Appen

Appendix B 

EXPENDITURES OF 

HELP AMERICA 

VOTE ACT FUNDS 

Coverage Dates: 

Section 101 and 102 Funds 

April 2003 – September 

2010 

Section 251 Funds 

June 2004 – September 

2010 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Strengthening the Electoral System One Grant at a Time: 

A Retrospective of Grants Awarded by EAC 

April 2003 – December 2010 

CUMULATIVE 

EXPENDITURES 

Coverage Dates: 

Help America Vote Act 

Section 101 and 102 Funds 

April 2003 – September 

2010 

Help America Vote Act 

Section 251 Funds 

June 2004 – September 

2010 

ELECTION DATA 

COLLECTION GRANTS 

COLLEGE POLL 

WORKER GRANTS 

MOCK ELECTION 

GRANTS 

December 2010 

Appendix B 

2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

Report Overview .............................................................................................. 3 

Section 101 Funds ........................................................................................... 8 

Section 102 Funds ........................................................................................ 11 

Section 251 Funds ........................................................................................ 14 

Election Data Collection Grants ..................................................................... 17 

Help America Vote College Program - College Poll Worker Grants ............. 19 

Mock Election Grants .................................................................................... 23 

EAC Administration of HAVA Funds .............................................................. 26 

 
3 

Report Overview 

Since the passage of the Help America Vote Act in 2002 (HAVA), Congress has appropriated 

almost $3.3 billion to support States in improving the administration of Federal elections, primarily 

by upgrading systems for casting votes and for registering voters in statewide voter registration 

systems. States have also used HAVA funds to: (1) implement provisional voting; (2) facilitate 

the training and education of election officials, poll workers, and voters; (3) improve polling place 

accessibility; (4) provide voter information at the polling places; (5) provide language assistance; 

(6) use toll-free telephone lines; and (7) establish identification requirements for first-time voters

who register to vote by mail. 

This report presents financial and programmatic information on the six grant programs currently 

administered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): 

• Section 101 Payments to States for Activities to Improve Administration of Elections 

• Section 102 Payments to States for Election Administration Improvements and 

Replacement of Punch Card and Lever Voting Machines

• Section 251 Requirements Payments 

• Election Data Collection Grants 

• College Poll Worker Grants 

• Mock Election Grants 

Section 101, 102, and 251 funds are non-discretionary and awarded to States based on a 

predetermined formula. The three discretionary grant programs - Election Data Collection, 

College Poll Workers, and Mock Elections are awarded through a competitive process. 

Through September 30, 2010, EAC and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), acting 

on EAC’s behalf, have awarded $3,253,860,616 to the 50 States, American Samoa, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands 

(hereinafter referred to as States). HAVA stipulated that EAC disburse these grant funds to 

States in advance and that States use the interest earned on the advanced funds for HAVAauthorized purposes. Since the initial disbursement of funds in 2003, States have reported 

interest in the amount of $308.1 million as of September 30, 2010, making the aggregate 

available to States for allowable activities $3.6 billion. 

For the periods covered by this report, States have reported aggregate total expenditures of $2.6 

billion, or approximately 83 percent of total Federal funds disbursed (76 percent including accrued 

interest). EAC obligates the funds in the year appropriated. States spend the funds and report 

on all distribution of funds using the SF 425 Federal Financial Report (FFR). States annually 

report Federal cash receipts and disbursements, the Federal share of expenditures, the Federal 

share of unliquidated obligations, the total Federal share and the unobligated balance of Federal 

funds and interest. 

 

TERM DEFINITION

Cash Receipts Cumulative amount of actual cash received from EAC not 

including interest income earned on the Federal share of funds 

Cash 

Disbursements 

Cumulative amount of Federal fund disbursements, such as cash 

or checks, not including any expenditure of interest earned on the 

Federal share 

Expenditures Federal funds expended to date not including the expenditure of 

interest income 

Unliquidated 

Obligations 

Direct and indirect expenses incurred but not yet paid or charged 

to the grant including amounts due to subrecipients or contractors 

Federal Share The sum of the Federal share of expenditures and the Federal 

share of unliquidated obligations 

Unobligated 

Balance 

The difference between total Federal funds authorized to the 

grant recipient and the total Federal share 
4 

A State-by-State breakdown of funds reported as expended for HAVA Sections 101, 102 and 251 

funding as well as EAC’s discretionary grants is described in the succeeding chapters of this 

report. 

1. Section 101 Funds. Section 101 funds were provided to States for activities to improve the 

administration of Federal elections. A total of $349.2 million has been disbursed or 

distributed to States for their use under Section 101. States report having spent 

approximately 78 percent of Section 101 funds, with 18 States having spent 100 percent, and 

33 States reporting having spent over 80 percent of the Federal funds available. Section 101 

funds improve administration of Federal elections and have fewer restrictions on their use as 

compared to Section 102 and Section 251 funds. For instance, Section 101 funds can be 

used for the administration of Federal elections without meeting the requirements of Title III 

or filing a State Plan. Section 101 funds have been used for voter education, developing the 

State Plan and training. 

2. Section 102 Funds. Section 102 funds were authorized for the replacement of punch card 

or lever voting machines. A total of $300.3 million has been distributed and deposited in 

State accounts under Section 102. Of the 30 States that received Section 102 funding, 28 

States have reported using 92 percent or more of the funds allocated to their State. Section 

102 funds were authorized and used solely for the purpose of replacing punch card and lever 

voting systems. 

3. Section 251 Funds. Section 251 funds, also known as requirements payments, are 

distributed to the States by formula based on a percentage equal to the quotient of the voting 

age population of the State and the total voting age population of all States1

. Generally, the 

funds are to be used to procure voting systems that comply with the requirements of Title III, 

Section 301 Voting System Standards of HAVA; implement provisional voting (i.e., allowing a 

voter whose registration status cannot be confirmed to cast a provisional ballot); provide 

information to voters in the polling place such as general information on voting rights; develop 

and implement a computerized statewide voter registration list; and implement identification 

requirements for first-time voters who register to vote by mail. Section 251 funds may also be 

used for the improvement of the administration of elections for Federal office if a State 

certifies to EAC that they have either (1) met the requirements of Title III or (2) will not spend 

more than the amount of the minimum payment applicable to the State. A total of $2.5 billion 

has been disbursed to States under Section 251, with all but nine percent of these funds 

being distributed to States in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2004 and 2005. As of the 2010 reporting 

period, eight States have reported using 100 percent of the Federal amount disbursed and 22 

States had reported using 85 percent or more. Almost 70 percent of the 55 States receiving 

Section 251 requirements payments reported using 75 percent or more of the Federal 

amount available under this Section. 

While most of the requirements payment funds disbursed by EAC have been spent, several 

factors led to States delaying their 2008, 2009 and 2010 requirements payments requests. 

One challenge was the timing of the FY 2008 Federal appropriation. Before a State can 

request a disbursement from EAC, the State must request matching funds from its State 

legislature for deposit in its election fund. The date of the enactment of the FY 2008 

appropriation meant that many States missed the deadline for requesting State appropriated 

funds. A second factor was that many States were updating their HAVA State Plans for use 

of the funds, which includes a public input process that can take many months to complete, 

and were not able to request funds until that process was concluded. HAVA requires each 

state to develop a State Plan to receive Section 251 funds. The State Plan details how 

 

1

According to a GAO decision issued to the EAC (File No. B-316915, September 25, 2008), Requirements Payments 

authorized by HAVA Sec. 251, and established by statutory formula for the various states, are obligated by operation of 

law and "required to be paid" within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1501(a)(5)(A), regardless of whether statutory 

preconditions on the states have been met.
5 

payments will be used in accordance with HAVA and must be developed through a 

committee that includes the chief election officer of the two most populous jurisdictions, local 

election officials and other stakeholders. State Plans include activities that span multiple 

years and are updated if funds will be used for material changes within the plan. Table 4 

illustrates that States have robust HAVA State plans and have spent over 74 percent of the 

Federal funds made available under this section of HAVA. 

