U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

FINAL REPORT: 

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS 

RECEIVED UNDER THE HELP 

AMERICA VOTE ACT BY THE 

MINNESOTA 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

JUNE 4, 2003 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2007

Report No. 

E-HP-MN-03-08 

July 2008
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

July 14, 2008 

Memorandum 

To: Thomas Wilkey 

 Executive Director 

From: Curtis W. Crider 

 Inspector General 

Subject: Final Audit Report - Administration of Payments Received Under the Help 

America Vote Act by the State of Minnesota Secretary of State 

 (Assignment Number E-HP-MN-03-08) 

 We contracted with the independent certified public accounting firm of Clifton 

Gunderson LLP (Clifton Gunderson) to audit the administration of payments received 

under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) by the State of Minnesota Secretary of State 

(Secretary of State). The contract required that the audit be done in accordance with U.S. 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Clifton Gunderson is responsible for 

the attached auditor’s report and the conclusions expressed therein. 

 In its audit of the Secretary of State, Clifton Gunderson concluded that, except for 

the state not depositing its remainder of the five percent matching share of HAVA Section 

251 funding timely into the SOS’s Election Fund, our audit concluded that the Secretary of 

State generally accounted for and expended HAVA funds in accordance with the HAVA 

requirements and complied with the financial management requirements established by the 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The Secretary of State also complied with section 

251 requirements. 

In a June 12, 2008 response to the draft report (Appendix A), the Secretary of State 

agreed with the report’s finding and recommendation, and provided documentation of its 

implementation of the corrective action, which was the deposit of the matching share 

shortfall and additional interest earnings into the SOS’s Election Fund.

 Please provide us with your written response to the recommendation included in 

this report by August 15, 2008. Your response should contain information on actions 

taken or planned, including target dates and titles of EAC officials responsible for 

implementing the recommendation. 

 The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector General (5 U.S.C. § 

App.3) requires semiannual reporting to Congress on all audit reports issued, actions taken 

to implement audit recommendations, and recommendations that have not been 

implemented. Therefore, this report will be included in our next semiannual report to 

Congress. 

 If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at (202) 566-3125. 
a1

PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS 

RECEIVED UNDER THE HELP 

AMERICA VOTE ACT BY THE MINNESOTA 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

June 4, 2003 through December 31, 2007 

UNITED STATES ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................2 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................2 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................3 

AUDIT RESULTS .........................................................................................................................4 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Secretary Of State’s Response to Audit Results...................................................6 

Appendix B: Audit Methodology................................................................................................12 

Appendix C: Monetary Impact as of December 31, 2007 ........................................................14
1 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Performance Audit of the Administration of Payments Received Under the 

Help America Vote Act by the State of Minnesota 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Clifton Gunderson LLP was engaged by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC or the 

Commission) Office of Inspector General to conduct a performance audit of the Minnesota 

Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) for the period June 4, 2003 through December 31, 2007 to 

determine whether the SOS used payments authorized by Sections 101 and 251 of the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA or the Act) in accordance with HAVA and applicable 

requirements; accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with HAVA payments 

and for program income, and met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election 

fund, for a matching contribution, and for maintenance of a base level of state outlays. In 

addition, the Commission requires states to comply with certain financial management 

requirements, specifically: 

• Comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements with State and Local Governments (also known as the “Common Rule”) as 

published in the Code of Federal Regulations 41 CFR 105-71. 

• Expend payments in accordance with cost principles for establishing the allowance or 

disallowance of certain items of cost for federal participation issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in Circular A-87. 

• Submit detailed annual financial reports on the use of Title I and Title II payments. 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government 

Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. Because of inherent limitations, a 

study and evaluation made for the limited purposes of our review would not necessarily disclose 

all weaknesses in administering HAVA payments. 

