Report No. 

E-HP-SD-04-16 

July 2017 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

FINAL REPORT: 

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS 

RECEIVED UNDER THE HELP AMERICA 

VOTE ACT BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA
 

SECRETARY OF STATE
 

APRIL 10, 2003THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

MEMORANDUM 

To:	 Brian Newby 

Executive Director 

From: Patricia L. Layfield 

Inspector General 

Date: July 27, 2017 

Subject: Final Performance Audit Report - Administration of Payments Received 

Under the Help America Vote Act by the South Dakota Secretary of State 

(Assignment Number E-HP-SD-04-16) 

We contracted with the independent certified public accounting firm of McBride, Lock & 

Associates, LLC to audit the administration of payments received under the Help America Vote 

Act (HAVA) by the South Dakota Secretary of State (SDSOS). 

In its audit, McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC concluded that the Office generally accounted for 

and expended the HAVA funds in accordance with applicable requirements for the period from 

April 10, 2003 through September 30, 2015. However the following exceptions were identified: 

1.	 The Office did not have established policies and procedures addressing financial management 

activities including grant administration, program income, and Federal financial reporting. 

2.	 The Office submitted financial reports that were not supported by underlying accounting records. 

3.	 The Office did not adequately support all salaries and wages charged to the grant award. 

4.	 The Office's equipment management was inadequate in regards to the maintenance of property 

records and the performance of a physical observation of inventory. 

5.	 The Office expended $1,474 of HAVA funds for purposes that are not allowable under the award's 

terms and conditions or HAVA regulations. 

6.	 The Office did not adequately monitor subawardees. 

Telephone: 301-734-3104 Fax: 301-734-3115 Toll free: 1- 866-552-0004 

https://www.eac.gov/inspector_general/eacoig@eac.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

In the report, McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC summarized the SDSOS response to the reported 

recommendations, as well as their comments on the responses after the recommendations. The Office 

generally agreed with the findings and recommendations. The EAC indicated that it would work with the 

Office to resolve the issues in the report. The Office’s complete response is included as Appendix A-1 

and the E!C’s complete response is included as Appendix A-2. 

We would appreciate being kept informed of the actions taken on our recommendations as we will track 

the status of their implementation. Please respond in writing to the findings and recommendation 

included in this report by October 20, 2017. Your response should include information on actions taken 

or planned, targeted completion dates, and titles of officials responsible for implementation. 

To fulfill our responsibilities under Government Auditing Standards, the Office of Inspector General: 

 Reviewed McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC's approach and planning of the audit; 

 Evaluated the qualifications and independence of the auditors; 

 Monitored the progress of the audit at key points; 

 Reviewed the audit report, prepared by McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC to ensure compliance 

with Government Auditing Standards; and 

 Coordinated issuance of the audit report. 

McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC is responsible for the attached auditor’s report and the conclusions 

expressed in the report. We do not express any opinion on the conclusions presented in McBride, Lock 

& Associates, LLC's audit report. 

The legislation creating the Office of Inspector General requires that we report to Congress semiannually 

on all audit reports issued, actions taken to implement our recommendations, and recommendations 

that have not been implemented. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at (301) 734-3104. 

Attachment 

cc: Director of Grants and Payments 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Audit Report 

Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by 

the South Dakota Secretary of State 

Prepared for 

The United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC)



Office of Inspector General



By 

McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC 

April 2017 

�

���������������������������������

�����������������������������

������������
 

 

Performance Audit Report
 
 

Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by 

the South Dakota Secretary of State 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 

BACKGROUND 2 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 4 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 5 

AUDIT RESULTS 5 

APPENDICES: 

Appendix A-1: Response of the South Dakota Secretary of State to the Draft Report 

Appendix A-2: Response of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

to the Draft Report 

Appendix B: Audit Methodology 

Appendix C: Monetary Impact as of September 30, 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
 

Performance Audit Report
 

Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by 

the South Dakota Secretary of State
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC was engaged by the United States Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) Office of the Inspector General to conduct a performance audit of the South 

Dakota Secretary of State’s Office (Office) from inception on April 10, 2003 through September 

30, 2015 to determine whether the Office used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 

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

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

and for program income; maintained state expenditures at a level not less than the level maintained 

in the fiscal year ending prior to November 2000; and met HAVA requirements for Section 251 

funds for an election fund and for a matching contribution. 

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 Government, 41 CFR 105-71, (originally Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-102, also known as the “Common Rule”). 

•	 Expend payments in accordance with cost principles set forth in Cost Principles for State 

and Local Governments, 2 CFR 225, (originally Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A-87) for establishing the allowability or unallowability of certain items of cost 

for federal participation. 