Some States consider the requirements payment funds to be available in perpetuity so they 

can continue to meet the HAVA mandates (see chart below). These States view the funds as 

available for long-term voting system maintenance, enhancement and replacement. Section 

251 funds have been used to improve Statewide Voter Registration Systems (SVRS), 

purchase voting systems, and facilitate military and overseas balloting. 

Finally, some States have processes that delay the expenditure of funds after they are 

received from EAC. States often have lengthy procurement processes that require them to 

request proposals for equipment purchases and to select vendors. States also have to enter 

into subgrant agreements with other agencies or entities for the completion of certain 

activities under HAVA. 

By the end of Fiscal Year 2009, most of the initial hurdles with requesting FYs 2008 and 2009 

requirements payments had been overcome. In the last two quarters of FY 2009 and the first 

quarter of FY 2010, EAC disbursed $93.0 million of the $215.0 million of Section 251 funds 

appropriated in FYs 2008 and 2009. EAC disbursed $28.4 million during the last three 

quarters of FY 2010 plus an additional $29.7 million of funds appropriated in FY 2010. 

Process to Receive 251 Payments 

States file a certification with EAC declaring that the State: 

 Has filed and implemented a plan for uniform, nondiscriminatory administrative complaint 

procedures required by HAVA Section 402.

 Has appropriated matching funds equal to “5 percent of the total amount to be spent for such 

activities (taking into account the requirements payment and the amount spent by the 

state)...”

 Has, to the extent that any portion of the requirements payment be used for activities to meet 

the requirements of Title III, or for uses consistent with the requirements of HAVA Title III and 

the usage restrictions set forth in Section 251(b) on use of funds.

 Is in compliance with six Federal laws:

 1. The Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 2. The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act.

 3. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

 4. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

 5. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

 6. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

 Filed a State Plan that complies with the HAVA plan requirements listed in Sections 254, 255, 

and 256 of HAVA.

 
6 

The following table shows the combined funding, interest earned, expenditures, and balance for 

Sections 101, 102, and 251 funds for each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 

Territories, as of September 30, 2010. 

Table 1 Combined HAVA Funds Reported by the States as of September 30, 2010 

State 

Total Section 

101/102/251 Funds 

Received 

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa

Balance of Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Expended 

Alabama $40,907,194 $2,691,826 $29,844,858 $13,754,162 68.45% 

Alaska 18,021,803 2,943,357 11,199,657 9,765,503 53.42% 

American Samoa 3,319,361 274,148 3,319,361 274,148 92.37% 

Arizona 52,532,245 6,066,089 41,687,961 16,910,373 71.14% 

Arkansas 30,396,569 2,404,875 27,253,261 5,548,183 83.09% 

California 348,900,661 42,924,421 287,119,823 104,705,259 73.28% 

Colorado 44,752,318 5,626,694 44,636,893 5,742,119 88.60% 

Connecticut 34,081,608 4,268,612 34,197,820 4,152,399 89.17% 

Delaware 16,596,803 1,415,100 12,093,194 5,918,709 67.14% 

District of Columbia 16,596,803 1,971,099 9,185,765 9,382,137 49.47% 

Florida 165,008,621 19,475,602 133,457,596 51,026,628 72.34% 

Georgia 83,231,168 1,414,325 77,514,641 7,130,852 91.58% 

Guam 3,319,361 - 2,479,333 840,028 74.69% 

Hawaii 17,671,803 2,049,138 11,346,769 8,374,171 57.54% 

Idaho 18,021,803 2,446,598 17,067,087 3,401,314 83.38% 

Illinois 155,480,687 10,005,763 143,537,289 21,949,161 86.74% 

Indiana 70,193,157 3,322,746 64,489,838 9,026,065 87.72% 

Iowa 31,633,492 2,124,859 30,338,448 3,419,902 89.87% 

Kansas 29,022,045 3,467,490 23,503,977 8,985,557 72.34% 

Kentucky 42,070,093 4,786,075 29,333,396 17,522,772 62.60% 

Louisiana 49,051,620 4,638,396 48,732,546 4,957,470 90.77% 

Maine 16,596,803 2,055,424 13,890,951 4,761,276 74.47% 

Maryland 53,646,392 4,737,860 54,323,251 4,061,001 93.04% 

Massachusetts 65,115,059 7,394,264 21,781,092 50,728,230 30.04% 

Michigan 94,699,081 8,619,678 72,702,015 30,616,744 70.37% 

Minnesota 49,254,669 3,587,120 43,615,166 9,226,623 82.54% 

Mississippi 30,603,916 1,685,631 27,933,272 4,356,275 86.51% 

Missouri 62,262,661 5,568,509 62,762,098 5,069,072 92.53% 

Montana 18,021,803 991,634 16,398,732 2,614,705 86.25% 

Nebraska 20,021,034 1,807,525 20,021,034 1,807,525 91.72% 

Nevada 23,144,727 1,657,512 18,505,918 6,296,321 74.61% 

New Hampshire 16,596,803 2,761,229 6,238,606 13,119,427 32.23% 

New Jersey 84,904,403 6,585,380 77,604,939 13,884,844 84.82% 

New Mexico 20,599,671 1,194,999 20,447,957 1,346,714 93.82% 

New York 238,095,934 35,610,686 158,210,222 115,496,398 57.80% 

North Carolina 82,203,337 7,721,857 75,841,773 14,083,421 84.34% 

North Dakota 18,021,803 1,336,032 12,578,415 6,779,420 64.98% 

Ohio 136,496,196 7,859,392 140,940,438 3,415,150 97.63% 

Oklahoma 35,200,722 2,394,000 8,387,429 29,207,293 22.31% 

Oregon 36,421,250 3,609,941 25,628,529 14,402,662 64.02% 

Pennsylvania 147,009,727 21,942,547 150,839,146 18,113,128 89.28% 

Puerto Rico 5,470,505 506,172 2,419,500 3,557,177 40.48% 

Rhode Island 18,021,803 625,270 18,647,073 - 100.00% 
7 

4. Election Data Collection Grants. Election Data Collection Grants were competitively 

awarded to five eligible states to improve the collection of precinct-level data relating to the 

November 2008 Federal elections. These grants were $2 million each. 

5. Help America Vote College Program – College Poll Worker Grants. Funds for the 

College Poll Worker Grant Program are awarded to encourage students enrolled in 

institutions of higher education to assist in the administration of elections. To date, 

$3,177,000 has been appropriated for this program. 

6. Mock Election Grants. HAVA authorized EAC to award a non-competitive grant to the 

National Study and Parent Mock Election in FYs 2004 and 2006 to conduct simulated nation 

elections. Beginning in FY 2008, Congress has appropriated funds for a competitive grant 

program to promote voter participation in national elections. To date, $800,000 has been 

appropriated for this program. 

