102 of HAVA? 

The EAC expects the state to repay a pro rata portion of the funds 

received by the state in compliance with the requirement of Section 102(d). 

That pro rata portion would be determined by multiplying the percentage of 

noncompliant precincts with the amount of funding originally received under 

Section 102. 

54. Does a State law that permits some small towns to use paper 

ballots for non-federal elections instead of HAVA compliant voting 

equipment violate the ‘private and independent’ requirement of 

HAVA? 

No. The voting equipment provisions of HAVA apply only to elections 

for Federal office. However, there may be state laws, rules or regulations 

that require the use of accessible voting systems in state and/or local 

elections. 

55. Can a state request an extension for complying with the voting 

system standard requirements in Section 301?

No. Section 301(d) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) 

requires all States to comply on and after January 1, 2006 with the 

requirement that each voting system used in elections for Federal office must 

meet the HAVA Title III, Section 301, voting system standards. The EAC 

has no authority to extend or waive this statutory deadline. The U.S. 
APPENDIX C 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING APPROPRIATE 

USE OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS 

56

Department of Justice, the agency authorized by HAVA to enforce Title III 

provisions, has made it clear that the agency plans to enforce this deadline. 

(See letter DOJ sent to Louisiana regarding this issue: 

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/hava/lavotsyst.htm) Only the enactment of 

Federal legislation providing for the extension or waiver of this deadline can 

change this requirement. 

HAVA Section 102(a)(3)(B) did permit States, which had received Title 

I, Section 102, funds to replace punch card and lever machine voting systems, 

to file for a waiver of the original November 2, 2004 replacement deadline. 

Twenty-three of the thirty States that received such funds requested the 

waiver. The waiver gives these States until the first election for Federal 

office held on or after January 1, 2006 to replace such systems without risk of 

losing these Federal funds. The first Federal election would normally be the 

2006 primary election for Federal office, unless the State holds an earlier 

special election for Federal office to fill a vacancy. 
 APPENDIX D 

MODEL STANDARD FORMS 269 FOR TITLE I, SECTION 101 

AND 102 AND TITLE II, SECTION 251 FUNDS 

57
 APPENDIX D 

MODEL STANDARD FORMS 269 FOR TITLE I, SECTION 101 

AND 102 AND TITLE II, SECTION 251 FUNDS 

58
 APPENDIX E 

EAC FORMAL ADVISORIES ON ADMINISTRATION 

OF HAVA FUNDS 

59

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

January 18, 2005 

 

EAC Advisory 05-001 - Use of funds provided by counties as part of the State’s 

matching funding under Title II of HAVA

Question: Can county governments appropriate and maintain the funding that a state 

intends to appropriate as its matching funding pursuant to section 253(b)(5) of the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)? 

Response: A State may use funds that are set aside by county or local governments and 

maintained under the control of those governments as their matching funds for purposes 

of receiving Requirements Payments. However, there are several stipulations to that 

authority: 

1. In order for the money to be under the control of the State, there must be some written 

agreement between the counties and the State establishing that the funds have been set 

aside by the counties for use by the State for this purpose and that the only purposes for 

which those funds may be used are those provided by HAVA for the use of matching 

funds. A cooperative agreement, memorandum of understanding or other contract would 

be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a written agreement. 

2. Maintenance of funds at the county level does not obviate in any way the State’s 

obligation to provide the matching funds, account for their use, report on their use, and 

audit those funds as required by HAVA and OMB Circulars A-87 and A-133. 

3. The provision and maintenance of matching funds by the counties does not alleviate 

the State’s obligation to use all HAVA funding in keeping with the tenets and spirit of the 

Voting Rights Act and other state and federal laws and regulations prohibiting the 

discriminatory use of federal funds and/or discriminatory application of voting systems. 
 APPENDIX E 

EAC FORMAL ADVISORIES ON ADMINISTRATION 

OF HAVA FUNDS 

60

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

January 18, 2005 

EAC Advisory 05-002 - Appropriation of matching funds equal to 5% of an 

amount less than the total available Requirements 

Payment

Question: Can a state receive a Requirements Payment in an amount less than the total 

amount authorized and appropriated to the State for a single fiscal year? 