Except for the State not depositing its remainder of the five percent matching share of HAVA 

Section 251 funding timely into the SOS’s Election Fund, which is discussed below, our audit 

concluded that the SOS accounted for and expended HAVA funds in accordance with the 

requirements mentioned above. The exception needing SOS management attention is as follows: 

• As of December 31, 2007, the State’s liability for interest on its failure to timely deposit its 

matching share of HAVA Section 251 funding and to fully fund its matching share was 

estimated to be $41,315. A determination should be made of the lost interest earnings from 

the failure to deposit the full amount of state matching funds and to deposit them timely, 

and the total amount should be transferred to the election fund. 
2 

We have included in this report the SOS’s formal response to the finding and recommendation 

dated June 12, 2008. The SOS agreed with the recommendation and has implemented corrective 

action. 

BACKGROUND

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to assist 

states and insular areas with the improvement of the administration of Federal elections and to 

provide funds to states to help implement these improvements. HAVA authorizes payments to 

states under Titles I and II, as follows: 

• Title I, Section 101 payments are for activities such as complying with Title III of HAVA 

for uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements, 

improving the administration of elections for Federal office, educating voters, training 

election officials and poll workers, and developing a state plan for requirements payments. 

• Title I, Section 102 payments are available only for the replacement of punch card and 

lever action voting systems. 

• Title II, Section 251 requirements payments are for complying with Title III requirements 

for voting system equipment; and for addressing provisional voting, voting information, 

statewide voter registration lists, and voters who register by mail. 

Title II also requires that states must: 

• Have appropriated funds “equal to 5 percent of the total amount to be spent for such 

activities [activities for which requirements payments are made].” [Section 253(b)(5)]. 

• “Maintain the expenditures of the State for activities funded by the [requirements] 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.” [Section 254 (a)(7)]. 

• Establish an election fund for amounts appropriated by the state “for carrying out the 

activities for which the requirements payment is made,” for the Federal requirements 

payments received, for “such other amounts as may be appropriated under law,” and for 

“interest earned on deposits of the fund.” [Section 254 )(b)(1)]. 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the State of Minnesota, Office of the 

Secretary of State: 

1. Used payments authorized by Sections 101 and 251 of the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA) in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; 

2. Accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with HAVA payments and for 

program income; 
3 

3. Met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election fund, for a matching 

contribution, and for maintenance of a base level of state outlays. 

In addition, to account for HAVA payments, the Act requires states to maintain records that are 

consistent with sound accounting principles that fully disclose the amount and disposition of the 

payments, that identify the project costs financed with the payments and other sources, and that 

will facilitate an effective audit. The Commission requires states receiving HAVA funds to 

comply with certain financial management requirements, specifically: 

4. Comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements with State and Local Governments (also known as the “Common Rule”) as 

published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 41 CFR 105-71. 

5. Expend payments in accordance with cost principles for establishing the allowance or 

disallowance of certain items of cost for federal participation issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in Circular A-87. 

6. Submit detailed annual financial reports on the use of Title I and Title II payments.1 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

We audited the HAVA funds received and disbursed by the SOS from June 4, 2003 through 

December 31, 2007. 

Funds received and disbursed from June 4, 2003 (program initiation date) to December 31, 2007 

(55-month period) are shown below: 

FUNDS RECEIVED 

TYPE OF 

PAYMENT

EAC 

PAYMENT

STATE 

MATCH 

INTEREST

EARNED 

TOTAL 

AVAILABLE

FUNDS 

DISBURSED 

DATA 

AS OF

 

101 $ 5,313,786 $ 0 $ 62,925 $ 5,376,711 $ 5,376,711 12/31/2007

251 39,178,788 310,000 * 2,399,970 41,888,758 36,927,188 12/31/2007

 

$ 44,492,574 $ 310,000 $ 2,462,895 $ 47,265,469 $ 42,303,899 12/31/2007

* Minnesota purchased voting machines in 2002 to meet a portion of its matching requirement. Only $310,620 of 

the matching requirement was remaining as of the August 24, 2004, the date Minnesota received its HAVA Section 

251 requirements payment. 

Our audit methodology is set forth in Appendix B. 