The financial data in this report is based on financial status and narrative reports received and 

reviewed by EAC from the States and other grantees.2 For grant expenditures, EAC used the net 

cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations3

 listed in Federal Financial Reports (Standard 

Form 425 or SF-425) submitted by States and other grantees to EAC. 

EAC changed the State reporting requirements on HAVA funds for cycles beginning in FY 2009 

to comply with the new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) mandates and to simplify the 

reporting process. OMB consolidated and replaced the existing financial reporting forms 

(including SF-269 the Financial Status Report form) with one form. The new form is called the 

SF-425 Federal Financial Report (FFR). EAC made the reporting periods consistent for Section 

101, 102, and 251 grants. Reports are now due by December 31 for the periods beginning 

October 1 and ending September 30 of each Federal fiscal year. The FFRs for College Poll 

Worker and Mock Grant programs are due July 31 and January 31 for the periods ending June 30 

and December 31. EAC is currently reviewing the reporting cycle for these latter grants. 

 

2

 EAC made adjustments to reconcile total expenditures to total amounts used to offset the impact of including 

unliquidated obligations in total expenditures and to adjust for States that made changes in current reports to expenditures 

that were reported in prior periods. 

3

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

not been requested or made. 

Table 1 Combined HAVA Funds Reported by the States as of September 30, 2010

State 

Total Section 

101/102/251 Funds 

Received 

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa

Balance of Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Expended 

South Carolina 43,185,727 1,658,502 39,657,777 5,186,452 88.43% 

South Dakota 18,021,803 3,014,695 8,049,016 12,987,482 38.26% 

Tennessee 54,714,608 7,214,734 26,549,303 35,380,039 42.87% 

Texas 203,631,822 14,671,727 172,131,087 46,172,463 78.85% 

Utah 26,804,496 1,723,926 26,497,451 2,030,971 92.88% 

Vermont 16,596,803 2,909,822 5,920,919 13,585,706 30.35% 

Virginia 69,121,820 7,374,132 49,511,845 26,984,107 64.72% 

Virgin Islands 3,319,361 143,382 1,706,915 1,755,828 49.29% 

Washington 65,825,930 6,130,114 56,894,775 15,061,269 79.07% 

West Virginia 22,043,424 1,351,567 20,602,433 2,792,558 88.06% 

Wisconsin 54,013,843 5,189,935 48,956,954 10,246,824 82.69% 

Wyoming 17,671,803 2,135,293 17,785,995 2,021,101 89.80% 

Total $3,138,168,954 $308,087,705 $2,606,321,542 $839,935,117 75.63% 

a Includes cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations. Also States earned interest on Section 101 funds 

deposited in their State Election Fund, which is why some States spent more than they received. 
8 

SECTION 101 Funds 

Background 

To qualify for Title I – Payments to States for Election Administration Improvements and 

Replacement of Punch Card and Lever Voting Machines, Section 101 Payments to States for 

Activities to Improve Administration of Elections, States certified to General Services 

Administration (GSA)4 that the funds would not be used inconsistently with the provisions of 

HAVA Title III – Uniform and Nondiscriminatory Election Technology and Administration 

Requirements and the laws listed in Section 9065 of HAVA. Section 101 funds have similarities 

to Section 251 Requirements Payments, but the Section 101 funds are less restrictive. Section 

101 funds may be used for more purposes without the eligibility requirements contained in 

Section 251. Section 101 funds do not require the development of a State Plan, a plan for the 

implementation of the uniform nondiscriminatory administrative complaint procedures, or the five 

percent State matching funds. Section 101 funds were included in the Election Reform Programs 

no-year appropriation. GSA distributed $349.2 million in Section 101 funds to States between 

April 2003 and August 2003. The total amount of Section 101 funds appropriated for all States 

was $324,750,000. 

HAVA required States to deposit Section 101 funds in interest-bearing State Election Funds. 

Section 101 funds are available with no restriction on when they can be used by the States once 

obligated at the Federal level. 

Expenditures 

States reported expenditures of $273,706,057, or approximately 78 percent, of the $349,182,262 

awarded for Section 101. These funds have generated a reported additional $43,826,663 in 

interest, which is available for States to use on activities authorized under Section 101. As of 

December 31, 2010, nine States had spent all of their funds and interest, 22 other States had 

expended more than 75 percent, while 12 States had spent less than 50 percent of their funds 

and interest. 

Table 2 HAVA Title I, Section 101 Funds Reported by the States as of September 30, 2010 

State 

Total Section 101 

Funds Received 

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa

Balance of Funds 

and Interest 

Percent of Funds and 

Interest Expended 

Alabama $4,989,605 

 

$352,352 

 

$2,951,845 $2,390,112 59.16% 

Alaska 5,000,000 

 

675,831 4,676,604 999,227 82.40% 

American Samoa 1,000,000 

 

66,224 

 

1,000,000 66,224 93.79% 

Arizona 5,451,369 

 

749,256 

 

2,095,600 4,105,025 33.80% 

Arkansas 3,593,165 

 

226,287 

 

3,819,452 - 100.00% 

 

4

 GSA awarded the funds on behalf of EAC as EAC was under development. 

5

 HAVA Section 906 lists the following laws: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.), The Voting 

Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.), The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.), The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.), 

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et 

seq.). 
9 

Table 2 HAVA Title I, Section 101 Funds Reported by the States as of September 30, 2010 

State 

Total Section 101 

Funds Received 

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa

Balance of Funds 

and Interest 

Percent of Funds and 

Interest Expended 

California 27,340,830 2,535,851 23,727,535 6,149,146 79.42% 

Colorado 4,860,301 

 

815,576 2,947,337 2,728,540 51.93% 

Connecticut 5,000,000 

 

683,555 

 

5,382,213 301,342 94.70% 

Delaware 5,000,000 

 

433,080 

 

5,211,828 221,252 95.93% 

District of 

Columbia 5,000,000 

 

596,250 

 

3,940,274 1,655,975 70.41% 

Florida 14,447,580 1,520,936 12,835,020 3,133,496 80.38% 

Georgia 7,816,328 

 

687,964 

 

7,430,258 1,074,034 87.37% 

Guam 1,000,000 

 

- 

 

827,234 172,766 82.72% 

Hawaii 5,000,000 1,149,789 1,549,001 4,600,789 25.19% 

Idaho 5,000,000 1,510,650 

 

4,334,895 2,175,755 66.58% 

Illinois 11,129,030 1,135,417 

 

10,858,990 1,405,457 88.54% 

Indiana 6,230,481 

 

925,381 

 

5,049,384 2,106,478 70.56% 

Iowa 5,000,000 

 

678,929 

 

5,092,743 586,186 89.68% 

Kansas 5,000,000 1,277,076 

 

1,647,896 4,629,180 26.25% 

Kentucky 4,699,196 

 

929,783 

 

844,058 4,784,921 14.99% 

Louisiana 4,911,421 

 

913,342 

 

1,956,244 3,868,519 33.58% 

Maine 5,000,000 

 

586,804 

 

3,540,705 2,046,098 63.38% 

Maryland 5,636,731 

 

812,027 

 

3,327,797 3,120,961 51.60% 

Massachusettsb 6,590,381 

 

767,003 

 

3,284,488 4,072,897 44.64% 

Michigan 9,207,323 1,473,433 

 

2,194,720 8,486,036 20.55% 

Minnesota 5,313,786 

 

62,945 

 

5,376,731 - 100.00% 

Mississippi 3,673,384 

 

397,990 

 

3,529,042 542,332 86.68% 

Missouri 5,875,170 

 