Response: Yes, a State may a obtain portion of the total HAVA Title II Requirements 

Payment available to the State in a Fiscal Year. When a State cannot appropriate the 

amount of matching funds required to receive the full Requirements Payment, the state 

can certify using a lesser amount of matching funds. Whatever amount of matching 

funding is provided by the State, the State will receive funds from the federal government 

such that the State’s funding makes up 5% of the total State and Federal money, in 

accordance with Section 253(b)(5). If the State is later able to provide a supplemental 

amount of matching funds, the State may apply for additional federal funding at the 

commensurate rate. 

If a State wishes to make a certification for less than the total amount of Title II payments 

available for a fiscal year, certifications and submissions should be made in the same 

manner as they have in the past with the exception of identifying the specific amount of 

matching funds that are being provided and the expected amount of Requirements 

Payment. Such a submission will be considered and processed in the same manner as all 

other submissions made in the past. 
 APPENDIX E 

EAC FORMAL ADVISORIES ON ADMINISTRATION 

OF HAVA FUNDS 

61

TU.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

January 18, 2005 

UEAC Advisory 05-003 - Interest on HAVA Title I, Section 101 Funds 

Question: Does the State have to remit interest earned on Title I, Section 101 funds to the 

Federal Government? Further, if the State does not have to remit interest earned on these 

funds, may the State use that interest to make up a part, or the entirety, of its matching 

funds pursuant to Section 253(b)(5)? 

Response: States do not have to remit the interest earned on Title I, Section 101 funds to 

the Federal Government. Generally, interest on federal grant funds are required to be 

remitted to the federal government under either or both the Cash Management 

Improvement Act or the Common Rule (OMB Circular A-102). However, the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) specifically designates the use of the interest on 

money deposited into the election fund required by sections 104(d) and 254(b)(1) of 

HAVA to be used to meet the requirements of Title III and for such other purposes that a 

requirements payment could be used. These sections allow the State to retain, rather than 

remit, the interest earned on Title I, Section 101 funds, when they have been deposited in 

the State’s section 254 election fund for use in accordance with its state plan and for the 

purposes permitted by Section 254(b)(2) and 251(b). 

A State may not use interest from Title I, Section 101 funds to serve as a part of a the 

matching funds appropriated by the State in order to receive Title II Requirements 

Payments. The interest that is earned on Section 101 grant funds is interest on Federal 

funds and thus is Federal in nature. As such, the provisions of OMB Circular A-87 

apply. Specifically, the factors affecting the allowability of costs prohibit the use of 

federal grant funds to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of another federal 

award: 

“h. Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching 

requirements of any other Federal award in either the current or a prior 

period, except as specifically provided by Federal law or regulation.” 
 APPENDIX E 

EAC FORMAL ADVISORIES ON ADMINISTRATION 

OF HAVA FUNDS 

62

HAVA does not specifically allow the use of Title I, Section 101 interest as matching 

funds for Title II Requirements Payments. Thus, while the interest on Section 101 funds 

may be used to further the State’s efforts to meet the requirements of Title III and to 

improve the administration of Federal elections, those funds cannot be used as any part of 

the State’s matching funds for purposes of receiving Title II Requirements Payments. 
 APPENDIX E 

EAC FORMAL ADVISORIES ON ADMINISTRATION 

OF HAVA FUNDS 

63
 APPENDIX E 

EAC FORMAL ADVISORIES ON ADMINISTRATION 

OF HAVA FUNDS 

64

 
 APPENDIX E 

EAC FORMAL ADVISORIES ON ADMINISTRATION 

OF HAVA FUNDS 

65
 APPENDIX E 

EAC FORMAL ADVISORIES ON ADMINISTRATION 

OF HAVA FUNDS 

66

TU.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

May 1, 2007 

UEAC Advisory 07-003 – Maintenance of Effort Funding

Question 1: What is maintenance of effort (MOE)? 

Response 1: MOE is a means by which Congress and thereby the Federal Government 

requires States to share in the expense of funding a particular endeavor. Specifically, 

MOE requirements are used to assure that the Federal funding actually increases the 

amount of funding to a particular program or task. 

Section 254(a)(7) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) creates a requirement 

that States maintain the effort or level of funding that each State expended in the fiscal 

year preceding November 2000: 

(7) How the State, in using the requirements payment, will maintain the 

expenditures of the State for activities funded by the payment at a level 

that is not less than the level of such expenditures maintained by the State 

for the fiscal year ending prior to November 2000. 