•	 Follow the requirements of the Federal Cash Management and Improvement Act. 

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

•	 Comply with the provisions of Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit 

Organizations (Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133). 

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. 

Based on the audit procedures performed, except for the matters discussed below, we concluded 

that the Office generally accounted for and expended the Grant funds in accordance with the 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

requirements mentioned above for the period from April 10, 2003 through September 30, 2015. 

The exceptions are as follows: 

1.	 The Office did not have established policies and procedures addressing financial 

management activities including grant administration, program income and Federal 

financial reporting. 

2.	 The Office submitted financial reports that were not supported by underlying accounting 

records. 

3.	 The Office did not adequately support all salaries and wages charged to the grant award. 

4.	 The Office's equipment management is inadequate in regards to the maintenance of 

property records and the performance of a physical observation of inventory. 

5.	 The Office expended $1,474 of HAVA funds for purposes that are not allowable under the 

award's terms and conditions or HAVA regulations. 

6.	 The Office did not adequately monitor subawardees. 

We have included in this report as Appendix A, the Secretary of State’s written response to the 

draft report. Such response has not been subjected to the audit procedures and, accordingly, we do 

not provide any form of assurance on the appropriateness of the response or the effectiveness of 

the corrective actions described therein. 

BACKGROUND 

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

(Commission) to assist States and insular areas (hereinafter referred to as States) with improving 

the administration of federal elections and to provide funds to States to help implement these 

improvements. The Commission administers payments to States authorized by HAVA under Titles 

I and II, as follows: 

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

requirements for uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration 

requirements (Title III), improving the administration of elections for federal office, 

educating voters, training election officials and pool workers, and developing a State plan 

for requirements payments. 

•	 Title I, Section 102 payments are available only for the replacement of punchcard and lever 

action voting systems. 

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

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

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

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 


 

Title II also requires that states must: 

•	 Have appropriated funds equal to five percent of the total amount to be spent for activities 

for which requirements payments are made. 

•	 Maintain the expenditures of the State for activities funded by the requirements payment 

at a level that is not less than the expenditures maintained by the State for the fiscal year 

ending prior to November 2000. 

•	 Establish an election fund for amounts appropriated by the State for carrying out activities 

for which requirements payments are made, for the Federal requirements payments 

received, for other amounts as may be appropriated under law and for interest earned on 

deposits of the fund. 

The Awardee – The South Dakota Secretary of State 

The HAVA funds were awarded to the South Dakota Secretary of State. The Office guides the 

administration of South Dakota’s elections, assists in the registration of voters, oversees campaign 

finance reporting, and implements South Dakota’s lobbyist disclosure laws. Elections in South 

Dakota are administered at the local level. The Office works closely with county auditors across 

South Dakota to ensure the smooth administration of South Dakota’s local, state, and federal 

elections. The Office provides guidance on the election law, provides supplies that are fundamental 

to carrying out elections, and is a resource before and on election day to help election officials with 

any emergencies or routine questions that may arise. 

Help America Vote Act State of South Dakota State Plan 

The State of South Dakota formed a 17 member task force consisting of the Board of Elections, 

county auditors, Secretary of State Representatives, a state senator and representative, advocates 

for the community of people with disabilities and a spokesperson for Kids Voting. 

The main objectives of the project funded by HAVA, as set forth in the state plan, were to establish a 

voter education program, establish instructions on how to correct ballot errors, provide one Direct 

Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machine per polling place and an appropriate ratio of back-up 

machines to the counties, posting of information at the polling place, develop an automated link 

between the felony records system and statewide voter file to send notices of felony convictions to 

appropriate county auditor, develop an automated link between the vital statistics system and statewide 

voter file to send deceased notices to the appropriate county auditor, verify driver’s license or last four 

digits of social security number, and other activities to improve administration of elections. 

The Secretary of State established and is maintaining an election fund for the exclusive purpose of 

carrying out activities of HAVA. The requirements payments and matching funds will be used for 

items which are not paid for under Title I Funds. Any unspent Title II money will be used for a voting 

equipment revolving fund to ensure South Dakota can continue to meet the mandates of HAVA in the 

future. The interest accrued on the revolving fund will be kept in the fund and used for the grants to 

the counties and/or entities. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the Office: 

1.	 Used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of the Grant in accordance with 

Grant and applicable requirements; 

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

program income; 

3.	 Met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for creation of an election fund, providing 

required matching contributions, and meeting the requirements for maintenance of a base 

level of state outlays, commonly referred to as Maintenance of Expenditures (MOE). 

In addition to accounting for Grant payments, the Grant 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 Grant funds to comply 

with certain financial management requirements, specifically: 

•	 Comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements with State and Local Government, 41 CFR 105-71, (originally Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-102, also known as the “Common Rule”). 