893,379 

 

6,665,255 103,294 98.47% 

Montana 5,000,000 

 

374,411 

 

3,769,747 1,604,664 70.14% 

Nebraska 5,000,000 1,085,758 

 

5,000,000 1,085,758 82.16% 

Nevada 5,000,000 

 

432,451 

 

4,267,615 1,164,836 78.56% 

New Hampshire 5,000,000 

 

931,628 

 

1,441,170 4,490,457 24.30% 

New Jersey 8,141,208 

 

719,244 

 

8,167,547 692,905 92.18% 

New Mexico 5,000,000 

 

292,244 

 

5,292,244 - 100.00% 

New York 16,494,325 3,031,806 

 

12,039,621 7,486,510 61.66% 

North Carolina 7,887,740 

 

709,626 

 

6,855,870 1,741,495 79.74% 

North Dakota 5,000,000 

 

63,997 

 

5,063,997 - 100.00% 

Ohio 10,384,931 

 

426,837 

 

10,811,768 - 100.00% 
10 

Table 2 HAVA Title I, Section 101 Funds Reported by the States as of September 30, 2010 

State 

Total Section 101 

Funds Received 

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa

Balance of Funds 

and Interest 

Percent of Funds and 

Interest Expended 

Oklahoma 5,000,000 

 

265,158 

 

2,860,529 2,404,629 54.33% 

Oregon 4,203,776 

 

59,199 

 

4,262,975 - 100.00% 

Pennsylvania 11,323,168 1,298,271 

 

12,358,852 262,587 97.92% 

Puerto Rico 3,151,144 

 

320,843 

 

1,902,985 1,569,002 54.81% 

Rhode Island 5,000,000 

 

140,275 

 

5,140,275 - 100.00% 

South Carolina 4,652,412 

 

683,822 

 

4,316,813 1,019,421 80.90% 

South Dakota 5,000,000 1,326,429 

 

1,410,529 4,915,900 22.30% 

Tennessee 6,004,507 

 

977,155 

 

1,914,846 5,066,816 27.43% 

Texas 17,206,595 2,899,238 

 

11,343,436 8,762,397 56.42% 

Utah 3,090,943 

 

554,503 

 

2,910,649 734,797 79.84% 

Vermont 5,000,000 

 

579,926 

 

5,255,978 323,948 94.19% 

Virginia 7,105,890 1,192,593 

 

3,244,458 5,054,025 39.10% 

Virgin Islands 1,000,000 

 

21,682 

 

999,018 22,664 97.78% 

Washington 6,098,449 

 

259,047 

 

6,357,496 - 100.00% 

West Virginia 2,977,057 

 

104,747 

 

3,081,804 - 100.00% 

Wisconsinc 5,694,036 1,065,877 

 

2,238,737 4,521,176 33.12% 

Wyoming 5,000,000 1,284,707 4,753,551 1,531,156 75.64% 

Total $349,182,262 $43,826,663 $273,706,057 $119,302,868 69.64% 

a Includes cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations. Also States earned interest on Section 101 funds deposited 

in their State Election Fund, which is why some States spent more than they received. 

b

The FFR report is currently under review by EAC. 

c

The FFR report is currently under review by EAC. 

Results 

Section 101 funds have been used in a variety of ways by States. Funds have been used to 

conduct preliminary planning for Statewide Voter Registration Systems and to upgrade and 

replace county voter registration election management systems for compatibility with new voter 

registration systems. States have implemented voter education programs and conducted training 

for election officials and poll workers. Section 101 funds have also been used for the preparation 

and administration of State Plans. Another key result has been making polling places accessible 

and providing voter materials at polling places in multiple languages. 

 
11 

SECTION 102 Funds 

Background 

GSA distributed $300,317,7376 in Title I – Payments to States for Election Administration 

Improvements and Replacement of Punch Card and Lever Voting Machines, Section 102 

Replacement of Punch Card or Lever Voting Machines, funds to 30 States in FY 2003 using a 

HAVA formula based on the number of precincts that used punch card or lever voting systems 

during the November 2000 Federal general election. To qualify for a Section 102 payment, 

States certified that they would: 

• Use the payment either directly or as a reimbursement for the costs of replacing punch 

card or lever voting systems by the required deadline. 

• Obtain replacement voting systems that would meet the requirements of HAVA Section 

301 Voting System Standards. 

• Comply with applicable Federal laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

The deadline for States to have replaced their punch card and lever voting systems was originally 

November 2, 2004, unless a State filed for a waiver under HAVA Section 102(a)(3)(B). States 

with unobligated funds after the deadline are required by HAVA to return the balance of funds to 

the EAC, for redistribution to all States in the form of Section 251 requirements payments. The 

amount of the funds to be returned is the greater of either: 

• The amount of unobligated funds, or 

• The amount percentage of remaining precincts using punch card or lever voting 

machines multiplied by the total amount of Section 102 payments provided to the State. 

States that applied for a waiver had until the first Federal election in the State in 2006 to replace 

the voting systems. On May 25, 2007, Congress extended this deadline to the first Federal 

election held in the State after March 1, 2008.7 The extension applied only to those States that 

received the initial 2004 waiver. Congress again extended the deadline in 2009 to the first 

Federal election held after November 1, 2010.8 

Table 3.1 shows the status of Section 102 funds reported by the States as of September 30, 

2010. 

Expenditures 

States have reported spending $309,841,802 (Table 3.2) of the $300,317,737 of Section 102 

funds received including interest reported as earned on the deposited funds. As of September 

30, 2010, 25 of the 30 eligible States expended more than 90 percent of the funds including 

interest earned and 17 States expended the full amount. To date, four states have returned 

funds totaling $226,333.74. 

 

6

 Note that HAVA authorized and Congress appropriated $324,750,000.

7

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

Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 110-28. 

8

 The extension is contained in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Public Law 111-8. 
12 

Table 3.2 Section 102 Funds Reported by States as of September 30, 2010 

State 

Total Section 

102 Funds 

Received 

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa 

Balance of Funds 

and Interest 

Percent of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Expended 

Alabama 

 

$51,076 3,607 919 53,764 1.68% 

Arizona 1,564,188 - 1,564,188 - 100.00% 

Arkansas 2,569,738 184,915 2,754,653 - 100.00% 

California 57,322,707 1,158,245 58,480,952 - 100.00% 

Colorado 2,177,095 146,757 2,323,852 - 100.00% 

Florida 11,581,377 40,506 11,621,883 - 100.00% 

Georgia 4,740,448 4,740,448 - 100.00% 

Illinois 33,805,617 1,232,424 34,901,992 136,049 99.61% 

Indiana 9,522,394 142,040 9,664,434 - 100.00% 

Kentucky 469,256 19,182 469,256 19,182 96.07% 

Louisiana 7,351,684 193,790 7,545,474 - 100.00% 

Maryland 1,637,609 51,353 1,637,609 51,353 96.96% 

Massachusettsb 1,519,497 11,491 1,446,076 84,912 94.45% 

Michigan 6,531,284 413,329 6,432,323 512,290 92.62% 

Mississippi 1,778,067 105,925 1,883,992 - 100.00% 

Missouri 11,472,841 646,780 12,119,621 - 100.00% 

New Jersey 8,695,609 283,762 8,979,371 - 100.00% 

New York 49,603,917 9,095,143 16,010,629 42,688,432 27.28% 

North Carolina 893,822 893,822 - 100.00% 

Ohio 30,667,664 1,186,901 31,854,565 - 100.00% 

Oregon 1,822,758 44,783 1,815,796 51,745 97.23% 

Pennsylvania 22,916,952 4,867,463 27,451,171 333,244 98.80% 

South Carolina 2,167,518 126,584 1,998,330 295,772 87.11% 

Tennessee 2,473,971 134,659 2,608,630 - 100.00% 

Texas 6,269,521 300,522 6,266,685 303,358 95.38% 

Utah 5,726,844 536,464 6,263,308 - 100.00% 

Virginia 4,526,569 210,768 4,737,337 - 100.00% 

 