 

1 EAC requires states to submit annual reports on the expenditure of HAVA Sections 101 and 251 funds. For Section 

101, reports are due on February 28 for the activities of the previous calendar year. For Section 251, reports are due 

by March 30 for the activities of the previous fiscal year ending on September 30. 
4 

AUDIT RESULTS

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government 

Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. Because of inherent limitations, a 

study and evaluation made for the limited purposes of our review would not necessarily disclose 

all weaknesses in administering HAVA payments. 

Except for the state’s failure to timely deposit the remainder of state matching funds owed into 

the election fund, we concluded that the SOS accounted for and expended HAVA funds in 

accordance with the requirements mentioned above. This includes compliance with section 251 

requirements for an election fund and for maintenance of a base level of statewide outlays. The 

SOS agreed with the recommendation and has resolved the exception described below as set 

forth in Appendix A: 

Interest on State Matching Funds 

Minnesota established an election fund to hold Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds in 

accordance with the requirements of HAVA Section 254. The HAVA also requires that the 

election fund hold the five percent State matching funds that enabled Minnesota to qualify for 

federal HAVA Section 251 funds. Furthermore, interest earned from the investment of the 

money in the election fund must also be deposited into the election fund. The timely deposit of 

monthly interest earnings increases the election fund balance upon which each subsequent 

month’s interest earnings is based, resulting in a compounding effect that adds additional funds 

to the program. 

Minnesota’s matching requirement was $2,062,041. In 2002, Minnesota partially met its 

matching requirement by providing grants to counties to purchase voting machines. These grants 

required a 50 percent match from the counties and, together with the county contributions, 

totaled $1,751,421, or $310,620 less than the State matching requirement. The State 

subsequently deposited $310,000 of State matching funds into its election fund, but it did not 

make the deposit until June 29, 2007. This substantially met the State matching requirement, but 

because the matching funds were deposited nearly 3 years after Minnesota received its federal 

HAVA Section 251 funds, interest on $310,620 for nearly 3 years was not deposited into the 

election fund. Furthermore, until the State transfers the deficit from the compounded interest and 

the $620 principal to the election fund, the undeposited amount will continue to increase. 

HAVA Section 254(b)(1) requires that the following monies be deposited into its election fund: 

A. Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by the State for carrying out the 

activities for which the requirements payment is made to the State under this part (the State 

matching requirement of five percent of the federal HAVA Section 251 funds). 

B. The requirements payment made to the State (the federal HAVA Section 251 funds). 
5 

C. Such other amounts as may be appropriated under law. 

D. Interest earned on deposits of the fund. 

Officials of the Office of the SOS stated that they were not aware of the shortfall in interest 

accruing to the election fund during the nearly 3 years that $310,620 in State matching funds 

were withheld from it. 

We calculated that, through December 31, 2007, approximately $41,315 in interest and principal 

(the $620 of state matching funds never deposited) is owed to the election fund for failure to 

timely deposit $310,620 of the State’s matching requirement into the election fund. 

Recommendation:

We recommend that the Minnesota Secretary of State ensure that monies are transferred into the 

election fund that represent compounded interest lost on $310,620 from the delay in fully 

funding the state matching requirement from August 2004 to July 2007 and on $620 from July 

until payment is made, plus the $620 additional state matching funds that were never deposited 

into the election fund. The total was calculated to be approximately $41,315 as of December 31, 

2007. 

SOS Response: 

The Secretary of State reported that the finding had been resolved by the passage of legislation 

to transfer $42,045.50, which included additional interest through the date of the transfer, from 

the state’s general fund to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Account, and the transfer was 

made on June 13, 2008 as set forth in Appendix A. The response identifies as an attachment “a 

screenshot from the Minnesota Statewide Accounting system, showing the transfer of that 

amount from the general fund of the State of Minnesota to the Help America Vote Act Account”, 

which has not been included in this report, but was verified as providing support for the action 

taken. 

**************************************** 

We provided a draft of our report to the appropriate individuals of the State of Minnesota Office 

of the Secretary of State, and the United States Election Assistance Commission. We considered 

any comments received prior to finalizing this report. 

a1

CG performed its work between January 14 and February 8, 2008. 