•	 Expend payments in accordance with cost principles set forth in Cost Principles for State 

and Local Governments, 2 CFR 225, (originally Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A-87) for establishing the allowability or unallowability of certain items of cost 

for federal participation. 

•	 Follow the requirements of the Federal Cash Management and Improvement Act. 

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

•	 Comply with the provisions of Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit 

Organizations (Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133). 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We audited the Grant funds received and disbursed by the Office from April 10, 2003 through 

September 30, 2015 as shown in the following table: 

HAVA HAVA HAVA 

Description Section 101 Section 102 Section 251 Total 

Funds Received from EAC $ 5,000,000 -$ $ 13,026,182 $ 18,026,182

State Matching Funds - - 686,348 686,348 

Program Income 1,865,665 - 2,513,508 4,379,173 

Total Funds $ 6,865,665 -$ $ 16,226,038 $ 23,091,703

Less Disbursements (2,873,294) - (10,632,681) (13,505,975) 

Fund Balance $ 3,992,371 -$ $ 5,593,357 $ 9,585,728

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. 

Based on the audit procedures performed, except for the matters discussed below, we concluded 

that the Office accounted for and expended the HAVA funds in accordance with the requirements 

mentioned above for the period from April 10, 2003 through September 30, 2015. The exceptions 

to applicable compliance requirements are described below. 

Finding No. 1 – Documentation of Policies and Procedures 

The Secretary of State’s Office lacked complete, documented policies with respect to internal 

controls for period under audit, April 10, 2003 through September 30, 2015, which covered three 

separate administrations. 

Federal regulations, specifically 41 CFR 105-71.120(b)(3) - Post-Award Requirements/Financial 

Administration, Standards for Financial Management Systems, Internal Control, require that: 

(a) A State must expand and account for grant funds in accordance with State laws and 

procedures for expending and accounting for its own funds, and 

(b) Effective control and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant cash, 

real and personal property, and other assets. 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

A key aspect of maintaining an effective system of internal controls is the documentation of related 

policies and procedures to ensure these criteria are current, approved, communicated, incorporated 

into training materials, and updated when appropriate. 

There were no Office specific internal control procedures written for grant administration, program 

income, and financial reporting during the audit period of April 10, 2003 through September 30, 

2015. It was noted that the State has procedures in place within the accounting system, payroll 

system and how a transaction is processed. Additionally, it is noted that various State Departments 

have procedure manuals, which the Office generally follows. 

Inadequate documented policies and procedures may result in a lack of awareness and compliance 

with management's directives, and could allow noncompliance with grant terms and conditions to 

occur and not be detected. 

The Office has had minimal experience with federal awards including the processes associated 

with federal reporting and administration of significant contracts. Accordingly, there had been no 

specific need for documentation of policies and procedures in these areas. Further, as a small 

office, much of the training has occurred through verbal discussion rather than use of written 

documentation of policies and procedures. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the EAC require the Office to implement procedures to ensure that all 

significant accounting, financial management and grant administration policies and procedures are 

documented. Additionally, these procedures should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. 

Secretary of State Response: 

This office complies with applicable policies, laws and procedures for managing funds from both 

State and Federal sources. Documentation of said policies, laws and procedures are detailed in 

state manuals, administrative rules and state statutes. 

The state acknowledges that it did not have written program-specific policies and procedures for 

administration of EAC monies; however, the Office had established unwritten policies and 

procedures as of July 1, 2015. The Office has adopted written policies and procedures (Appendix 1 

to the Response of the South Dakota Secretary of State to the Draft Report) on October 3, 2016 to 

address financial management activities, including procurement management, direct voucher 

county and non-county payments, Federal financial reconciliation and reporting and grant 

administration policies including property management. These items have been incorporated into 

HAVA training materials and updated when appropriate. This has been reviewed and signed on 

October 3, 2016, and will be annually reviewed, signed and dated by all affected personnel, or if a 

change in personnel, policy or procedure occurs. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Auditor’s Response: 

We commend the Secretary of State for the implementation of written policies and procedures to 

manage funds from State and Federal sources. As noted, these documents ensure the consistency 

of application of controls to better assure compliance. The regular updating of such policies and 

procedures will ensure that these processes will stay effective in managing funds. 

Finding No. 2 – Financial Reporting 

The Office submitted financial reports for Section 101 and Section 251 funds that could not be 

supported by underlying accounting records. 