Table 3.1 Section 102 Funds Status as of September 30, 2010 

State Date of Waiver 102 Deadline Unexpended Funds

Alabama N/A November 2, 2004 $50,156.70 Returned 

Illinois July 8, 2003 November 4, 2010 $136,049 

Kentucky December 5, 2003 November 4, 2010 $26.70 Returned 

Massachusetts December 23, 2003 November 4, 2010 0 

Michigan December 30, 2003 November 4, 2010 98,961 

New York December 23, 2003 November 4, 2010 0 

Oregon N/A November 2, 2004 $6,961.98 Returned 

South Carolina N/A November 2, 2004 $169,188.36 Returned 

Texas December 23, 2003 November 4, 2010 2,836 

Washington December 12, 2003 November 4, 2010 485,549 

Wisconsin December 23, 2003 November 4, 2010 302,096 

Total $1,025,491 
13 

Results 

Section 102 funds have been used to replace punch card and lever voting systems that were in 

use during the November 2000 general Federal election. The 30 States eligible to receive these 

funds were able to purchase new voting systems or be reimbursed for costs incurred on or after 

January 1, 2001 under multiyear contracts. States have been able to replace punch card voting 

systems or lever voting systems by purchase or lease. States that received waivers through 

November 2010 will submit their final FFR in 2011. 

 

Table 3.2 Section 102 Funds Reported by States as of September 30, 2010

State 

Total Section 

102 Funds 

Received 

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa 

Balance of Funds 

and Interest 

Percent of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Expended 

Washington 6,799,430 534,391 6,313,881 1,019,940 86.09% 

West Virginia 2,349,474 111,131 2,460,605 - 100.00% 

Wisconsin 1,308,810 178,418 1,006,714 480,514 67.69%

Total $300,317,737 $21,961,333 $309,841,802 $12,437,267 96.14%

a

Includes cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations. Also States earned interest on Section 102 funds deposited in 

their State Election Fund, which is why some States spent more than they received. 

b

The FFR report is currently under review by EAC. 
14 

SECTION 251 Funds 

Background 

To qualify for a HAVA Title II, Section 251 requirements payment, States filed a certification with 

the EAC affirming that the State: 

• Filed and implemented a plan for uniform, nondiscriminatory administrative complaint 

procedures required by HAVA Section 402 Establishment of State-Based Administrative 

Complaint Procedures to Remedy Grievances; 

• Appropriated matching funds equal to “five percent of the total amount to be spent for 

such activities (taking into account the requirements payment and the amount spent by 

the State)...”; 

• Uses the requirements payment for activities to meet the requirements of Title III, or for 

proposed uses consistent with the requirements of HAVA Title III and are consistent with 

the usage restrictions set forth in HAVA Section 251(b) Use of Funds; 

• Is in compliance with the laws listed in Section 906 of HAVA (see footnote 4); and 

• Filed a State Plan that complies with the plan requirements listed in Title II – 

Commissions, Subtitle D – Election Assistance, Part 1 – Requirements Payments, 

Sections 254, 255, and 256 of HAVA. 

EAC disbursed a total of $2.3 billion in requirements payments appropriated in FYs 2003 ($830 

million) and 2004 ($1,491,150). Congress appropriated $115 million in FY 2008, $100 million in 

FY 2009 and $70 million in FY 2010. Section 251 funds were included in the Election Reform 

Programs no-year appropriation. As of September 30, 2010, EAC distributed approximately 

$169.3 million of the FYs 2008, 2009 and 2010 requirements payments. 

HAVA requires States to deposit Section 251 funds in the States’ election funds and earn interest 

consistent with the State Plan provisions of HAVA Section 254(b). Section 251 funds and interest 

earned on deposits of Section 251 funds have no fiscal year limitation at the State level once 

obligated at the Federal level in the year appropriated. 

Expenditure of Section 251 Funds

States reported expenditures of $2,022,773,684 or about 71 percent of Section 251 funds 

appropriated by Congress ($2,604,360,617) and interest earned ($242,299,709) through 

September 30, 2010. Thirteen States have spent 90 percent or more, while 31 States spent more 

than 75 percent of their funds and interest. On the other hand, 11 States have spent less than 50 

percent of their funds and interest. 

Table 4 HAVA Title II, Section 251 Funds Reported by States as of September 30, 2010 

State 

Total Section 251 

Funds Received($)a

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa 

Balance 

Of Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds 

and 

Interest 

Expended 

Alabama $35,866,513 $2,335,867 $26,892,094 $11,310,286 70.39% 

Alaska 13,021,803 2,267,526 6,523,053 8,766,276 42.66% 

American Samoa 2,319,361 207,924 2,319,361 207,924 91.77% 

Arizona 45,516,688 5,316,833 38,028,173 12,805,349 74.81% 

Arkansas 23,586,449 1,993,673 20,679,156 4,900,966 87.67% 
15 

Table 4 HAVA Title II, Section 251 Funds Reported by States as of September 30, 2010 