Calverton, Maryland 
STATE OF MINNESOTA
 

Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State
 

Mark Ritchie
 

June 12,2008 

Cunis Crider 

Inspector General 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Inspector (;eneral Crider. 

Thank you for providing a copy of the Perfarrrun:e A udil &part A dnirtistratiO'l ifPaym?I1lS &:eiwi tmder the Help 

Armiaz Vrxe Aa by the Miwrsaa SecJ'f!fmy ifStJ:II£. The Office of the Secretary of State greatly appreciates the 

recommendations and assistance of the EAC and its agents, Oifton (;underson lLP in the audit process. 

I am pleased to report to you that the only finding has been resolved by the passage and impiementation of 

Laws 2008, Chapter 336, Section 9. A copy of the legislation is attached to this leuer. 

The legislation pennits the Office to make the necessary transfer from the state general fund to the Help 

America Vote Act (HAVA) Account. As previously noted in my lenerof March 17,2008 which is included in 

the Report as Appendix A, the interest accrued because the full match was not deposited in the HAVA 

Account concurrently with receipt on August 24, 2004, of the "requirements payment." 

The legislation was effective the day following final enactment, and the funds transfer of the appropriate 

amount of interest was made on June 13, 2008. The interest was calculated to that date by the fonnula set 

forth in the anached spreadsheet. The interest calculation was verified with Joe Ansnick of Oifton 

(;underson lLP, the firm engaged by the Election Assistance Commission to conduct the audit. The amount 

of the interest due pursuant to the finding, and the transfer to the Help America Vote Act Account, is 

$42,045.50. 

Also anached is a screenshot from the Minnesota Statewide Accounting system, showing the transfer of that 

amount from the general fund of the State of Minnesota to the Help America Vote Act Account. 

I believe that the completed transfer remedies the finding. The Office of the Secretary of State of Minnesota 

is pleased to conclude the audit by this action. The Help America Vote Act has resulted in new opportunities 

in election administration. The state of Minnesota will work with the Election Assistance Commission now 

and in the future to assure continued, high qualiry election administration in the state of Minnesota. 

Sincerely, ~~e 

MARK RITQ-lIE 

Minnesota Secretary of State 

180 State Office Building I 100 Rev. Dr. :-'J::utin Luther King,jr. Bh-d. II S,lint P,ml, i\lN 55155-1299
 

Phone: 651-201-1324 or l-IP7-WO-8C1H3 I l:a>.: 651-215-0682 I i\lN RebyScrvicc: 711
 

E-m<lil: secretar}r.statc@!st;ttc.mn.us I \\:'cb sire: '\vv/w.sns.stare.mn.us
 
1 LAWS of MINNESOTA for 2008 Ch. 336

CHAPTER 336–H.F.No. 3699

An act

An act relating to elections; authorizing use of certain ballots; providing for discretionary

partial recounts; specifying certain procedures; changing certain voting system

requirements; transferring certain funds; amending Minnesota Statutes 2006,

sections 203B.227, as added; 204C.35, subdivisions 1, 2; 204C.36, subdivision

2; 206.57, by adding subdivisions; 206.89, subdivision 2; Minnesota Statutes

2007 Supplement, section 206.57, subdivision 5; Laws 2007, chapter 148, article

1, section 7.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 203B.227, as added by Laws 2008, chapter

190, section 9, is amended to read:

203B.227 WRITE-IN ABSENTEE BALLOT.

An eligible A voter who will be outside the territorial limits of the United States

during the 180 days prior to the state general election described in section 203B.16,

subdivision 1, may use a state write-in absentee ballot or the federal write-in absentee

ballot to vote in any federal, state, or local election. In a state or local election, a vote for a

political party without specifying the name of a candidate must not be counted.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective for elections held after June 1, 2008.

Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 204C.35, subdivision 1, is amended to read:

Subdivision 1. Automatic recounts. (a) In a state primary when the difference

between the votes cast for the candidates for nomination to a statewide federal office,

state constitutional office, statewide judicial office, congressional office, state legislative

office, or district judicial office:

(1) is less than one-half of one percent of the total number of votes counted for

that nomination; or

(2) is ten votes or less and the total number of votes cast for the nomination is 400

votes or less;

and the difference determines the nomination, the canvassing board with responsibility for

declaring the results for that office shall manually recount the vote.