The terms and conditions of the HAVA awards require the submission of accurate and complete 

Federal Forms 269 (Financial Status Report) and 425 (Federal Financial Report) which reflect the 

uses of award funds and the interest and program income generated from those funds. HAVA Title 

IX, Section 902. AUDITS AND REPAYMENT OF FUNDS, Part (a) – Recordkeeping 

Requirement states, “Each recipient of a grant or other payment made under this Act shall keep 

such records with respect to the payment as are consistent with sound accounting principles, 

including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of funds, the 

total cost of the project or undertaking for which such funds are used, and the amount of that 

portion of the cost of the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other records 

as will facilitate an effective audit.” 

The Office submitted financial reports for Section 101 and Section 251 through September 2015. 

A summary of the expenditure reconciliation of the Section 101 and Section 251 financial reports 

to year-end accounting reports as of September 30, 2015 is as follows: 

Section 101 Section 251 

Report Report 

Federal Share of Expenditures $ 2,906,832 $ 9,771,273 

Program Income Expenditures - -

Recipient Share of Expenditures - 684,963 

Total Expenditures Reported $ 2,906,832 $ 10,456,236 

Actual Expenditures Incurred 2,873,294 10,632,681 

Expenditures (Under)/Over $ 33,538 $ (176,445) 

The Office submitted financial reports for Section 101 and Section 251 through September 2015. 

A summary of the revenue reconciliation of the Section 101 and Section 251 financial reports to 

the year-end accounting reports as of September 30, 2015 is as follows: 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Federal Funds Authorized 

Program Income Earned 

Recipient Share Required 

Total Revenues Reported 

Actual Revenues Earned 

Revenues (Under)/Over 

Section 101 

Report 

$ 5,000,000 

1,865,665 

-

$ 6,865,665 

6,865,665 

$ ­

Section 251 

Report 

$ 13,021,803 

2,347,642 

686,348 

$ 16,055,793 

16,226,038 

$ (170,245) 

The Office provided a detailed list of transactions, however the audit was unable to reconcile the 

amounts detailed in the list of transactions to the amounts labelled actual expenditures incurred 

and actual revenues earned. The Office was also was not able to reconcile Section 101 and Section 

251 activity into the fund balance. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the EAC address and resolve the following recommendation that the South 

Dakota Secretary of State’s Office: 

(a) Perform a reconciliation of the grant activity for the Section 101 and Section 251 funds and 

ensure that all expenditures and revenues are fully disclosed and reconcile into the fund 

balance. 

(b) Prepare and submit revised financial reports to the EAC for Section 101 and Section 251 

activities as of September 30, 2015. 

Secretary of State Response: 

We will work with Election Assistance Commission regarding the above finding. 

Auditor’s Response: 

The Secretary of State should ensure a reconciliation of grant activity for Section 101 and 

Section 251 as well as submission of the necessary revisions to the financial reports for these 

sections as of September 30, 2015. 

Finding No. 3 – Inadequate Payroll Documentation 

The Secretary of State’s Office did not adequately support all salaries and wages charged to the 

grant award. 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and 

Indian Tribal Governments, Attachment B.8.h.(3) states that “Where employees are expected to 

work solely on a single Federal award or cost objective, charges for their salaries and wages will 

be supported by periodic certifications that the employees worked solely on that program for the 

period covered by the certification. These certifications will be prepared at least semi-annually and 

will be signed by the employee or supervisory official having first-hand knowledge of the work 

performed by the employee.” 

Attachment B.8.h.(4), states that “Where employees work on multiple activities or cost objectives, 

a distribution of their salaries or wages will be supported by personnel activity reports or equivalent 

documentation which meets the standards in subsection (5)... Such documentary support will be 

required where employees work on... (b) A Federal award and a non Federal award” 

Attachment B.8.h.(5), states that “Personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation must 

meet the following standards: (a) They must reflect an after the fact distribution of the actual 

activity of each employee, (b) They must account for the total activity for which each employee is 

compensated, (c) They must be prepared at least monthly and must coincide with one or more pay 

periods, (d) They must be signed by the employee, and (e) Budget estimates or other distribution 

percentages determined before the services are performed do not qualify as support for charges to 

Federal awards but maybe used for interim accounting purposes.” 

The sample selection of 11 payroll transactions found 4 instances (36%) where the employee did 

not have an adequate work effort certification for the pay period. The 4 pay periods ended May 8, 

2006, June 6, 2008, July 23, 2008 and April 8, 2011. Timesheets do not provide for distribution of 

time between Federal grant activity and state activity. Additionally, it was noted that the Office 

did not have pay rate approval forms for former employees since documentation is not kept past 

five years. Therefore, pay rates could not be verified for four of the 11 employees selected. Of the 

$18,612 of salary costs reviewed $10,855 (58%) was determined to be unsupported. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that EAC address and resolve the following recommendations that the South 

Dakota Secretary of State’s Office: 

(a) Transfer into the election fund $10,855 for the questioned salary charges as cited above. 

