FEBRUARY 9, 2005 

TESTIMONY

BEFORE THE HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

UNITED STATES ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1225 New York Ave., NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 2 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Seated before you 

today are the four members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): Gracia Hillman,

Chair; Paul DeGregorio, Vice Chairman; Ray Martinez, III; and DeForest B. Soaries, Jr. Our 

biographies are attached to this statement. (Appendix 1) 

We are pleased to be here this morning to discuss our conclusions about the November 

2004 election and the role that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) played in that 

election. In our testimony, we will review the progress and accomplishments of HAVA leading 

up to the November 2004 Election and our plans to continue the implementation of HAVA in 

2005. 

HAVA marks the first Federal program of its kind in the history of voting in this country. 

HAVA’s changes to the voting process in Federal elections are substantial. Although the EAC 

has been engaged in this election reform effort for only just over a year, we will endeavor in our 

comments today to inform you of the successes, the frustrations and the work that is left to be 

done under HAVA. 

We appreciate the vested interest that this Committee has in our work. We recognize the 

importance of what you have done for America as the authorizers of HAVA and look forward to 

today’s discussions. 

INTRODUCTION

In October 2002, Congress, with the leadership and overwhelming support of the 

members of this Committee, passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). HAVA represents an 

unprecedented effort by Congress to enhance the administration of Federal elections through 

funding, guidance and policies. Previously, this country has relied exclusively on the resources 

and efforts of the States to conduct Federal elections without assistance and direction from the 

Federal Government. HAVA recognizes the important role of the States in conducting Federal 

elections while at the same time providing funding and guidance to the States in a nation-wide 

effort to make the administration of Federal elections more uniform and consistent. 

HAVA was not contemplated as a short-term or partial solution to the issues and 

problems with the administration of Federal elections that came to the forefront during the 2000 

Presidential Election. Rather, HAVA sets out a comprehensive program of funding, guidance, 

and ongoing research that spans the course of many years. HAVA’s primary funding program

(Title II) was authorized for three consecutive fiscal years (through 2005). Congress recognized 

that election reform efforts would go on beyond the 3-year authorization of funds. Therefore, 

Congress did not apply a fiscal year restriction on the use of the Title II funds. Likewise, HAVA 

created a Federal commission, the Election Assistance Commission1

, which it authorized initially 

for a period of three fiscal years. HAVA also contemplated the creation and maintenance of 

 1

 EAC Organizational Chart is attached as Appendix 2. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 3 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

Federal guidance on voting systems, provisional voting, voter identification, voter registration 

databases, and voter information. Congress knew that these important policies and guidance not 

only would take some time to develop, but also, due to the nature of ever evolving technologies 

and voting processes, would need revision and updating in keeping with those changes. 

Many of the HAVA implementation efforts began in earnest in January 2004 

immediately following the formation and appointment of the Election Assistance Commission. 

To their great credit, States used the limited Federal resources distributed by the General 

Services Administration (GSA) under Title I and their own state funding to implement those 

HAVA requirements with deadlines of January 1, 2004, including provisional voting and voter 

information. But, to put the proper context on HAVA implementation, it is, at best, just crossing 

into the second year of its multi-year election reform scheme. 

All of this having been stated, HAVA has already proven to be a success in revamping 

the voting process in Federal elections. Provisional voting offered over one million voters the 

opportunity to cast a ballot in Federal elections in 2004. Prior to HAVA, these persons would 

have been turned away. HAVA funding has already permitted some States to upgrade their 

voting systems to comply with HAVA. Other States have used HAVA funds to implement or 

improve their state-wide voter registration databases to manage voter lists and prevent the fraud 

that has surrounded voter registrations in the past. These are just a few of the success stories of 

HAVA that will be discussed more fully below. 

The House Administration Committee will hear, if it has not already, from detractors that 

say that HAVA has not lived up to its billing and has failed to meet their expectations of election 

reform. In one respect, they are correct. To the extent that HAVA implementation is not 

complete, we cannot yet realize the totality of its intended benefits and reforms. Furthermore, 

the States have expressed understandable frustration with trying to meet HAVA requirements 

within the prescribed deadlines. To address these concerns, the Election Assistance Commission 

has taken an aggressive approach to its work in 2004 and will continue that pace and 

determination in 2005 to assist the States in their implementation of HAVA. With the much 

needed funding that the Election Assistance Commission received in its 2005 budget, EAC is 

embarking upon an accelerated research agenda to develop and publish guidance on voting 

systems, provisional voting, voter registration databases, and voter identification. Some of this 

work is already well underway. For example, the Technical Guidelines Development Committee

(TGDC) met on January 18 and 19 to pass resolutions tasking the National Institute for 

Standards and Technology (NIST) with developing voluntary voting system guidelines. In 

December 2004, EAC received testimony regarding voter registration databases and has 

scheduled an initial hearing on the issue of provisional voting on February 23, 2005. However, 

there is a great deal of work to be done to fully implement HAVA and all of its intended election 

administration reforms. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 4 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

HAVA SUCCESSES IN 2004

The beginnings of HAVA’s significant influence could be felt throughout the country in 

2004. States implemented the Title III requirements for provisional voting, voter information 

and voter identification by January 1, 2004 and used these new principles in their Federal 

elections in 2004. As with any new statute and new requirements, there were varying 

interpretations of these mandates and substantial media and public attention to the legal battles 

that ensued. The results of the first Federal elections conducted under HAVA were a populace 

that was more engaged in the political process, a surge in voter registration, an opportunity for 

voters who would previously have been turned away to vote provisionally, an unprecedented 

amount of information available to voters regarding the voting process and their voting rights, 

improving voting technology, and the promise of more reform and reflection on the voting 

process to come in the following years. There can be no question that HAVA positively 

influenced the 2004 elections. 

Federal Funding Programs

Prior to the enactment of HAVA, Federal funds had not been committed to the 

improvement of the administration of Federal elections. Other Federal legislation was enacted to 

impose limitations and requirements on the administration of elections, but never before had 

those expectations been backed by Federal funding. Congress has appropriated over 

$3,000,000,000 to help States meet the requirements of HAVA and improve the administration 

of Federal elections. Other HAVA programs such as the College Poll Worker program, the 

National Parent-Student Mock election, and the program to assure access for individuals with 

disabilities have been funded by Congress in the amounts of $950,000, $400,000, and 

$33,000,000, respectively. 

EAC, GSA, and HHS have distributed a total of $2,213,847,325 to the States, the District 

of Columbia and the Territories since the enactment of HAVA. The following table shows the 

amounts that have been distributed to each of the States and Territories for their use to 

implement the provisions of HAVA. 