State 

Total Section 251 

Funds Received($)a

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa 

Balance 

Of Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds 

and 

Interest 

Expended 

Californiab 264,237,124 39,230,326 204,911,336 95,556,114 67.52% 

Connecticut 29,081,608 3,585,057 28,815,607 3,851,058 99.09% 

Delaware 11,596,803 982,020 6,881,366 5,697,457 54.71% 

District of 

Columbia 11,596,803 1,374,849 5,245,491 7,726,161 40.44% 

Florida 138,979,664 17,914,160 109,000,693 47,893,132 69.47% 

Georgia 70,674,392 726,361 65,343,935 6,056,818 91.52% 

Guam 2,319,361 0 1,652,099 667,262 71.23% 

Hawaii 12,671,803 899,348 9,797,769 3,773,383 72.20% 

Idaho 13,021,803 935,948 12,732,192 1,225,559 91.22% 

Illinois 110,546,040 7,637,923 97,776,307 20,407,656 82.73% 

Indiana 54,440,282 2,255,325 49,776,020 6,919,587 87.80% 

Iowa 26,633,492 1,445,930 25,245,706 2,833,716 89.91% 

Kansas 24,022,045 2,190,414 21,856,082 4,356,377 83.38% 

Kentucky 36,901,641 3,837,110 28,020,082 12,718,669 68.78% 

Louisiana 36,788,515 3,531,265 39,230,828 1,088,951 97.30% 

Maine 11,596,803 1,468,620 10,350,245 2,715,178 79.22% 

Maryland 46,372,052 3,874,480 49,357,845 888,687 98.23% 

Massachusettsc 57,005,181 6,615,769 17,050,529 46,570,421 26.80 

Michigan 78,960,474 6,732,916 64,074,972 21,618,418 74.77% 

Minnesota 43,940,883 3,524,175 38,238,435 9,226,623 80.56% 

Mississippi 25,152,465 1,181,716 22,520,238 3,813,943 85.52% 

Missouri 44,914,650 4,028,350 43,977,222 4,965,778 89.85% 

Montana 13,021,803 617,223 12,628,986 1,010,041 92.59% 

Nebraska 15,021,034 721,767 15,021,034 721,767 95.42% 

Nevada 18,144,727 1,225,061 14,238,303 5,131,485 73.51% 

New Hampshire 11,596,803 1,829,601 4,797,435 8,628,969 35.73 

New Jersey 68,067,586 5,582,374 60,458,021 13,191,939 82.09% 

New Mexico 15,599,671 902,755 15,155,713 1,346,714 91.84% 

New York 171,997,692 23,483,737 96,566,685 98,914,744 49.40% 

North Carolina 73,421,775 7,012,231 68,092,080 12,341,926 84.66% 

North Dakota 13,021,803 1,272,035 7,514,418 6,779,420 52.57% 

Ohiod 95,443,601 6,245,654 98,274,105 3,415,150 96.64% 

Oklahoma 30,200,722 2,128,842 5,526,900 26,802,664 17.10% 

Oregon 30,394,716 3,505,959 19,549,758 14,350,917 57.67% 

Pennsylvania 112,769,607 15,776,813 111,029,124 17,517,296 86.37% 

Puerto Rico 2,319,361 185,329 516,515 1,988,175 20.62% 

Rhode Island 13,021,803 484,995 13,506,798 - 100.00% 

South Carolina 36,365,797 848,096 33,342,634 3,871,259 89.60% 

South Dakota 13,021,803 1,688,266 6,638,487 8,071,582 45.13% 

Tennessee 46,236,130 6,102,920 22,025,827 30,313,224 42.08% 

Texas 180,155,706 11,471,967 154,520,966 37,106,707 80.64% 

Utah 17,986,710 632,959 17,323,494 1,296,174 93.04% 

Vermont 11,596,803 2,329,896 664,941 13,261,758 4.77% 

Virginia 57,489,361 5,970,771 41,530,050 21,930,082 65.44% 
16 

Table 4 HAVA Title II, Section 251 Funds Reported by States as of September 30, 2010 

State 

Total Section 251 

Funds Received($)a

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa 

Balance 

Of Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds 

and 

Interest 

Expended 

Virgin Islands 2,319,361 121,700 707,897 1,733,164 29.00% 

Washington 52,928,051 5,336,676 44,223,398 14,041,329 75.90% 

West Virginia 16,716,893 1,135,689 15,060,024 2,792,558 84.36% 

Wisconsine47,010,997 4,077,559 45,165,107 5,923,450 88.41% 

Wyoming 12,671,803 850,586 13,032,444 489,945 96.38% 

Total $2,488,668,955 $242,299,709 $2,022,773,684 $708,194,981 74.07% 

a

Includes cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations. Also States earned interest on Section 251 funds 

deposited in their State Election Fund, which is why some States spent more than they received. 

b

The FFR report is currently under review by EAC. 

c

The FFR report is currently under review by EAC. 

d

The FFR report is currently under review by EAC. 

e

The FFR report is currently under review by EAC.

Results 

Section 251 funds have been used to meet the requirements of Title III. In addition to procuring 

voting systems, States have used these funds to modernize voting equipment and make it 

accessible for disabled and language minorities. States have developed and updated voter 

registration databases. More voters have materials available at polling places and have the 

option of casting a provisional ballot on Election Day. States have also reported the 

implementation of requirements for voters who register by mail. 

 
17 

ELECTION DATA 

COLLECTION GRANTS 

Background

The Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 2008 (Public Law 110-161) instructed EAC to make 

competitive grants of $2 million to each of five eligible States to improve the collection of precinctlevel data relating to the November 2008 Federal elections. Funds were provided to: 

1. Develop and document a series of administrative and procedural best practices in 

election data collection that can be replicated by other States; 

2. Improve election data collection processes; 

3. Enhance the capacity of States and their jurisdictions to collect accurate and complete 

election data; and 

4. Document and describe particular administrative and management data collection 

practices, as well as particular data collection policies and procedures. 

EAC published a report in June 2009 on the impact of the grant program, which included 

recommendations on how to improve the collection of data relating to regularly-scheduled general 

elections for Federal offices. The report also included EAC’s recommendations for related 

changes in Federal law or regulations and an estimate of the amount of funding necessary to 

carry out such changes. 

Awards and Expenditures 

In 2008, EAC administered a $10 million data collection grant program in which five States were 

provided $2 million each to improve their data collection processes and procedures for the 2008 

election. 

Results 

As a result of the grant, all of the grantee States – Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 

Wisconsin – made improvements to their data collection systems, allowing them to report more 

data. For example, before the grant program was implemented, the grantees’ level of data 

collection for core questions on the 2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) 

averaged 45 percent; in 2008 the grantees’ level of data collection for core questions averaged 

Table 5 Election Data Collection Grants 

Grantee 

Amount

Awarded Expended as of*

Illinois $2,000,000 $1,733,180 (September 14, 2010)** 

Minnesota 2,000,000 1,996,918 (September 3, 2010)** 

Ohio 2,000,000 1,983,429 (February 2, 2010)** 

Pennsylvania 2,000,000 716,567 (December 31, 2010) 

Wisconsin 2,000,000 1,983,667 (June 30, 2010) 

 Total $10,000,000 $8,413,629 

*Includes unliquidated obligations that represent the amount of grants or contracts awarded or orders placed 

for which payments have not been requested or made 

**Represents date of final financial report 
18 

94 percent. According to Nat Robinson, a staff member who worked on the Wisconsin grant 

program, “With assistance provided by the grant, we are making substantial strides in identifying 

new and improving existing best practices in...collecting and analyzing election data.” EAC 

expects to see even greater improvement in the grantee States’ ability to collect and report 

election administration data for the 2010 election. Lessons learned from these States will benefit 

other States as they seek information regarding effective data collection practices. Table 5 lists 

the grantees, the amounts awarded and the amounts reported as expended as of December 31, 

2010. 

 
19 

COLLEGE POLL 

WORKER GRANTS

Background 

Title V – Help America Vote College Program, Section 501 of HAVA created the Help America 

Vote College Poll Worker Grant Program to encourage students enrolled at institutions of higher 

education to assist State and local governments in the administration of elections by serving as 

nonpartisan poll workers or assistants. Congress appropriated funds for the program in EAC’s 

annual Salaries and Expenses account in the amount of $750,000 each year for this program in 

FYs 2008, 2009, and 2010; and $300,000 in FY 2006; and $627,000 in FY 2004. In FY 2003, 

Congress appropriated $1.5 million in Election Reform Program no-year funds. 

Awards and Expenditures 

In FY 2004, EAC requested proposals for the College Poll Worker Program and received 81 grant 

applications. EAC awarded 15 grants with an average grant award amount of $41,800. Table 

6.1 lists the grantees, the amounts awarded, and the amounts reported as expended as of 

December 31, 2004. 