(b) In a state general election when the difference between the votes of a candidate

who would otherwise be declared elected to a statewide federal office, state constitutional

office, statewide judicial office, congressional office, state legislative office, or district

judicial office and the votes of any other candidate for that office:

(1) is less than one-half of one percent of the total number of votes counted for

that office; or

Copyright ©2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
Ch. 336 LAWS of MINNESOTA for 2008 2

(2) is ten votes or less if the total number of votes cast for the office is 400 votes or

less,

the canvassing board shall manually recount the votes.

(c) A recount must not delay any other part of the canvass. The results of the recount

must be certified by the canvassing board as soon as possible.

(d) Time for notice of a contest for an office which is recounted pursuant to this

section shall begin to run upon certification of the results of the recount by the canvassing

board.

(e) A losing candidate may waive a recount required pursuant to this section by

filing a written notice of waiver with the canvassing board.

Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 204C.35, subdivision 2, is amended to read:

Subd. 2. Optional Discretionary candidate recount. (a) A losing candidate whose

name was on the ballot for nomination or election to a statewide federal office, state

constitutional office, statewide judicial office, congressional office, state legislative office,

or district judicial office may request a recount in a manner provided in this section at the

candidate's own expense when the vote difference is greater than the difference required

by this section. The votes shall be manually recounted as provided in this section if the

candidate files a request during the time for filing notice of contest of the primary or

election for which a recount is sought.

(b) The requesting candidate shall file with the filing officer a bond, cash, or surety

in an amount set by the filing officer for the payment of the recount expenses. The

requesting candidate is responsible for the following expenses: the compensation of the

secretary of state, or designees, and any election judge, municipal clerk, county auditor,

administrator, or other personnel who participate in the recount; the costs of computer

operation, preparation of ballot counting equipment, necessary supplies and travel

related to the recount; the compensation of the appropriate canvassing board and costs of

preparing for the canvass of recount results; and any attorney fees incurred in connection

with the recount by the governing body responsible for the recount.

(c) The requesting candidate may provide the filing officer with a list of up to three

precincts that are to be recounted first and may waive the balance of the recount after these

precincts have been counted. If the candidate provides a list, the recount official must

determine the expenses for those precincts in the manner provided by paragraph (b).

(d) If the winner of the race is changed by the optional recount, the cost of the

recount must be paid by the jurisdiction conducting the recount.

(e) If a result of the vote counting in the manual recount is different from the result

of the vote counting reported on election day by a margin greater than the standard for

acceptable performance of voting systems provided in section 206.89, subdivision 4, the

cost of the recount must be paid by the jurisdiction conducting the recount.

Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 204C.36, subdivision 2, is amended to read:

Subd. 2. Discretionary candidate recounts. (a) A losing candidate for nomination

or election to a county, municipal, or school district office may request a recount in the

manner provided in this section at the candidate's own expense when the vote difference is

greater than the difference required by subdivision 1, clauses (a) to (e). The votes shall

Copyright ©2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
3 LAWS of MINNESOTA for 2008 Ch. 336

be manually recounted as provided in this section if the requesting candidate files with

the county auditor, municipal clerk, or school district clerk a bond, cash, or surety in an

amount set by the governing body of the jurisdiction or the school board of the school

district for the payment of the recount expenses.

(b) The requesting candidate may provide the filing officer with a list of up to three

precincts that are to be recounted first and may waive the balance of the recount after these

precincts have been counted. If the candidate provides a list the recount official must

determine the expenses for those precincts in the manner provided by paragraph (b).

(c) If the winner of the race is changed by the optional recount, the cost of the

recount must be paid by the jurisdiction conducting the recount.

(d) If a result of the vote counting in the manual recount is different from the result

of the vote counting reported on election day by a margin greater than the standard for

acceptable performance of voting systems provided in section 206.89, subdivision 4, the

cost of the recount must be paid by the jurisdiction conducting the recount.

Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2007 Supplement, section 206.57, subdivision 5, is

amended to read:

Subd. 5. Voting system for disabled voters. In federal and state elections held after

December 31, 2005; in county, city, and school district elections held after December

31, 2007; and, except as provided in subdivision 5a, in township elections held after

December 31, 2009, the voting method used in each polling place must include a voting

system that is accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility

for the blind and visually impaired in a manner that provides the same opportunity for

access and participation, including privacy and independence, as for other voters.

Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 206.57, is amended by adding a subdivision

to read:

Subd. 5a. Limited town exemptions. (a) A town conducting an election not held

in conjunction with any federal, state, county, or school district election is exempt from

the requirements of subdivision 5 if the town has fewer than 500 registered voters, as

determined by the secretary of state by June 1 of each year.

(b) A town that would otherwise satisfy the requirements of this subdivision is

still required to comply with subdivision 5 at its next general town election if the voters

at the preceding year's annual town meeting instruct the town to conduct elections in

compliance with subdivision 5.

(c) If the secretary of state, after consultation with the Minnesota Association of

Townships, county auditors, or other interested parties, determines that a town's share

of the cost of compliance with subdivision 5 will not exceed $150 for an election, the

town may not use the exemption under paragraph (a) and shall conduct elections under

subdivision 5. In determining the town's cost of compliance, the secretary shall include

any expense associated with programming, ballot preparation and printing, and the

equipment costs directly related to compliance with subdivision 5.

Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 206.57, is amended by adding a subdivision

to read:

Copyright ©2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
Ch. 336 LAWS of MINNESOTA for 2008 4

Subd. 5b. Township voting equipment study. (a) Beginning in 2009 and at least

once every other year until 2016, the secretary of state shall consult with interested parties,

including, but not limited to, members of the legislature, town officers, county election

officials, the National Federation of the Blind, the Minnesota State Council on Disability,

and the Disability Law Center regarding:

(1) options for full compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 206.57, subdivision

5; and

(2) ongoing costs of compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 206.57,

subdivision 5, and methods of reducing those costs.

(b) Beginning January 15, 2010, and until January 15, 2017, the secretary of state

shall report to the chairs and ranking minority members of the legislative committees

and divisions with jurisdiction over elections policy and finance regarding the findings,

discussions, and developments under paragraph (a).

Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 206.89, subdivision 2, is amended to read:

Subd. 2. Selection for review; notice. At the canvass of the state primary, the

county canvassing board in each county must set the date, time, and place for the

postelection review of the state general election to be held under this section.

At the canvass of the state general election, the county canvassing boards must select

the precincts to be reviewed by lot. The county canvassing board of a county with fewer

than 50,000 registered voters must conduct a postelection review of a total of select at

least two precincts for postelection review. The county canvassing board of a county with

between 50,000 and 100,000 registered voters must conduct a review of a total of select

at least three precincts for review. The county canvassing board of a county with over

100,000 registered voters must conduct a review of a total of select at least four precincts,

or three percent of the total number of precincts in the county, whichever is greater. The

precincts must be selected by lot at a public meeting. At least one precinct selected in each

county must have had more than 150 votes cast at the general election.

The county auditor must notify the secretary of state of the precincts that have been

chosen for review and the time and place the postelection review for that county will be

conducted, as soon as the decisions are made. If the selection of precincts has not resulted

in the selection of at least four precincts in each congressional district, the secretary of state

may require counties to select by lot additional precincts to meet the congressional district

requirement. The secretary of state must post this information on the office Web site.

Sec. 9. Laws 2007, chapter 148, article 1, section 7, is amended to read:

Sec. 7. SECRETARY OF STATE $ 9,019,000 $ 6,497,000

Appropriations by Fund

2008 2009

General 6,175,000 6,497,000

Special Revenue 2,844,000

(a) $310,000 of this appropriation must be

transferred to the Help America Vote Act

Copyright ©2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
5 LAWS of MINNESOTA for 2008 Ch. 336

account and is designated as a portion of the

match required by section 253(b)(5) of the

Help America Vote Act.