 Title I "Early Money" 

Title II Requirements 

Payments (Section 251)

Title II Disability Access 

Grants (Section 261)

State 

 Section 101 

Payments* 

 Section 102 

Payments* 

Fiscal Year 

2003 Funds* 

Fiscal Year 

2004 Funds* 

Fiscal Year 

2003 Funds* 

Fiscal Year 

2004 Funds* 

Total Disbursed 

to State** 

AL $4,990 $51 $12,835 $23,031 $185 $130 $41,222

AK $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $100 $100 $5,200

AS $1,000 $0 $830 $1,489 $100 $100 $3,519

AZ $5,451 $1,564 $14,523 $26,061 $210 $153 $47,962

AR $3,593 $2,570 $7,729 $13,869 $109 $100 $27,970

CA $27,341 $57,322 $94,559 $0 $1,372 $986 $181,580

CO $4,860 $2,177 $12,362 $22,183 $178 $129 $41,889
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 5 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

 Title I "Early Money" 

Title II Requirements 

Payments (Section 251)

Title II Disability Access 

Grants (Section 261)

State 

 Section 101 

Payments* 

 Section 102 

Payments* 

Fiscal Year 

2003 Funds* 

Fiscal Year 

2004 Funds* 

Fiscal Year 

2003 Funds* 

Fiscal Year 

2004 Funds* 

Total Disbursed 

to State** 

CT $5,000 $0 $9,920 $17,780 $143 $100 $32,943

DE $5,000 $0 $4,150 $0 $100 $100 $9,350

DC $5,000 $0 $4,150 $7,447 $100 $100 $16,797

FL $14,448 $11,581 $47,417 $85,085 $687 $493 $159,711

GA $7,816 $4,740 $23,171 $41,578 $335 $242 $77,882

GU $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $100 $100 $1,200

HI $5,000 $0 $4,150 $0 $100 $100 $9,350

ID $5,000 $0 $4,150 $7,447 $100 $100 $16,797

IL $11,129 $33,806 $0 $0 $511 $359 $45,805

IN $6,230 $9,522 $17,372 $31,173 $251 $175 $64,723

IA $5,000 $0 $8,495 $15,244 $122 $100 $28,961

KS $5,000 $0 $7,662 $13,748 $110 $100 $26,620

KY $4,699 $469 $11,773 $21,126 $170 $121 $38,358 

LA $4,911 $7,352 $12,549 $22,518 $181 $127 $47,638

ME $5,000 $0 $4,150 $0 $100 $100 $9,350

MD $5,637 $1,638 $15,201 $27,277 $220 $157 $50,130

MA $6,590 $1,519 $18,688 $33,534 $270 $191 $60,792

MI $9,207 $6,531 $28,257 $0 $409 $287 $44,691 

MN $5,314 $0 $14,020 $25,158 $202 $145 $44,839

MS $3,673 $1,778 $8,023 $14,396 $115 $100 $28,085

MO $5,875 $11,473 $16,073 $28,842 $232 $164 $62,659 

MT $5,000 $0 $4,150 $0 $100 $100 $9,350

NE $5,000 $0 $4,920 $0 $100 $100 $10,120

NV $5,000 $0 $5,785 $10,381 $100 $100 $21,366

NH $5,000 $0 $4,150 $7,447 $100 $100 $16,797

NJ $8,141 $8,696 $24,358 $0 $352 $248 $41,795 

NM $5,000 $0 $5,110 $9,170 $100 $100 $19,480

NY $16,494 $49,604 $0 $0 $796 $559 $67,453

NC $7,888 $893 $23,431 $42,046 $339 $240 $74,837 

ND $5,000 $0 $4,150 $0 $100 $100 $9,350

OH $10,385 $30,668 $32,562 $58,430 $143 $328 $132,516

OK $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $472 $101 $5,573

OR $4,204 $1,823 $9,962 $0 $143 $102 $16,234 

PA $11,323 $22,917 $35,993 $64,586 $521 $364 $135,704

PR $3,151 $0 $0 $0 $151 $104 $3,406

RI $5,000 $0 $4,150 $7,447 $100 $100 $16,797

SC $4,652 $2,168 $11,602 $20,819 $167 $120 $39,528

SD $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $100 $100 $5,200

TN $6,005 $2,474 $16,546 $29,690 $241 $169 $55,125

TX $17,207 $6,270 $57,505 $0 $834 $602 $82,418 

UT $3,091 $5,727 $5,893 $10,574 $100 $100 $25,485
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 6 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

 Title I "Early Money" 

Title II Requirements 

Payments (Section 251)

Title II Disability Access 

Grants (Section 261)

State 

 Section 101 

Payments* 

 Section 102 

Payments* 

Fiscal Year 

2003 Funds* 

Fiscal Year 

2004 Funds* 

Fiscal Year 

2003 Funds* 

Fiscal Year 

2004 Funds* 

Total Disbursed 

to State** 

VT $5,000 $0 $4,150 $7,447 $100 $100 $16,797

VA $7,106 $4,527 $20,573 $0 $298 $212 $32,716 

VI $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $100 $100 $1,200

WA $6,098 $6,799 $16,889 $30,307 $244 $175 $60,512

WV $2,977 $2,349 $5,476 $9,827 $100 $100 $20,829 

WI $5,694 $1,309 $15,411 $27,653 $185 $158 $50,410

WY $5,000 $0 $4,150 $7,447 $100 $100 $16,797

Total $349,180 $300,317 $719,125 $822,257 $12,998 $9,941 $2,213,818

* Figures rounded to nearest thousand. 

** Excludes payments made under section 291 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to States for 

protection and advocacy systems. 

As can be seen from the Table above, all States, Territories and the District of Columbia have 

received Title I, Section 101 funds for use in improving the administration of Federal elections. 

Thirty States received Section 102 for replacing punch card and lever voting systems. Thirtyfive States have requested and received all of the Title II funds available to the State under 

HAVA. Twenty States have received no or partial Title II funding and have the opportunity to 

receive additional funds upon providing the certification required by HAVA and requesting those 

funds. 

 HAVA funds have already enhanced the election process, touching various aspects of the 

election administration process. This money has been used by States to develop their state plans 

detailing how they would comply with HAVA; to develop their administrative complaint 

procedures; to institute provisional voting; to recruit, educate and train poll workers; and to 

inform voters of the changes in the voting process. Probably the most tangible effect of HAVA 

dollars for voters was the use of HAVA funds to improve voting technology. 

