ADOPTED BY THE US ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION AT

ITS PUBLIC MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2008 

POLICY CLARIFICATION ON THE 

ALLOWABLE USES OF HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS AUTHORIZED UNDER 

TITLES I AND II 

This U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) policy advisory clarifies the allowable uses 

of payments made to states under Sections 101 and 251 of the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA). The EAC has determined that it is a reasonable use of HAVA funds to purchase 

any HAVA-compliant voting system regardless of whether the systems replaced were 

originally purchased with HAVA funds, when the circumstances presented by the state 

demonstrate a need to replace the voting equipment.1 The basis for this policy advisory is 

explained in the following paragraphs. 

Background

The funds received by a state under Section 101 may be used for the following purposes: 

 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 I of subtitle D of title II. 

F. Improving, acquiring, leasing modifying or replacing voting systems and 

technology and methods for casting and counting votes. 

 

1

 The EAC had previously determined that “while it is reasonable to fund the purchase of HAVA-compliant

voting equipment one time, it is not reasonable to fund that expense twice.” Letter to the State of Florida, May 2, 

2007. 
2

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; obtaining general election 

information; and accessing 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). 

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 the state 

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

or (2) the state notifies the EAC of the intent 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. 

In addition to the restriction on the uses of the funds imposed by HAVA, the General Services 

Administration (GSA) and EAC informed States when the funds were distributed that the 

funds were subject to financial management controls governed by certain circulars developed 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).2

 The applicable Circulars were A-87 (the 

principles for determining allowable costs) and A-102 (now referred to as the common rule 

and which governs the administrative requirements for Federal awards such as standards for 

accounting and purchasing), and A-133 (the standards for the audit of Federal funds expended 

by state and local governments). 

In May 2007, the EAC responded to an inquiry from the State of Florida concerning the use 

of HAVA funds. Specifically, Florida asked whether it was permissible to use HAVA funds 

to purchase voting systems to replace existing HAVA-compliant voting systems that were 

also acquired with HAVA funds. The EAC response stated that it was not reasonable for a 

state to purchase a HAVA-compliant voting system with HAVA funds and then replace that 

system using HAVA funds (the “Florida guidance”). The EAC reply was based on the cost 

principles contained in OMB Circular A-87. 

 

2GSA informed each recipient that Title I funds were subject to OMB Circulars A-87, A-102, A-133, and the 

Common Rule (uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements with state and local 

governments). In a June 11, 2004 tally vote, EAC Commissioners approved the application of OMB Circulars 

A-87 and A-102 (the Common Rule), and A-133 to Title II funds. 
3

It has been the practice of this agency to have EAC staff make determinations that are 

applications of existing law and/or regulation and for the Commission to be involved in policy 

or discretionary interpretation of HAVA. The Commission received the Florida guidance 

from staff in a public meeting on May 1, 2007. If Florida had appealed the guidance, as with 

any other, the Commission would have become involved with the resolution as the final 

authority. 

Since that May 2007 decision, the Congress has provided further guidance on the use of 

HAVA funds in the House report accompanying the Financial Services and General 

Government Appropriation bill for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.Rept. 110-207), as follows: 

...the Committee believes that ensuring accurate, reliable, and accessible 

voting is more than reasonable; it is essential. The Committee 

notes that the technology for voting equipment has improved in 

recent years, and states now have more experience with 

different technologies. States should have options and the 

flexibility to acquire better equipment, including equipment 

that will provide a durable, accessible, voter-verified paper 

ballot.3

 

By letter dated January 23, 2008, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General 

Government Chairman Serrano, Vice Chair Kilpatrick and subcommittee members Hinchey, 

Ruppersberger, Wasserman Schultz, Visclosky and Schiff, placed the Florida guidance before 

the Commission by asking for a reversal of the staff opinion therein. 

Conclusion

The EAC does not mandate, endorse or recommend one system over another. It is the spirit 

and intent of HAVA that the states make voting systems decisions based upon what will best 

serve the individual state. EAC expects states to be good stewards of the Federal funds that 

have been given to them and to make thoughtful purchases of voting equipment and other 

election resources with those funds. 

By adopting this revised policy, the Commission determines that it is “reasonable” pursuant to 

the OMB circulars for state governing jurisdictions to use HAVA funds to replace voting 

systems purchased with HAVA funds, as long as such purchases comply with HAVA. States 

will have the flexibility and opportunity to use HAVA funds to meet the requirements of title 

III or to improve the administration of elections for Federal office. 

 

3

 The language was ultimately adopted as part of the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 which was enacted in December 2007.