Table 6.1 2004 College Poll Worker Grants 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Expended 

Asnuntuck Community College Connecticut $30,000 $28,890 

California State University, Long Beach California 25,000 23,912 

Eastern Michigan University Michigan 25,000 16,127 

Florida Memorial College Florida 50,000 40,716 

Golden Key International Honour Society Georgia 130,000 130,000 

Illinois Central College Illinois 12,000 12,000 

Los Angeles Conservation Corps California 20,000 20,000 

North Hampton Community College Pennsylvania 25,000 25,000 

Northern Kentucky University Kentucky 25,000 25,000 

Roxbury Community College Massachusetts 30,000 26,676 

Rural Ethnic Institute South Dakota 50,000 50,000 

University of Baltimore Maryland 70,000 70,000 

University of Maryland, College Park Maryland 25,000 25,000 

University of North Texas Texas 80,000 80,000 

Wiley College Texas 30,000 28,150 

 

Total $627,000 $601,471

In FY 2006, EAC solicited and received 50 grant applications. EAC awarded 19 grants with an 

average grant award amount of $15,789. Table 6.2 lists the grantees, the amounts awarded, and 

the amounts reported as expended as of December 31, 2006. 

Table 6.2 2006 College Poll Worker Grants 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Expended 

American University District of Columbia $16,000 $16,000 

California State University, Long Beach California 16,992 12,676 

Citizens Union Foundation New York 19,000 19,000 

Elgin Community College Illinois 12,000 12,000 

Hattiesburg Alumnae Chapter Mississippi 10,000 10,000 

Illinois Central College Illinois 15,169 14,727 

Indiana University Indiana 19,910 19,910 

Lander University South Carolina 11,000 11,000 
20 

Table 6.2 2006 College Poll Worker Grants 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Expended 

Maricopa County Community Arizona 17,486 14,782 

Northern Kentucky University Kentucky 12,000 7,062 

Project Vote, New Castle County Delaware 16,875 16,875 

Project Vote, Saginaw City Michigan 16,875 16,875 

Research Foundation of SUNY New York 13,678 11,411 

United Tribes Technical College North Dakota 18,000 10,848 

University of Baltimore, College Park Maryland 18,996 18,996 

University of Central Florida Florida 15,288 14,244 

University of Texas at El Paso Texas 20,000 20,000 

University of Virginia Virginia 14,699 14,699 

Western Connecticut State University Connecticut 16,032 16,032 

Total $300,000 $277,137 

In FY 2008, EAC received 36 grant applications requesting $1,008,154. EAC awarded 27 grants 

with an average grant award amount of $27,778. Table 6.3 lists the grantees, the amounts 

awarded, and the amounts reported as expended as of December 31, 2008. 

Table 6.3 2008 College Poll Worker Grants 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Expended 

American University Washington, DC $32,167 $29,286 

Auburn University Alabama 25,750 25,239 

Citizens Union New York 29,114 29,114 

Golden Key International Honor Society Georgia 32,167 32,167 

Greensboro College North Carolina 32,167 18,309 

Henry Ford Community College Michigan 32,167 32,167

Loyola University Illinois 30,322 30,322 

McDaniel College Maryland 32,038 32,038 

Middlesex Community College Connecticut 18,852 18,852 

Muhlenberg College Pennsylvania 10,409 8,695 

NY Public Interest Research Group Fund New York 32,167 32,167 

Northampton County Area Community College Pennsylvania 30,704 23,972 

Northern Kentucky University Research Foundation Kentucky 22,577 5,630 

Onondaga Community College New York 16,785 11,627 

Rural Ethnic Institute South Dakota 32,167 23,764 

Southern Connecticut State University Connecticut 28,160 20,901 

St. Louis Community College Missouri 21,035 14,309 

Suffolk University New York 31,849 20,939 

Texans Together Education Fund Texas 32,167 32,166 

The University of Texas at El Paso Texas 20,000 18,951 

University of Baltimore Maryland 32,103 32,103 

University of Missouri Missouri 25,705 25,651 

Vassar College New York 31,785 31,785 

Virginia 21 Virginia 32,103 11,574 

Washtenaw Community College Michigan 30,767 10,396 

Winona State University Minnesota 29,495 29,424 

Youngstown State University Ohio 25,278 22,335 

 

Total $750,000 $620,547 

In FY 2009, EAC went to a two-year grant cycle in order to coincide with the Federal election 

cycle and received 72 grant applications. EAC awarded 13 grants with an average grant award 

amount of $57,692. Table 6.4 lists the grantees, the amounts awarded, and the amounts 

reported as expended as of the June 30, 2010 mid-year reporting date. 

Table 6.4 2009 College Poll Worker Grants Reported as of 6/30/2010 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Expended* 

Catskill Center for Independence New York $75,000 $16,304 

Hampton University Virginia 74,055 25,798 

LaGuardia Community College New York 74,041 17,534 

Missouri Western State University Missouri 74,807 688 
21 

Table 6.4 2009 College Poll Worker Grants Reported as of 6/30/2010

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Name Location 

Palmetto Project South Carolina 74,929 31,164 

Regis University Colorado 74,611 - 

Salish Kootenai College Montana 66,008 17,116 

University of Baltimore Maryland 20,000 1,945 

University of Central Florida Florida 75,000 22,855 

University of Missouri (Curators) Missouri 20,000 6,552 

University of Southern Mississippi Mississippi 48,471 12,514 

University of Texas-Austin Texas 53,078 - 

Vassar College New York 20,000 6,098 

Total $750,000 $158,568

*Year two FFR reports are due to EAC on January 31, 2011 as of December 31, 2010 

In FY 2010, EAC went to a three-year grant cycle in order to coincide with the Federal election 

cycle and received 61 grant applications. EAC awarded 15 grants with an average grant award 

amount of $50,000. Table 6.5 lists the grantees and the amounts awarded. 

Table 6.5 2010 College Poll Worker Grants 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Expended* 

 

Alverno College Wisconsin $40,800 - 

Benedictine University Illinois 55,385 - 

Central Connecticut State University Connecticut 32,107 - 

College of the Canyons California 59,200 - 

Harris-Stowe State University Missouri 43,433 - 

Keystone College Pennsylvania 39,996 - 

Kids Voting of Central Ohio Ohio 84,000 - 

Kutztown University Pennsylvania 58,868 - 

Lourdes College Ohio 34,783 - 

Marshall-Wythe Law School Foundation Virginia 63,700 - 

Morehouse College Georgia 38,037 

Southern Utah University Utah 46,480 - 

Suffolk University Massachusetts 30,211 - 

University of Rochester New York 62,000 - 

University of Tennessee Tennessee 61,000 - 

 

Total $750,000

*Initial reports are due to EAC January 31, 2011for spending as of December 31, 2010 

In sum, as of September 30, 2010, EAC has awarded 89 grants for a total of $3,177,000 and 

disbursed $1,657,723.

Results 

From using the Internet, to placing flyers on campus bulletin boards, methods for recruiting poll 

workers were varied. Examples include: 

• Websites were created to inform students about the program and allow students to 

submit their contact information. 

• MySpace and Facebook, two of the most popular social-networking websites, were used 

to create entire pages promoting the program. 

• YouTube, a video sharing website, was used to post the awarding of certificates of 

training completion to attract future student poll workers. 

• Emails about the program were sent to campus student organizations. 

• Local television and radio advertisements were used to allow program directors and 

students to reach a broader audience. 
22 

Local election officials ran the majority of the training sessions off campus. The length of training

averaged two to three hours. Students attended an average of two training sessions each. 

Student poll workers set up the polling places, greeted voters, checked off names on the voter 

registry (the most common activity), checked voters’ identification, staffed the information booths, 

demonstrated how to use the machines, answered voters’ questions, served as election 

observers, assisted with crowd control, helped voters to fill out their ballots, acted as translators,

assisted disabled voters with curbside voting, secured the machines at the end of the day, 

counted the votes, and transmitted the results. 