Voting System Procurement

In States like Georgia, Maryland, Florida and the District of Columbia, voters in the 

November 2004 election used new electronic or optical scan voting equipment funded by 

HAVA. Nevada spent a portion of its HAVA funds not only to upgrade voting equipment to 

touch screen voting systems but also to outfit its voting units state-wide with devices that would 

produce a contemporaneous paper record of the votes cast on each voting machine. EAC 

research, as well as reports by other sources such as media, trade associations, and nongovernmental research agencies, shows that five of the States have used HAVA money to either 

fund or reimburse state-wide purchase and implementation of updated voting equipment to meet 

the requirements of Title III. Many more are in the process of issuing Requests for Proposals 

(RFP) or other solicitation methods for the procurement of updated voting equipment. The 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 7 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

States are well underway with their efforts to purchase HAVA compliant voting systems to meet 

the 2006 deadlines. 

State Voting System Procurement Status as of 1/24/05 

AL No procurement status reported

AK Procurement complete

AS No procurement status reported

AZ RFP to be issued February 2005 

AR RFP to be issued March 2005 

CA Feasibility study completed; RFP to follow

CO RFP being prepared for issue 

CT RFP issued; Due February 2005 

DE Procurement complete

DC Procurement complete

FL Procurement in process 

GA Procurement complete

GU No procurement status reported

HI Procurement planned for June 2005

ID RFP to be issued March 2005 

IL Awaiting decision on whether to issue RFP or provide a list of certified equipment from which

the counties can purchase 

IN No statewide procurement. Counties will purchase state certified machines. 

IA Procurement planned for 2005 

KS RFP to be issued March 2005 

KY A qualified vendor list has been established; counties will purchase from that list 

LA RFP to be issued March 2005 

ME RFP to be issued by Summer 2005

MD Procurement complete

MA Cities will purchase voting equipment approved by the State 

MI Michigan communities are in the process of purchasing optical scan systems from a qualified

vendors list established and contracts negotiated by the Secretary of State 

MN Awaiting legislation to develop a procurement process or strategy

MS RFP issued

MO New Secretary of State is considering various options for procurement

MT No procurement status reported

NE Awaiting budget finalization to determine a procurement strategy

NV Procurement complete

NH No procurement status reported

NJ No procurement status reported

NM Awaiting legislation to determine procurement strategy

NY Awaiting legislation to determine procurement strategy

NC RFP to be issued spring 2005 

ND RFP complete; Contract signed; Certification due March 2005

OH Change to purchase of optical scan equipment versus DREs

OK Procurement complete

OR RFP to be issued summer 2005 

PA Pennsylvania counties will purchase from a list of voting systems certified by the state. 

PR Awaiting action by the legislature to identify procurement process 

RI No procurement status reported

SC RFP complete; Procurement planned for 2005
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 8 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

State Voting System Procurement Status as of 1/24/05 

SD Procurement planned for Spring 2005 

TN Pending decision on procurement process 

TX Negotiating contracts with approved vendors from which counties will select and purchase their 

voting equipment.

UT Utah has received responses to its RFP. With the change in administration we are awaiting 

direction as to how to proceed with the procurement process. 

VT Procurement planned for Spring 2005 

VI No procurement status reported

VA RFP issued in 2004

WA RFP issued; RPF withdrawn due to inadequate response 

WV Considering procurement options 

WI No procurement status reported

WY Procurement planned using negotiated contracts 

HAVA funds further influenced the 2004 election through the development and use of 

state-wide voter registration databases in 17 States. Twenty-one other States have entered into 

agreements for the development of a database and that process is ongoing. Nine others have 

RFPs pending, but have not made final decisions on those proposals.2

Initial reports from the States regarding the use of Title II funds and expenditure of Title I 

funds since January 1, 2004 are expected to be received from the States on or before March 31, 

2005 and will further inform EAC of the States’ uses of HAVA funds. HAVA funds have 

influenced the administration of Federal elections and will continue to have a positive effect as 

States spend those funds to acquire voting machines, implement databases, train poll workers, 

and educate and inform the public about the beneficial changes involving Federal elections. 

Provisional Voting

Provisional voting was a response to the number of persons who believed that they were 

registered to vote in 2000 but who were turned away from the polling places when their names 

did not appear on the poll lists. Provisional voting was not a new concept to all States. Some, 

such as California and New Mexico, have been administering some form of provisional voting 

for many years. As with most of the provisions of HAVA, the details of the implementation and 

many of the interpretations have been left to the States. Understandably, this resulted in various 

positions on what HAVA meant by “jurisdiction” and how provisional voting should be 

implemented. This lack of uniformity in implementation strategy is what caused provisional 

voting to be such a lightening rod in the 2004 elections. Despite the attention, both positive and 

negative, that was given to provisional voting, overall it can be seen as one of the great successes 

of HAVA. 

To understand the impact of provisional voting, one must first recognize the climate in 

which it was introduced. Voter registration increased significantly in 2004. On the average, 

 2

 Electionline.org Briefing: The 2004 Election (December 2004), p 12. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 9 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

voter registration was up approximately 9% since the November 2000 election. Many of these 

registrations came late in the cycle and close to the deadlines for submitting voter registration 

applications. These voluminous registrations at the end of the cycle taxed local election officials 

in their efforts to ensure that all eligible voters’ names appeared on the precinct lists. The 

solution to that problem, envisioned by the framers of HAVA, was provisional voting. Even if 

those names were not entered in time to appear on the voter registration list, those persons would 

be able to vote by provisional ballot and have their eligibility verified after the election. In the 

November 2004 election more than 1,500,000 voters took advantage of the opportunity to cast a 

provisional ballot. More than 1,000,000 (68.4%) of those provisional ballots were counted. In 

simplest terms, more than 1,000,000 eligible voters voted in November 2004 who would have 

been disenfranchised were it not for HAVA. 