(b) $2,844,000 the first year is appropriated

from the Help America Vote Act account for

the purposes and uses authorized by federal

law. This appropriation is available until

June 30, 2009.

(c) Notwithstanding Laws 2005, chapter

162, section 34, subdivision 7, any balance

remaining in the Help America Vote Act

account after previous appropriations and the

appropriations in this section is appropriated

to the secretary of state for the purposes of

the account. This appropriation is available

until June 30, 2011.

(d) The amount necessary to meet federal

requirements for interest payments and the

additional match for the Help America Vote

Act account is transferred from the general

fund appropriation to the Help America Vote

Act account.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.

Copyright ©2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
12 

APPENDIX B 

AUDIT METHODOLOGY 

Our audit methodology included: 

• Assessing audit risk and significance within the context of the audit objectives. 

• Obtaining an understanding of internal control that is significant to the administration of 

the HAVA funds. 

• Understanding relevant information systems controls as applicable. 

• Identifying sources of evidence and the amount and type of evidence required. 

• Determining whether other auditors have conducted, or are conducting, audits of the 

program that could be relevant to the audit objectives. 

To implement our audit methodology, below are some of the audit procedures we performed: 

• Interviewed appropriate SOS employees about the organization and operations of the 

HAVA program. 

• Reviewed prior single audit report and other reviews related to the state’s financial 

management systems and the HAVA program for the last 2 years. 

• Reviewed policies, procedures and regulations for the SOS’s management and accounting 

systems as they relate to the administration of HAVA programs. 

• Analyzed the inventory lists of equipment purchased with HAVA funds. 

• Tested major purchases and supporting documentation. 

• Tested randomly sampled payments made with the HAVA funds. 

• Verified support for reimbursements to local governments (counties, cities, and 

municipalities). 

• Reviewed certain state laws that impacted the election fund. 

• Examined appropriations and expenditure reports for state funds used to maintain the level 

of expenses for elections at least equal to the amount expended in fiscal year 2000 and to 

meet the five percent matching requirement for section 251 requirements payments. 

• Reviewed/examined information regarding source/supporting documents kept for MOE 

and matching contributions. 
13 

• Evaluated compliance with the requirements for accumulating financial information 

reported to the Commission on the Financial Status Reports, Form SF-269, accounting for 

property, purchasing HAVA related goods and services, and accounting for salaries. 

• Verified the establishment and maintenance of an election fund. 

• Verified whether the state has sustained the state’s level of expenditures for Elections. 

• Conducted site visits of selected counties and local election authorities in St. Louis County 

to perform the following: 

− Observe equipment purchased with HAVA funds for proper accounting and 

safeguarding. 

− Test disbursement of HAVA funds for allowability and compliance. 

− Test cash receipts from SOS to ensure proper cash management. 

− Test procurement of voting equipment for competitive bid process. 

− Ensure compliance with HAVA Act. 
14 

APPENDIX C 

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 

Description 

Questioned 

Costs 

Additional Funds for 

Program 

 

Interest on matching funds $0 $40,695

State matching shortfall 0 620

Totals $0 $41,315
OIG’s Mission 

The OIG audit mission is to provide timely, high-quality 

professional products and services that are useful to OIG’s clients. 

OIG seeks to provide value through its work, which is designed to 

enhance the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in EAC 

operations so they work better and cost less in the context of 

today's declining resources. OIG also seeks to detect and prevent 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in these programs and 

operations. Products and services include traditional financial and 

performance audits, contract and grant audits, information systems 

audits, and evaluations. 

Obtaining 

Copies of 

OIG Reports 

Copies of OIG reports can be requested by e-mail. 

(eacoig@eac.gov). 

Mail orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005 

To order by phone: Voice: (202) 566-3100 

 Fax: (202) 566-0957 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste and Abuse 

Involving the U.S. 

Election Assistance 

By Mail: U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Office of Inspector General 

 1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

 Washington, DC 20005

Commission or Help 

America Vote Act 

Funds

E-mail: eacoig@eac.gov

OIG Hotline: 866-552-0004 (toll free) 

FAX: 202-566-0957