HAVA ties the MOE requirement to the State’s fiscal year. Because State funding is 

allocated on an annual or in some cases biennial basis, the State must continue to commit 

annually or biennially the same amount of funding to the effort that it committed prior to 

the availability of Federal funding. Furthermore, HAVA requires that these funds be 

expended, not just appropriated. Because the intent of the MOE requirement is to prevent 

a State from replacing its own funding with Federal funding, expenditures at the State, 

county, and, where appropriate, the local level must be considered. In other words, a 

State, county or local government may not replace or supplant its prior level of funding 

with Federal dollars. 

However, the MOE provision in Section 254(a)(7) of HAVA is limited. The MOE 

requirement is only related to activities that the State, county or local government spent 

money on that are consistent with the requirements of Title III of HAVA. Activities that 

State, county and local governments may have funded in the past include: 
 APPENDIX E 

EAC FORMAL ADVISORIES ON ADMINISTRATION 

OF HAVA FUNDS 

67

o Purchasing voting equipment; 

o Developing, operating and/or maintaining a list of registered voters who are 

eligible to vote in Federal elections; 

o Providing information to voters at the polling place for Federal elections; 

o Implementing and/or operating a system of provisional voting during Federal 

elections; 

o Verifying voter registration information using other Federal, State, county or local 

data; 

o Other activities that improve the administration of elections for Federal office. 

 

The expenditures are also limited to those made in the State fiscal year that ended prior to 

November 2000. 

Question 2: How does MOE relate to the State’s matching fund requirement? 

Response 2: Both MOE and matching funds requirements are considered cost sharing 

methods, ways by which Congress and thereby the Federal Government get States to 

share in the expense of funding a particular endeavor. MOE requirements are considered 

different from matching fund requirements in that the intent, generally, is to assure that 

the Federal funding actually increases the amount of funding to a particular program or 

task. 

While there is no legislative history on this particular issue, a plain reading of HAVA 

results in an understanding that Congress included two separate and distinct cost sharing 

requirements, matching funds and MOE. Congress did not intend for one of these cost 

sharing methods to cancel the other. Rather, it is apparent that Congress intended that the 

state both contribute to the improvement of election systems through the 5% match 

requirement and use the Federal and state (matching) funding to increase the prior level 

of State funding for Federal election administration efforts. 
 APPENDIX E 

EAC FORMAL ADVISORIES ON ADMINISTRATION 

OF HAVA FUNDS 

68

Question 3: What is the impact of the MOE requirement? 

Response 3: In order to receive a requirements payment under Title II of HAVA, each 

State was required to certify that it would maintain its effort at the same level that it 

expended money for HAVA funded activities in the fiscal year preceding November 

2000. Each State has made such a certification and has been distributed requirements 

payments under HAVA. Thus, the State is obligated to keep that promise and continue to 

spend the same amount that it spent in the fiscal year preceding November 2000 on 

HAVA funded activities. 

Question 4: How should States document that they have maintained their effort? 

Response 4: The first step in documenting MOE is to determine the base level of 

expenditure in the state fiscal year preceding November 2000 (base year). This number 

should be derived by examining the State and county or local government spending on 

HAVA funded activities during the base year. These activities include: 

o Purchasing voting equipment; 

o Developing, operating and/or maintaining a list of registered voters who are 

eligible to vote in Federal elections; 

o Providing information to voters at the polling place on Federal elections; 

o Implementing and/or operating a system of provisional voting during Federal 

elections; 

o Verifying voter registration information using other Federal, State, county or local 

data; 

o Other activities that improve the administration of elections for Federal office. 

Once a base level of expenditure is obtained, the State can demonstrate that it has 

maintained its effort by providing documentation that shows that the State spent the same 

amount of money (base level of expenditures) on any election-related activities during 

any Federal fiscal year in which the State had and used requirements payments 

distributed under Title II of HAVA. 

A State can also demonstrate that they have maintained their effort by documenting the 

same or greater level of expenditures as the base level of expenditure in each year that the 

State had and used requirements payments. 

Donetta Davidson Rosemary Rodriguez 

Chair Vice Chair 

Gracia Hillman Caroline Hunter 

Commissioner Commissioner 
For additional information about our agency, programs, or publications, 

please contact us at: 

United States Election Assistance Commission 

1225 New York Avenue, NW 

Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005 

866-747-1471 (toll free) 

HAVAinfo@eac.gov 

www.eac.gov 

EAC Commissioners 

Chair Donetta L. Davidson 

Vice Chair Rosemary E. Rodriguez 

Commissioner Caroline Hunter 

Commissioner Gracia M. Hillman 

EAC Staff 

Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director 

Juliet Hodgkins, General Counsel