The percentage of ballots that were counted varied from State to State. The following 

table shows available data regarding the number of provisional ballots cast and counted: 

State Total Provisional 

Ballots Cast 

Total Provisional 

Ballots Counted

% Provisional 

Ballots Counted

Alabama 6,478 1,865 28.8%

Alaska 23,285 22,498 96.6%

Arizona 101,536 73,658 72.5%

Arkansas 7,675 3,678 47.9%

California 668,408 491,765 73.6%

Colorado 51,529 39,086 75.9%

Connecticut 1,573 498 31.7%

Delaware 384 24 6.3%

District of Columbia 11,212 7,977 71.15% 

Florida 27,742 10,007 36.1%

Georgia 12,893 4,489 34.8%

Hawaii 347 24 6.9%

Idaho

Illinois 43,137 17,000 39.4%

Indiana 1,287 175 13.6%

Iowa 15,406 8,038 52.17% 

Kansas

Kentucky 1,499 221 14.7%

Louisiana 5,880 2,312 39.3%

Maine

Maryland 48,936 31,860 65.1%

Massachusetts 10,060 2,319 23.1%

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri 2,203 519 23.6%

Montana 688 378 54.9%

Nebraska 17,421 13,788 79.1%
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 10 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

State Total Provisional 

Ballots Cast 

Total Provisional 

Ballots Counted

% Provisional 

Ballots Counted

Nevada 6,153 2,446 39.8%

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico 5,246 2,728 52.0% 

New York

North Carolina 77,469 50,370 65.0% 

North Dakota

Ohio 157,714 123,912 78.6%

Oklahoma 2,615 201 7.7%

Oregon 8,298 7,077 85.3%

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina 4,930 3,207 65.1% 

South Dakota 533 66 12.4% 

Tennessee 8,778 3,298 37.6%

Texas 25,743 5,662 22.0%

Utah 26,389 18,575 70.4%

Vermont 121 30 24.8%

Virginia 4.127 728 17.6%

Washington 86,239 69,273 80.3%

West Virginia 13,367 8,378 62.7% 

Wisconsin 374 119 31.8%

Wyoming 95 24 25.3%

American Samoa

Guam

Puerto Rico 14,706

Virgin Islands 254 197 77.6% 

TOTAL U.S. 1,502,730 1,028,470 68.4% 

In Alaska, 22,498 of the 23,285 (96.6%) provisional ballots were counted. Conversely, in 

Hawaii, only 24 of the 347 (6.9%) provisional ballots were counted. The variance in the 

percentage of ballots counted from State to State is reflective of a number of factors, including 

the definition of “jurisdiction” for purposes of provisional voting as well as the facts surrounding 

the individual provisional ballot applications, such as whether the person submitted a timely 

voter registration application. 

It was the diverging definitions of “jurisdiction” that drew national attention. Litigation 

over provisional voting occurred in at least five States, including most notably Ohio, Michigan, 

and Missouri. While this may seem like negative and unwanted attention, the reality is that these 

lawsuits produced a reasonable, workable rule of law regarding provisional voting. The Sixth 

Circuit Court of Appeals was the highest court to consider issues related to provisional ballots in

The Sandusky County Democratic Party, et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 

2004). Each case considered several common questions: 1) is there a private right of action 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 11 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

under HAVA, 2) who is eligible to receive a provisional ballot, and 3) when should a provisional 

ballot be legally counted? In each case, including the opinion of the Sixth Circuit, the courts 

found that there is a private right of action under HAVA using the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Second, the opinions resolved that HAVA dictates the availability of provisional ballots. 

A person is entitled to receive a provisional ballot when his/her name does not appear on the 

voter registration list, regardless of whether the person is attempting to vote in the precinct to 

which he should be assigned by virtue of his address. Third, a provisional ballot should be 

counted when it meets the laws, rules or regulations for such counting established by the state. 

Thus, if state law or regulation has defined the jurisdiction for counting provisional ballots to be 

the “precinct,” then a voter’s provisional ballot will only be counted if he/she casts that 

provisional ballot in the proper precinct. These decisions preserve the intent of HAVA to work 

with the States, allowing them to implement HAVA in light of the various State laws and rules 

governing elections and allowing them to continue practices such as precinct-based voting that 

they have followed for years. 

At the end of the November 2004 election, provisional voting was successful in allowing 

eligible voters to participate in the electoral process. It allowed eligible voters to cast ballots 

when they previously would have been turned away. Furthermore, it is better refined and 

understood thanks to the interpretations of HAVA by the courts of this country. 

Voter Information

Section 302(b) of HAVA requires each polling place to display informational posters and 

sample ballots. These posters must include information regarding: 

• the date and hours of the election 

• instructions on how to vote 

• special instructions for first time voters and voters who registered by mail 

• general information regarding voting rights and state and Federal laws 

prohibiting fraud and misrepresentations in elections. 

States were required to implement the use of these pieces of voter information as of January 1, 

2004. 

For the first time in 2004, voters could anticipate the type of information that would be 

made available to them at the polling places. They could expect not only to have a sample ballot 

with the names and offices of the candidates, but also information on how to vote using the 

voting equipment in place in that precinct. Persons who were first time voters or who registered 

by mail were given information on the types of identification that were accepted to verify the 

voter’s identity. Further, if a voter experienced a problem in voting, the informational posters 

identified their voting rights, the laws that governed fraud and misrepresentation, and how to 

contact appropriate election officials if the voter felt his/her rights had been violated. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 12 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

An example of the types of information displayed in our nation’s voting precincts was 

provided by the State of Pennsylvania and is attached. (Appendix 3) Similar posters and 

pamphlets were developed by all of the States. These informational pieces were printed in 

dozens of languages so that persons whose primary language is not English could understand 

them. In addition, accommodations were made for sight impaired voters by printing these 

pamphlets in Braille and in some cases by making an audio recording of the text. It is evident 

from a review of these documents that where these posters were properly displayed, voters were 

more informed about their franchise and how to exercise it. 

Administrative Complaint Procedures

HAVA required States to establish an administrative complaint procedure that allows 

voters to report and file complaints regarding voting and violations of HAVA. Most States 

developed these complaint procedures as a part of their state plans. The procedures must include 

a process whereby voters make complaints that are notarized for validity, have the opportunity to 

request and have a hearing of the complaint, and can expect a resolution to the complaint within 

90 days of the date of filing. If resolution cannot be reached, the complaint must be referred to a 

process of alternative dispute resolution and completed within 60 days. 

While some States previously had some type of formal or informal dispute resolution 

regarding election complaints, HAVA created the requirement for a uniform procedure that 

would cause voter complaints to be taken seriously and resolved in a timely manner. These 

administrative complaint procedures were not specifically designed to adjudicate complaints of 

fraud or ill practice, but this forum will undoubtedly shed light on past and future frauds on the 

election system and will hopefully prevent these acts from being ignored. At the time of this 

hearing, the 90-day period for resolution of early-filed complaints is just ending. Now that the 

hearing phase has ended, EAC will collect data regarding the number, types and resolutions to 

administrative complaints that were filed under this procedure. 

Election Day Surveys

HAVA funding and the establishment of EAC has given the Federal Government an 

opportunity to collect and study a wide range of data related to the November 2004 election. 