(b) Perform and provide additional analysis for all payroll charges allocated to HAVA prior to 

September 30, 2015 to determine the extent of unsupported payroll costs. 

(c) Formalize documented policies and procedures to ensure that employees who expend 

efforts on Federal activities accurately record their time in the Office’s timekeeping system 

going forward. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Secretary of State Response: 

For the four pay periods (2006, 2008 and 2011) of the three employees who make up the $10,855 

in the questioned salary charges, our office provided several pieces of evidence to the audit firm 

including unsigned, required semi-annual certifications and screenshots of when those documents 

were created and saved on the network drive showing date and time. The screen shots of the 

certification dates and times, as well as the pay periods allocations in question, are in Appendix 2 

to the Response of the South Dakota Secretary of State to the Draft Report. 

Also provided were the payroll allocations for that time period. The “Company” line on the payroll 

allocations (Appendix 2 to the Response of the South Dakota Secretary of State to the Draft Report) 

indicates “2007,” which identifies Federal payroll. Two of the three employees in question 

(making up three of the four referenced pay periods) worked on HAVA related projects full-time 

during the questioned time periods, thus their salaries would have been allocated to only Federal 

grant activity and not state activity. 

Employee 1 

Pay date: 05/16/2006 

Amount: $1,911.19 

Pay date: 06/16/2008 

Amount: $6,748.91 

Employee 2 

Pay Date: 08/01/2008 

Amount: $1,800.68 

Employee 3 

Pay Date: 04/15/2011 

Amount: $394.49 

This office has provided sufficient documentation to support the activity of Employees 1 and 2, 

whom were exclusively paid with Federal HAVA funds and, therefore, this office only needs to 

reimburse $394.49 into the HAVA fund. 

The South Dakota Secretary of State’s office began utilizing an advanced feature in the State’s 

timekeeping system in February 2015 through which the employee allocates the actual hours 

worked on both federal and state projects per day. The employee then electronically affirms and 

signs the timesheet on a semi-monthly basis. The timesheet is then electronically signed by the 

supervisory official having first-hand knowledge of the work performed by the employee on a 

semi-monthly basis. 

Employees who expend efforts on Federal activities accurately record their time in the State’s time 

keeping system. These policies are included in the Office’s HAVA Policies & Procedures Manual 

(Appendix 1 to the Response of the South Dakota Secretary of State to the Draft Report). 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Auditor’s Response: 

The Secretary of State acknowledges that the work certifications presented were unsigned. The 

response does not provide for any additional information regarding the pay rate approvals for the 

four employee’s salaries that were questioned. The statements regarding the limitation of employee 

effort to the Federal program is beneficial to the resolution process. The Secretary of State should 

ensure that work certifications are signed and that pay rates are approved. 

Finding No. 4 – Inadequate Equipment Management 

The Office’s equipment management is inadequate in regards to the maintenance of property 

records and the performance of a physical observation of inventory. 

The Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and 

Local Governments 41 CFR § 105-71.132 (d) (The “Common Rule”) section states that, (1) 

“Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number 

or other identification number, the source of property, who holds the title, the acquisition date, and 

cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the property, the location, 

use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal 

and sale price of the property and (2) A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the 

results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years.” 

The Office did not have documented policies regarding the maintenance of the equipment listing 

or the conduct of a physical inventory until after September 2015. The implementation by the 

Office of the Help America Vote Act Internal Control Procedures indicates that every two years 

prior to a primary election, all counties in South Dakota are to complete the inventory sheet 

provided by the Office and must be submitted to the HAVA Coordinator by July 1st the beginning 

of a new fiscal year. A review of the inventory indicated that all required elements are present and 

completed by each South Dakota County. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that EAC address and resolve the following recommendations that the Office: 

(a) Formalize documented policies and procedures regarding inventory management. 

(b) Conduct and document a physical inventory on a biannual basis. 

Secretary of State Response: 

As stated in the finding, this Office conducted a physical inventory with the county auditors. The 

information was documented in an Excel Spreadsheet after the physical inventory in June of 2016. 

We will continue to conduct and record a physical inventory of the equipment purchased with 

HAVA monies on a bi-annual basis in the months of May and June on even numbered years in 

accordance with federal requirements. 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 


 

No formalized policies and procedures regarding equipment management had been put in place 

prior to September 2015. The current administration formally documented and signed these 

procedures on October 3, 2016. These procedures are included in the office’s “South Dakota 

Secretary of State’s Office - HAVA Policies and Procedures Manual” (Appendix 1 to the Response 

of the South Dakota Secretary of State to the Draft Report). 