A few challenges with placing the students into the poll worker program were encountered. Some 

jurisdictions turned away interested students due to local requirements that poll workers be 

registered to vote in that jurisdiction. Due to the success of recruiting students, the supply of 

college poll workers in some cases exceeded the demand for poll workers. Additionally, some 

students did not have transportation to the polls on Election Day. EAC provides ongoing 

technical assistance and best practices to grantees to address issues such as these. 

The program diversified the poll worker population by producing college students who were better 

armed with the necessary skills to confront new voting technology and the challenges it presents 

at the polling place. Colleges reported that the participating students were enthusiastic about the 

program and their individual contributions. Local election officials also expressed great 

appreciation for the expansion of their poll worker pool. Most college program directors and 

many of the election officials with whom they worked indicated a willingness to continue this 

program into the future. 
23 

MOCK ELECTION 

GRANTS 

Background 

Section 295 of HAVA authorized EAC to award a non-competitive grant to the National Student 

and Parent Mock Election (NSPME) to conduct simulated national elections for students and 

parents from each of the 50 States in the United States, American Samoa, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and United States 

secondary schools overseas. 

For FY 2008, Congress appropriated $200,000 for a competitive grant program using EAC’s 

annual Salaries and Expenses account funds. The program promotes voter participation in 

national elections through voter education activities for students and their parents, building 

community involvement in and awareness of the elections process, and encourages continued 

civic engagement and participation by the youth population. In both FYs 2009 and 2010, 

Congress appropriated $300,000 in Salaries and Expenses funds. 

Awards and Expenditures 

In FY 2008, the EAC awarded grants to 10 organizations. The average grant award was 

$20,000. Table 7.1 lists the grantees, the amounts awarded and the amounts reported as 

expended as of December 31, 2008. 

 

Table 7.1 2008 Mock Election Grants 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Expended 

Bernalilo County New Mexico $20,091 $14,011 

League of Women Voters of Illinois Education Fund Illinois 21,307 21,306 

League of Women Voters of Oregon Education Fund Oregon 16,477 13,260 

League of Women Voters of Trumball County Ohio 15,835 15,835 

Montana Secretary of State Montana 20,109 4,261 

National Student/Parent Mock Election Arizona 24,366 24,366 

Office of the Secretary of State, Kentucky Kentucky 20,072 15,520 

Office of the Secretary of State, Texas Texas 20,104 18,556 

Townsend Harris High School New York 21,441 19,600 

United State Hispanic Leadership Institute Illinois 20,198 20,198 

 

TOTAL $200,000 $166,913 

In FY 2009, the first year of two-year grants, the EAC awarded grants to 12 organizations. The 

average grant award was $25,000. Table 7.2 lists the grantees, the amounts awarded and the 

amounts reported as expended as of the June 30, 2010 mid-year reporting date. 

 

Table 7.2 2009 Mock Election Grants Reported as of 6/30/2010 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Expended* 

Chiesman Foundation For Democracy South Dakota $48,000 $14,043 

County of Miami Dade Florida 55,000 16,897 

Instituto de Formación Democrática Puerto Rico 33,000 - 

Kids Voting North Carolina North Carolina 41,000 - 
24 

Table 7.2 2009 Mock Election Grants Reported as of 6/30/2010 

Grantees Grantees 

Name Name Name Name 

League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh, Education 

Fund Pennsylvania 40,000 17,433 

League of Women Voters of Illinois Education Fund Illinois 38,000 38,000 

State of Nevada, Secretary of State Nevada 45,000 11,823 

 

TOTAL $300,000 $98,196 

*Year two reports are due to EAC January 31 2011 for spending as of December 31, 2010 

In FY 2010, the first year of three-year awards which allow grantees to be in synch with the 

Federal election cycle, the EAC awarded grants to eight organizations. The average grant award 

was $37,500. Table 7.3 lists the grantees and the amounts awarded. 

Table 7.3 2010 Mock Election Grants 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Disbursed* 

League of Women Voters of Oregon Education Fund Oregon $41,413 - 

Michigan Government Television Michigan 42,000 - 

Montana Secretary of State Montana 30,000 - 

Office of the Secretary of State, Kentucky Kentucky 44,553 - 

Polk County Auditor’s Office Iowa 49,293 - 

Seminole County Supervisor of Elections Florida 15,441 - 

The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Rhode Island 37,300 - 

TVW Washington 40,000 - 

 

Total $300,000 - 

*Initial reports are due to EAC January 31, 2011 for spending as of December 31, 2010 

In sum, as of September 30, 2010, EAC has competitively awarded 25 grants for a total of 

$800,000 and disbursed $265,109.

Results 

Ensuring high levels of student enrollment in the Mock Election Program was critical to the 

program’s success. Based on feedback and information provided in the narrative program 

reports, mock elections are a very effective method of educating and exciting students, along with 

their friends and family, about the importance of voting. 

In each of the programs, the students found the experience to be worthwhile, educational, and 

fun. What the students valued most was that programs focused on much more than voting for a 

candidate. Students were provided with a “behind-the-scenes” look at the elections process, as 

well as a thorough educational lesson into the many different aspects of elections. From setting 

up a polling place, to registering to vote, to casting an informed ballot, students received an 

invaluable lesson in elections. 

 

We have found that characteristics of a successful Mock Election Program include: 

• Coordinating with local election officials and program staff to set ground rules, assign 

roles, and lay out the blueprint for program leaders. 

• Developing a publicity plan to specify the modes of grantee communication with 

secondary schools such as site visits to schools; attendance at public events; and 

advertising on websites as well as through direct mail and email. 

• Preparing informative, educational, and engaging election materials. 

• Assisting teachers in conducting mock elections and using voting machines. 
25 

• Using school forums, cable call-in shows, speeches, debates, quiz team competitions, 

mock press conferences, and speech writing to involve and inform students. 

Program directors found it beneficial to involve students and teachers through the use of program 

websites. The websites provide: (1) curriculum materials to students; (2) a means for uploading 

election results; and (3) opportunities for students to post pictures, videos, and blogs. 

To ensure that students received realistic voting experiences, many of the programs used actual 

voting machines acquired through the assistance of the States’ chief election official and local 

election officials. Several of the local election officials who provided the voting machines also 

trained the students as poll workers, and taught them how to set-up, operate, and close an 

election. 

 
26 

EAC Administration of 

HAVA FUNDS 

Monitoring 

To support States in the efficient and correct use of HAVA funds, the EAC: 

• Issues guidance and conducts training on the administration and use of HAVA funds; 

• Tracks the submission of and reviews the content of financial and performance reports 

submitted by recipients; 

• Provides feedback to recipients on issues identified in report reviews; 

• Conducts site visits to follow up on potential problem areas; and 

• Reviews audit reports and resolves findings applicable to EAC programs. 

Streamlining/Reform Efforts 

In 2009, EAC changed several internal processes for administering new Section 251 grants of 

requirements payments and for reporting the expenditure and use of HAVA funds. To help 

disburse requirements payments more timely and efficiently, EAC: 

• Allowed States to request 2008, 2009 and 2010 requirements payments at the same 

time; 

• Advised States to determine whether their State plans reflected how the new 

requirements payments will be used and managed, and the amount of requirements 

payments to be requested based on available matching funds; and 

● Instituted a new Notice of Grant Award which identifies the: (1) grant amount; (2) amount 

of matching funds required; (3) grant period; (4) administrative and reporting 

requirements; and (5) information needed by EAC to disburse the grant funds (Federal 

assurances, certifications, and banking information).