EAC’s research agenda contains three survey pieces: the Election Day Survey, the Military and

Overseas Absentee Ballot Survey, and a revised National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) 

Survey. These survey instruments collect data on both a county and state level regarding a litany 

of voting administration issues, including: 

Ballots Cast and Counted

• the number of ballots cast and counted 

• the number of absentee ballots requested and counted 

• the reasons that absentee ballots were rejected 

• the number of provisional ballots cast and counted 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 13 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

• the reasons that provisional ballots were rejected 

Voting Systems

• the number and types of voting equipment 

• the number and types of voting machine malfunctions that occurred 

Military Voting

• the number of military and overseas voters who requested ballots 

• the number of military and overseas voters who cast and returned ballots 

• the method of transmitting military and overseas ballots 

Voter Registration

• the number of registered voters 

• the number of voter registration applications received and processed 

• the reasons for rejecting voter registration applications 

• the form of voter registration applications accepted 

• the means of storing voter registration data 

• the number of voters who were removed under NVRA purging provisions 

• the means of comparing voter registration applications to existing data to prevent 

duplicate and fraudulent registrations 

Copies of the Election Day Survey and Military and Overseas Absentee Ballot Survey are 

attached. (Appendixes 4 and 5) The NVRA survey is in the final stages of development and has 

not yet been released to the States. 

EAC has experienced a notable response to the Election Day Survey. Forty-one States 

have responded. EAC expects to receive an equal or greater response to its Military and 

Overseas Absentee Voter Survey, which was due on January 31, 2005. Once the final data from

the NVRA survey is received by EAC (due March 31, 2005), EAC will compile a 

comprehensive report detailing the happenings of the November 2004 election as revealed by the 

survey data.

This information will in some cases serve as the basis on which we evaluate future 

elections and future election administration. Data from previous elections will further inform us 

of the improvements that have been achieved and the work yet to be done. Further, the data 

gathered through these surveys will be an invaluable addition to EAC’s work as a clearinghouse 

of information to be shared among the States. 

Poll Worker Recruitment Programs

Under Title V of HAVA, EAC developed the first Federal program to recruit and train 

poll workers. The HAVA College Poll Worker Program was designed to encourage students at 

institutions of higher education to assist local governments in the administration of elections by 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 14 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

serving as nonpartisan poll workers or assistants and to encourage local governments to use the 

services of students participating in the program. In fiscal year 2004, the HAVA College 

Program received $750,000 for the purpose of issuing grants to institutions of higher learning 

and associated organizations for use in the development of recruitment and training programs. 

Following the announcement of the grant program, the Commission reached out to 

almost 40 organizations and associations, encouraging them to advertise the program within their 

networks. EAC staff fielded over 150 inquires from around the country, regarding the grant 

application process. Ultimately, 88 organizations applied for a HAVA college poll worker grant. 

Because of the overwhelming interest in the program, EAC had to make tough choices as 

to which applicants would share in the available grant funds. An independent panel of 18 

experts reviewed the eligible applications and gave each a score. EAC staff closely reviewed the 

top scorers and EAC ultimately chose 15 finalists. These 15 grantees shared the $630,000 of 

available grant funds. The 15 grants went to a variety of community colleges, four year colleges 

and universities, and non-profit organizations with a national and regional focus. A breakdown 

of the grant awards is shown in the table below. 

Grantees Location 

of Grantees

Amount

Requested 

Amount

Awarded 

Asnuntuck Community College Enfield, CT $91,344 $30,000 

Assoc. Students, Inc. 

(Cal State Univ.) Long Beach, CA $41,912 $25,000 

Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti, MI $54,356 $25,000 

Florida Memorial College Miami Gardens, FL $149,911 $50,000 

Golden Key International Honor Society Atlanta, GA $148,250 $130,000 

Illinois Central College East Peoria, IL $14,785 $12,000 

Los Angeles Conservation Corps Los Angeles, CA $22,310 $20,000 

Northampton Community College Bethlehem, PA $26,857 $25,000 

Northern Kentucky University Highland Heights, KY $45,273 $25,000

Roxbury Community College Boston, MA $70,470 $30,000 

Rural Ethnic Institute Rapid City, SD $149,537 $50,000 

University of Baltimore Baltimore, MD $149,350 $70,000 

University of Maryland College Park College Park, MD $67,270 $25,000 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 15 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

Grantees Location 

of Grantees

Amount

Requested 

Amount

Awarded 

University of North Texas Denton, TX $149,280 $80,000 

Wiley College Marshall, TX $31,978 $30,000 

Totals: $1,212,883 $627,000

Combined, the 15 grantees estimated that over 5,300 students would be recruited into the 

poll worker program. Student recruitment goals were met. Over 5,300 students were recruited, 

2,000 students were trained, and 1,700 students were recruited and placed as poll workers or poll 

assistants. 

 

To further assist States and local election officials in recruiting poll workers, EAC 

launched a National Poll Worker Initiative in June 2004. EAC sought and gained the 

involvement of corporations, private organizations and private citizens in encouraging people to 

serve as poll workers on November 2. To further shed light on the need to recruit, train and 

retain poll workers, EAC used its September 2004 meeting to focus the attention of the country 

on the shortage of poll workers. EAC’s efforts spurred corporations like CitiGroup and agencies 

like the Department of Agriculture to encourage their employees to participate in the electoral 

process as nonpartisan poll workers by adding that activity to its list of community involvements. 

In some cases, employers agreed to allow employees to serve as poll workers using approved, 

paid leave other than the employee’s vacation. 

These poll worker recruitment programs were first-time Federal initiatives. Never before 

had national attention been focused on the important work of those who serve democracy at the 

polling place or on the shortage of persons willing to help. The EAC poll workers recruitment 

programs were a beginning in an effort to assure that America’s polling places are fully staffed 

with trained and knowledgeable poll workers. EAC continues to receive pledges of interest and 

assistance with its continued efforts to aid States and local jurisdictions in recruiting and training 

poll workers. 

Election Day 2004 Findings

On Election Day 2004, the EAC Commissioners traveled to Florida, Ohio, California, 

New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Missouri to observe first-hand the events, successes and 

problems that occurred in the polling places of America. While the Commissioners saw many of 

HAVA’s successes such as persons casting provisional ballots, they also witnessed poll workers 

who were not always so clear on when a provisional ballot should be offered to a voter. They 

saw polling places where informational signs were posted and polling places where the required 

signage was missing. They saw voters enjoying the benefits of upgraded and technologically 

advanced voting machines as well as voters who cast their ballots on machines that were decades 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 16 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

old. They saw polling places that operated with the utmost of efficiency and precincts where 

voters stood in line for hours to exercise their right to vote. 