Auditor’s Response: 

We commend the Secretary of State for taking corrective action regarding the taking of an 

inventory in even number years. We further commend their efforts in documenting their 

procedures in the Office Manual pertaining to HAVA. 

Finding No. 5 – Unallowable Costs 

The Secretary of State’s Office expended HAVA funds for purposes that are not allowable under 

the award's terms and conditions or HAVA regulations. 

HAVA Section 101(b)(1) states, "A State shall use the funds provided under a payment made 

under this section to carry out one or more of the following activities: (B) Improving the 

administration of elections for Federal Office. (C) Educating voters concerning voting procedures, 

voting rights, and voting technology.” 

The Secretary of State’s Office expended $1,474 of HAVA funds, on an invoice dated October 13, 

2006, for the purchase of letters to be distributed to students in grades K-12 for voter education. 

Each letter had a sample voter registration form on the back. Students in grades K-12 are not 

eligible voters. Therefore, this expense is not considered allowable under HAVA Section 

101(b)(1). 

Recommendation: 

We recommend that the EAC require the Office to transfer to the election fund $1,474 for the 

questioned cost cited above. 

Secretary of State Response: 

The Office agrees with this finding. The Kids Voting letter was distributed in September 2006. 

The Secretary of State at the time developed and approved this project. The Office will reimburse 

the HAVA Fund for the cost of the Kids Voting letter in the amount of $1,474.00. 

Auditor’s Response: 

The Secretary of State acknowledges the inappropriate payment for Kids Voting costs. The 

reimbursement of these funds is appropriate. 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Finding No. 6 –Inadequate Subawardee Monitoring 

The Office did not have documented policies and procedures in place to ensure subawardee's are 

being properly monitored in the areas of allowable costs, maintenance of effort and equipment 

management for period under audit, April 10, 2003 through September 30, 2015, which covered 

three separate administrations. 

The Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and 

Local Governments 41 CFR § 105-71.140 (a) (the “Common Rule”) states that, “Grantees are 

responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of grant and subgrant supported activities. 

Grantees must monitor grant and subgrant supported activities to assure compliance with 

applicable Federal requirements and that performance goals are being achieved. Grantee 

monitoring must cover each program, function or activity.” 

The Office initiated subgrant agreements with the counties. The basis of the subgrant agreement 

was the reimbursement request of the counties for election equipment and supplies. The county 

submits a Title II Reimbursement and/or Expenditure Electronic Reporting Form to the State. 

Additional documentation was systematically requested to ensure the acceptability of funds used. 

Counties are required to expend county-held accounts on Title III requirements before requesting 

state-held funds. Counties are reimbursed semi-annually from the state election fund. Originally, 

the Office requested actual copies of payment receipts of county expenditures if a county was 

selected for audit. The audit procedures required invoices to support one line, of the seventeen 

lines, on the Reporting Forms chosen at random from every fourth county submission for 

reimbursement received. New procedures require the county to submit all invoices with expenses 

claimed for reimbursement along with the Reporting Forms sent to the Office. The subgrant 

agreement with the counties did provide the necessary provisions as required by the Federal 

regulations. However, there was no monitoring performed by the Office subsequent to the review 

of the reimbursement request. County reimbursements provided by the Office totaled $3,986,529. 

The Office initiated a maintenance of effort advisory on September 18, 2007. The advisory placed 

the Maintenance of Effort responsibility, as detailed in HAVA Section 254(a)(7), on the individual 

counties. Each county was to “make an accounting of any such expenses made in the county fiscal 

year ending prior to November 2000. Each county should define a 1999 base level of expenses 

that relate to title III requirements.” Four counties were selected to review maintenance of effort 

documentation. Three of the four counties did not provide adequate documentation to support their 

compliance with maintenance of effort requirements. 

Four counties were selected to physically observe inventory purchased under the subgrant 

agreement. Procedures were performed to determine the accuracy of the inventory listings of those 

counties. The observations indicated that assets purchased with HAVA funds were adequately 

safeguarded. However, the inventory listings maintained by the counties were not sufficient to be 

compliant with 41 CFR § 105-71.132 until after the audit period. 

Monitoring subawardee's procurement of contractual services and goods, maintenance of effort 

and equipment management will ensure that purchases are made through full and open 

competition, help mitigate the potential misuse of federal funds, ensure compliance with the 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

maintenance of effort requirements under HAVA, and ensure equipment is adequately 

safeguarded. 

The Office did not have policies in place to ensure that county reimbursements were made only 

for costs that were allocable, allowable and reasonable. Additionally, the Office did not ensure that 

each county tracked their maintenance of effort. Finally, the Office did not ensure that each county 

maintained a fixed asset listing that complied with federal regulations. 