Even prior to Election Day, the EAC Commissioners were in touch with State and local 

election officials to discuss issues and concerns with the upcoming election. EAC, as a part of 

its clearinghouse role, hosted a telephone conference which gave election officials an 

opportunity to share problems and solutions that they experienced in preparing for the election. 

These calls revealed significant concerns about the administration of provisional voting and the 

ability of election officials to timely process the high volume of voter registrations. 

While the Commissioners observed the November 2004 election in the field, the EAC 

office was manned by their trained staff to answer the calls of Americans who had questions 

about voting. Nearly 700 calls were fielded by the Election Assistance Commission staff from

6:00 a.m. until 10:30 p.m. on November 2, 2004. The vast majority of the calls involved 

questions regarding the location of a polling place, the hours of voting, and the status of voter 

registration. Conversely, relatively few calls involved allegations of improper activity. 

Total Calls Received by EAC:

Election Day 2004

12

63

26

17

2

26

13

1

123

8

126

37

8

173

40

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Accessibility

Absentee Ballots

Ballot Presentation

Campaign Activity

Discrimination

Fraud/Criminal

Voter Identification

Language Access

Other

Poll Hours

Poll Location

Provisional Voting

Voter Assistance

Voter Registration

Voting Information

Voting Machine

Total Number of Calls
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 17 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

BUILDING THE FRAMEWORK FOR EXCELLENCE IN 2005

EAC’s observations from the November 2004 election suggest that many things were 

done right, but there is much to be done. Parts of HAVA have been implemented, yet questions 

and confusion persist about these new voting practices. In the coming months, many States will 

purchase vast quantities of voting equipment using the funding provided by HAVA. Those 

States need guidance on which voting machines meet the requirements of HAVA and what the 

next generation of voting system standards will require. Likewise, state-wide voter registration 

lists will be implemented in the next 10 months and States need guidance on what constitutes a 

single, uniform, interactive voter list. Confusion over when and how to administer provisional 

voting must be eliminated. EAC’s 2005 research and guidance agenda seeks to alleviate and 

respond to a lot of the uncertainty that surrounds HAVA implementation 

EAC is committed to providing the guidance, assistance and information necessary to aid 

the states in their implementations of HAVA. EAC’s priorities for 2005 are its research agenda

and its efforts to assure that HAVA funds are spent properly and in keeping with the spirit of the 

law. EAC will inform the election reform process with its guidance and police the stewardship 

of HAVA funds. 

EAC Research and Guidance Agenda for 2005

The Election Assistance Commission has set forth an aggressive research and guidance 

agenda for 2005. HAVA requires EAC to conduct a number of studies and allows the 

Commission considerable latitude to identify other election administration issues for review and 

research. The objective of these efforts is to provide information and guidance to election 

officials and others to promote the overall HAVA goal of improving the administration of U.S. 

Federal elections. 

EAC’s theme message for FY2004 was “Getting America Ready to Vote Under HAVA,” 

to reflect the Commissions’ formation and the initial actions taken to assist the States in meeting 

the HAVA requirements for the first Federal election after the passage of the Act. The 

Commission’s theme for FY2005 is “Building the Framework for Excellence.” Now that the first 

Federal elections have occurred under HAVA, we will be focusing our efforts on identifying 

what elements of HAVA worked well and where improvements might be needed. With the 

appropriation of its 2005 budget, EAC has received the money it needs to make a financial as 

well as a programmatic commitment to providing research and guidance to the States. EAC was 

able to allocate more than 50% of its 2005 budget to research and guidance efforts. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 18 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

EAC Budget Allocation:

Fiscal Year 2005

18%

13%

2%

14%

2%

51%

Salaries & Benefits

Programs & Services

Legal & Legislative Affairs

General Operations

Communications

Research & Guidance

A key element of this research effort is the collection of data from States and counties on 

a number of election administration topics, including the use of provisional ballots, absentee 

voting, voter registration, voting equipment performance, and availability and training of poll 

workers. This data collection involves the use of three survey documents: 

• Election Day Data Survey 

• Military and Overseas Absentee Ballot Survey 

• National Voter Registration Act Survey 

This will be the first comprehensive data collection effort ever conducted and is expected to 

yield many useful insights regarding the current state of election administration. EAC will 

continue to refine its data collection effort in the coming years as a means to assess progress 

against HAVA’s goals. 

In addition, the Commission has identified a number of specific areas requiring research 

for the purpose of developing Title III guidance to the States, based principally on the 

experiences of the November 2004 election. This includes guidance on: 

• Voluntary Voting Systems Standards 

• Provisional Voting 

• Impact of Voter Identification Requirements 

• Voting Information 

This work will involve review and analysis of State legislation and administrative procedures, 

identification of issues, and development of recommendations for application in the 2006 

elections. In addition, EAC will conduct studies, as mandated by HAVA, regarding 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 19 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

• Free absentee ballot postage 

• Electronic (internet) voting 

Finally, EAC will review and update the National Voter Registration form and the instructions 

that accompany that form. 

EAC’s priority for informing and assisting the reform of elections is its guidance on 

voting systems and voter registration databases. Many States are directing major efforts this year

to meeting the January 2006 deadline for implementation of state-wide voter registration 

databases and the replacement or upgrade of voting systems to meet HAVA requirements. The 

EAC will be issuing voter registration database guidance and expects to receive initial 

recommendations for voting system standards from the TGDC and NIST for use in the voting 

system procurements. Both of these efforts will be laying essential groundwork to build on for 

future technical assistance to the States. 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

One of EAC’s most important mandates is the testing, certification, decertification and 

recertification of voting system hardware and software. Fundamental to implementing this key 

function is the development of revised voluntary voting systems standards, which will prescribe 

the technical requirements for voting system performance, security, and auditability; and identify

testing protocols to determine how well systems meet these requirements. Another important 

element is the certification of testing laboratories to ensure that competent resources are 

available to perform testing. The final element is the process of reviewing the system test reports 

to validate that systems have met the standards and therefore can be declared qualified for use in 

Federal elections. Each of these elements is discussed below. 

Technical Guidelines Development Committee and the Standards Development Process 

HAVA Section 221 calls for the establishment of a Technical Guidelines Development 

Committee (TGDC)3

 to assist the Commission in the development of voluntary voting system

guidelines (also referred to as voluntary standards). These guidelines, or standards, are 

characterized as voluntary because EAC does not have the regulatory authority to issue 

 

3 The Chairman of the TGDC is the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). The committee is comprised of the Director and fourteen other individuals appointed 

jointly by the Commission and the Director. HAVA Section 221 prescribes the composition of the TGDC 

membership to include members of the EAC Standards Board, members of the EAC Board of Advisors, 

members of the Architectural and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board, a representative of the 

American National Standards Institute, a representative of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers, two representatives of the National Association of State Election Directors, and other 

individuals with technical and scientific expertise relating to voting systems and voting equipment.
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 20 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

mandatory standards. Consequently, each State retains the prerogative of deciding whether to 

adopt these standards for the procurement of voting systems. 

The first meeting of the TGDC was held on July 9, 2004. The focus of this meeting was 

getting the committee organized and defining working procedures. Commissioner Paul 

DeGregorio was named as the Federal Officer of the TGDC, as required by the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. The members created three sub-committees: Computer Security and 

Transparency, Core Requirements and Testing, and Human Factors and Privacy. This meeting 

marked the beginning of TGDC’s 9-month process for developing initial voting system 

guidelines. 

Each of these sub-committees is responsible for developing high level resolutions or 

guiding principles regarding the scope and content of the voting system standards. These 

resolutions are then debated and finalized by the entire TGDC and, if approved, passed to NIST 

with tasking to conduct research, evaluate existing standards, or revise or write new standards as 

required to implement each resolution. The resulting NIST work product will be standards 

statements or a specification for a standard that needs to be developed, as well as a description of 

the test protocols for verifying compliance. The TGDC met again on January 18 and 19 and 

passed 31 resolutions guiding the development of voluntary voting system standards in the areas 

of security, core requirements and human factors. (Appendix 6) 

The TGDC will deliver an initial set of voluntary voting system standards to EAC in 

April 2005 for consideration and adoption. The standards presented in April will be a start in 

developing a comprehensive approach to guidelines for voting systems and procedures for 

implementing the use of those voting systems. However, these standards will not be final. 

Additional standards work will be required not only to develop these comprehensive standards, 

but also to update those standards to keep pace with the ever-advancing technology. 

Accreditation of Voting System Testing Laboratories 

HAVA Section 231 requires EAC and NIST to develop a national program for 

accrediting voting system testing laboratories. On June 23, 2004, NIST published a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing the establishment of this program, which will be operated as part of 

the overall National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). This program will 

provide for initial accreditation of testing laboratories as well as periodic re-examination and recertification that they continue to meet the criteria. NIST will begin accepting applications in 

April 2005. At this time, the test lab certification process will formally transition from the 

National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), which has been doing this work 

since 1992. 

NVLAP provides an internationally-recognized, independent evaluation of laboratory 

competence. Labs wishing to receive accreditation will submit an application describing their 

facilities and staff qualifications in relation to the relevant standards. In this instance, NVLAP 

will be examining the applicant’s ability to test systems using the voluntary voting system

standards, based on their written documentation supplemented with a site visit to inspect their 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 21 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

facilities. Laboratories that successfully complete the accreditation process will be recommended 

by NIST to the EAC for designation as an approved voting system testing laboratory. EAC will 

maintain a register of qualified laboratories for vendors and election officials to reference in 

identifying resources to fulfill their system testing requirements. 

Voting System Qualification Process 

Accredited testing laboratories will test vendor systems for conformance with the 

voluntary voting system standards. Once this testing has been completed the results must be 

reviewed and a determination made of whether the system is eligible to be designated as a 

qualified voting system. This review process has been conducted by NASED since 1992. HAVA 

directs that the EAC assume this responsibility. Preliminary planning for this transition began in 

FY04. This process will fully transition to the EAC in FY05. 

National Software Reference Library 

In July 2004, EAC and NIST jointly established a part of the National Software Reference 

Library (NSRL) specifically for voting systems. The Commission encouraged voting system

vendors to submit copies of their certified system software to NSRL so that election officials 

could validate that the software they were using matched the certified version. Five vendors 

subsequently provided their software for this purpose. Currently, election officials can validate 

that the software, prior to installation, is the version that was submitted to NSRL. In the coming 

year, EAC and NIST will work to broaden the scope of this project so that election officials can 

confirm that the version of software that is installed on a particular voting machine is the same as 

the original version submitted to NSRL. 

State-wide Voter Registration Databases

Section 303 of HAVA requires States to develop a single, uniform, interactive voter 

registration list. States must have these systems in place by January 1, 2006. Many States have 

already begun the acquisition and development of these databases, but many others would 

benefit from guidance issued by EAC. EAC began its efforts toward developing voluntary 

guidance on state-wide voter registration databases by holding a meeting on December 14, 2004, 

wherein election officials who have implemented a state-wide voter registration databases 

testified about their experiences. In addition, EAC has empanelled a voter registration database 

working group to identify questions, issues and problems that should be addressed by the final 

guidance. EAC plans to have guidance available to the States by summer 2005. 

Reporting and Auditing

EAC must assure that States are good stewards of the Federal funds with which they have 

been entrusted. States have already received nearly $2.2 billion in Federal funds. To monitor 

the use of these funds, EAC and GSA made certain restrictions applicable to these funds which 

require regular reporting and annual auditing. What is more, HAVA armored EAC with 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 22 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

additional, special audit authority. EAC will use these tools to review the States’ spending of

HAVA funds. 

Reporting

Reports on Title II Funds 

HAVA Section 258 requires States to submit reports to EAC on the activities conducted 

with requirements payments provided under HAVA Title II during the Federal fiscal year. This 

report must include: 

• a list of expenditures made with respect to each category of activities described for the use of 

funds; 

• the number and type of articles of voting equipment obtained with the funds; and 

• an analysis and description of: 

o the activities funded to meet HAVA requirements; and 

o how such activities conform to the submitted State plan. 

This report covers the Federal fiscal year and is due no later than six months after the end of each 

fiscal year. Accordingly, each State that received a requirements payment by September 30, 

2004 should file its first report on these funds with EAC no later than March 30, 2005. 

EAC notifies the States of this reporting requirement when the funds are disbursed and 

reminds States of this reporting requirement in letters and conversations throughout the year. 

The States are required to submit Standard Form 269 as part of this report. 

Reports on Title I Funds 

Unlike the reporting required for Title II requirements payments, HAVA does not 

explicitly require reports from the States on HAVA Title I funds. Nevertheless, given the 

reporting and audit responsibilities of the EAC, it is prudent and necessary for the EAC to 

request information on the use of Title I funds. 