Recommendation 

We recommend EAC require the office to document and implement monitoring policies and 

procedures to assure subawardee compliance with applicable Federal requirements and that 

performance goals are being achieved. 

Secretary of State Response: 

The office instituted a subawardee level inventory management and documentation procedure in 

2016, after the end of the audit period. The procedure is detailed within the HAVA Policy and 

Procedure manual (Appendix 1) and will be completed in even numbered years in compliance with 

Federal regulation. 

The office had instituted a written policy of HAVA allowable costs in the 2014 HAVA State Plan 

(Appendix 1-B to the Response of the South Dakota Secretary of State to the Draft Report) and 

will continue to follow these guidelines. 

The office has instituted a policy for subawardee monitoring of Maintenance of Effort and is 

detailed in the HAVA Policies and Procedures Manual (Appendix 1 to the Response of the South 

Dakota Secretary of State to the Draft Report). It was previously detailed in the 2007 HAVA State 

Plan (Appendix 3 to the Response of the South Dakota Secretary of State to the Draft Report) for 

South Dakota that “the EAC has allowed that South Dakota counties will be responsible for 

maintenance of effort according to the county fiscal year 1999. Counties have been advised to 

determine if there existed any spending for title III type activities in 1999. If any existed in the 

county, the county will be responsible for maintaining that level every year according to the first 

year that the county used any federal or county funds dedicated to HAVA title III requirements.” 

Auditor’s Response: 

The institution of the subawardee level inventory management and documentation procedure in 

2016 is responsive to the recommendation. The written policy pertaining to HAVA allowable costs 

is also appropriate as is the institution of a policy for subawardee monitoring. 

We provided a draft of our report to the appropriate individuals of the Office of the South Dakota 

Secretary of State. We considered any comments received prior to finalizing this report. 

14
 
 

 


 

The Office responded on May 26, 2017 and generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

recommendations. The EAC responded on June 8, 2017 and stated they will work with the 

Secretary’s Office to ensure appropriate corrective action. The Office’s complete response is 

included as Appendix A-1 and the EAC’s complete response as Appendix A-2. 

McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC performed the related audit procedures between May 6, 2016 

and April 5, 2017. 

(Original Signed by McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC) 

McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC 

April 5, 2017 

15
 

 


 


 

APPENDIX A-1

Response of the South Dakota
 

Secretary of State to the Draft Report
 
Si.ad !JJdota Y'k:n:ttVp o/5fatif; 


SHANTEL KREBS 

May 26, 2017 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1335 East-West Highway, Suite 4300 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Office of the Inspector General 

Via Electronic Transmission 

Dear Inspector General Patricia L. Layfield, 

Enclosed you will find the written response from the South Dakota Secretary of State's 

office to the Performance Audit Report -Administration ofPayments Received Under the 

Help America Vote Act by the South Dakota Secretary ofState, dated April 2017. 

Please let my office know if you have any questions regarding the response. HAVA 

Coordinator Kristin Gabriel can be reached at (605) 773-3537 or 

Kristin.Gabriel@state.sd. us. 

Shantel Krebs 

South Dakota Secretary of State 

Enclosure 

Sourn DAKOTAS 1\1£· CAPITOi • 500 E. C\PllOL A' r:. • P11· RR1. SD 5750 I 

www.SDSOS.gov •phone 605 773 3537 •corporations 605 773 4845 •tax 605 773 6580 

sdsos'a ::-.tatc.!-od.us •Twitter (£1 SOS Krebs 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

1. Documentation of Policies and Procedures 

Recommendation: 

We recommend that the EAC require the Office to implement procedures to ensure that all 

significant accounting, financial management and grant administration policies and 

procedures are documented. Additionally, these procedures should be reviewed and 

updated on a regular basis. 

State response: 

This office complies with applicable policies, laws and procedures for managing 

funds from both State and Federal sources. Documentation of said policies, laws and 

procedures are detailed in state manuals, administrative rules and state statutes. 

The state acknowledges that it did not have written program-specific policies and 

procedures for administration of EAC monies; however, the Office had established 

unwritten policies and procedures as of July 1, 2015. The Office has adopted written 

policies and procedures (Appendix 1) on October 3, 2016 to address financial management 

activities, including procurement management, direct voucher county and non-county 

payments, Federal financial reconciliation and reporting and grant administration policies 

including property management. These items have been incorporated into HAVA training 

materials and updated when appropriate. This has been reviewed and signed on October 3, 

2016, and will be annually reviewed, signed and dated by all affected personnel, or if a 

change in personnel, policy or procedure occurs. 

1
 
 

 

	 

	 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

2. Financial Reporting 

Recommendation: 

We recommend that the EAC address and resolve the following recommendation that the 

South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office: 

(a)	 Perform a reconciliation of the grant activity for the Section 101 and Section 251 

funds and ensure that all expenditures and revenues are fully disclosed and 

reconcile into the fund balance. 