In a July 2003 letter to the States, GSA noted that the first reports on HAVA Title 

I "early money" were due to GSA by January 21, 2004. The vast majority of the States 

submitted their first reports to GSA using a short version of Standard Form 269, known 

as Standard Form 269A. The financial reports from seven of the 55 States (including the 

District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) 

that received section 101 funds disclosed that no disbursements were made from those 

funds during the reporting period. Also, 20 of the 30 States that received section 102 

funds reported making no disbursements from those funds during the period. Of the 

States that did report disbursements of section 101 or 102 funds, few provided the 

verification of actual purchases and expenditures requested by GSA. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 23 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

Since its formation, EAC has assumed the responsibility for receiving reports regarding 

these Title I funds, in accordance with the agency’s assumption of its audit responsibilities under 

HAVA, Title IX, Section 902. As such, EAC has taken steps to obtain additional information 

regarding reports given to GSA that were sparse on details. In addition, EAC has taken steps to 

put the States on notice of the type of reporting that EAC will expect in the future. In January 

2005, EAC sent a letter to the chief state election officials, directing the State to: 

• file all subsequent reports regarding Title I funds with EAC, annually, beginning February 

28, 2005; 

• disclose, in separate reports for section 101 and 102 funds, the financial activity for the 

previous calendar year on a Standard Form 269; and 

• provide the same detail on the expenditures that is required for the reports on Title II 

requirements payments. 

The reporting requirements put forth in this letter differ from the reporting provisions for the 

requirements payments in two ways: 

• the reports on the Title I funds will disclose financial activity during the previous calendar 

year, rather than the previous fiscal year; and 

• the reports on the Title I funds will be due annually at the end of February, while 

requirements payments reports are to be filed not later than six months after the end of the 

Federal fiscal year (March 30). 

This approach continues the reporting period originally established by GSA for Title I funds and 

allows EAC earlier access to information on HAVA Title I financial activity than for 

requirements payments. In addition to the letter instructing the States on reporting requirements, 

EAC will provide information and training to States through special sessions at conferences of 

State and local election officials on how and when to report expenditures of HAVA funds. 

Auditing

Section 902 of HAVA sets forth EAC and other agencies’ audit authority over funds 

disbursed under its provisions. A regular audit of Federal funds is contemplated in Section 

902(b)(1). This audit will be accomplished through the Single Audit program, wherein state 

auditing agencies conduct a single audit of all Federal funds expended by covered state and local 

entities. HAVA also provides for two other means of extraordinary audit power. First, HAVA 

establishes that the funds shall be subject at least once during the term of the program to an audit 

by the Comptroller General. Second, section 902(b)(6) of HAVA allows EAC to conduct a 

“special audit” or “special examination” of the funds which are subject to regular audit under 

Section 902(b)(1). This special audit covers every HAVA program, including funds distributed 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 24 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

under Section 101, 102, Title II, and programs administered by the Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

While HAVA grants audit authority to various agencies, HAVA grants the Comptroller 

General the sole authority to recoup funds on behalf of the United States. Funds can be recouped 

when the Comptroller General finds that the recipient is out of compliance with the requirements 

of the program under which the funds are provided or when an excessive payment has been made 

to the recipient. 

HAVA offered no guidelines under which a special audit should be conducted. Thus, on 

January 27, 2005, EAC adopted a policy and procedure for exercising its special audit authority. 

That policy included the following elements: 

• Regularly review single audits and reports filed by States as well as other credible 

information on States’ HAVA spending. 

• When a discrepancy or potential lack of compliance is revealed, analyze the risk to 

HAVA funds. The analysis should identify the source of any threat as well as the 

severity of the threat. 

• Determine the need for additional review and information. If additional information is 

needed, consider conducting a special audit. If the discrepancies are evident and are 

sufficiently identified by the existing information, then EAC will refer the discrepancy to 

the appropriate enforcement agency, whether that is the U.S. Department of Justice, the 

Comptroller General, or other appropriate State or Federal enforcement agency. 

• When a decision is made to conduct a special audit, EAC will define the scope and type 

of audit. The audit may take on one or more of the three types of audits: financial, 

compliance, and/or agreed-upon terms. The scope of the audit should include the term of 

the audit (e.g., from the time of receipt to present, a particular fiscal year, or other terms 

established by the Commission) and the funds that will be audited (e.g., Section 101, 

Section 102, Title II). 

• Develop a plan for the audit through a scope of work for the IG, a contractor, or another 

Federal Government agency who will conduct the audit on behalf of EAC. 

• Upon completion of the audit and report, if the findings reveal that the recipient is out of 

compliance with the requirements of the HAVA program(s), then EAC should refer the 

audit and the recipient to the Comptroller General with a request to take action to recoup 

funds on behalf of the United States. If potential voting rights, civil rights, or criminal 

violations are identified by the special audit report, EAC should refer the audit and 

recipient to the Department of Justice or another appropriate state of Federal law 

enforcement agency. 

In 2005 and beyond, EAC will use its resources and its authority under HAVA to validate 

the proper uses of HAVA funds by States and grantees. The money that EAC distributes under 

HAVA belongs to the United States. EAC will regularly review Single Audit reports as well as 

state-filed reports on the uses of HAVA funds to assure that HAVA funds are properly spent. In 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2005

Page 25 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony Before the House Administration Committee February 9, 2005

addition, where the circumstances warrant, EAC will consider the use of its special audit 

authority to protect the public fisc. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, as we conclude today’s testimony, we observe that HAVA is improving 

the Federal election process. Election reform is not a process of immediate gratification. In our 

“fast food” and “real time” society, it is easy to expect a quick fix to any given problem. 

Elections are complex and dynamic events that require years of advance planning and careful 

thought. Changing and improving that process likewise takes planning, careful thought, and, 

most importantly, time. 

HAVA has effectuated substantial change in a climate of intense scrutiny. Voting 

technology has improved. More eligible voters have been able to cast a ballot. Voters are better 

informed of their rights and how to exercise them. However, a vast amount of work is left to 

complete. More than half of the country is in the process of upgrading its voting technology, 

implementing state-wide voter registration databases, and perfecting their processes for 

provisional voting and voter identification. These States need guidance, and EAC will provide 

it. 

The substantive reforms of HAVA are well underway and EAC is playing its role in 

implementing those changes. HAVA has proved beneficial to the election process, even in the 

early days of its implementation. The coming months and years will be critical in reaching a full 

implementation of HAVA’s principles and reforms. With the continued support from Congress, 

EAC will work to assure that HAVA’s potential is realized. EAC, Congress and the nation look 

forward to the next chapter of HAVA’s success story. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee today. We will 

be happy to answer any questions that you may have.