(b)	 Prepare and submit revised financial reports to the EAC for Section 101 and 

Section 251 activities as of September 30, 2015. 

State response: 

We will work with Election Assistance Commission regarding the above finding. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

3. Unsupported Payroll Costs Charged to the Grant 

Recommendation: 

We recommend that EAC address and resolve the following recommendations that 

the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office: 

(a) Transfer into the election fund $10,855 for the questioned salary charges as 

cited above. 

(b) Perform and provide additional analysis for all payroll charges allocated to 

HAVA prior to September 30, 2015 to determine the extent of unsupported payroll costs. 

(c) Formalize documented policies and procedures to ensure that employees who 

expend efforts on Federal activities accurately record their time in the Office’s timekeeping 

system going forward. 

State response: 

For the four pay periods (2006, 2008 and 2011) of the three employees who make 

up the $10,855 in the questioned salary charges, our office provided several pieces of 

evidence to the audit firm including unsigned, required semi-annual certifications and 

screenshots of when those documents were created and saved on the network drive 

showing date and time. The screen shots of the certification dates and times, as well as the 

pay periods allocations in question, are in Appendix 2. 

Also provided were the payroll allocations for that time period. The “Company” line 

on the payroll allocations (Appendix 2) indicates “2007,” which identifies Federal payroll. 

Two of the three employees in question (making up three of the four referenced pay 

periods) worked on HAVA related projects full-time during the questioned time periods, 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

thus their salaries would have been allocated to only Federal grant activity and not state 

activity. 

Employee 1 

Pay date: 05/16/2006
 

Amount: $1,911.19
 

Pay date: 06/16/2008
 

Amount: $6,748.91
 

Employee 2 

Pay Date: 08/01/2008
 

Amount: $1,800.68
 

Employee 3 

Pay Date: 04/15/2011
 

Amount: $394.49
 

TOTAL - $10,855.27 

This office has provided sufficient documentation to support the activity of 

Employees 1 and 2, whom were exclusively paid with Federal HAVA funds and, therefore, 

this office only needs to reimburse $394.49 into the HAVA fund. 

4
 
 

 

 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

The South Dakota Secretary of State’s office began utilizing an advanced feature in 

the State’s timekeeping system in February 2015 through which the employee allocates the 

actual hours worked on both federal and state projects per day. The employee then 

electronically affirms and signs the timesheet on a semi-monthly basis. The timesheet is 

then electronically signed by the supervisory official having first-hand knowledge of the 

work performed by the employee on a semi-monthly basis. 

Employees who expend efforts on Federal activities accurately record their time in 

the State’s time keeping system. These policies are included in the Office’s HAVA Policies & 

Procedures Manual (Appendix 1). 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

4. Inadequate Equipment Management 

Recommendation: 

We recommend that EAC address and resolve the following recommendations that 

the Office: 

(a) Formalize documented policies and procedures regarding inventory 

management. 

(b) Conduct and document a physical inventory on a biannual basis. 

State response: 

As stated in the finding, this Office conducted a physical inventory with the county 

auditors. The information was documented in an Excel Spreadsheet after the physical 

inventory in June of 2016. We will continue to conduct and record a physical inventory of 

the equipment purchased with HAVA monies on a bi-annual basis in the months of May and 

June on even numbered years in accordance with federal requirements. 

No formalized policies and procedures regarding equipment management had been 

put in place prior to September 2015. The current administration formally documented 

and signed these procedures on October 3, 2016. These procedures are included in the 

office’s “South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office - HAVA Policies and Procedures Manual” 

(Appendix 1). 

6
 
 

 

 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

5. Inadequate Invoice Approval 

Recommendation: 

We recommend that the EAC require the Office to transfer to the election fund 

$1,474 for the questioned cost cited above. 

State response: 

The Office agrees with this finding. The Kids Voting letter was distributed in 

September 2006. The Secretary of State at the time developed and approved this project. 

The Office will reimburse the HAVA Fund for the cost of the Kids Voting letter in the 

amount of $1,474.00. 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

6. Inadequate Subawardee Monitoring 

Recommendation: 

We recommend EAC require the office to document and implement monitoring 

policies and procedures to assure subawardee compliance with applicable Federal 

requirements and that performance goals are being achieved. 

State response: 

The office instituted a subawardee level inventory management and documentation 

procedure in 2016, after the end of the audit period. The procedure is detailed within the 

HAVA Policy and Procedure manual (Appendix 1) and will be completed in even numbered 

years in compliance with Federal regulation. 

The office had instituted a written policy of HAVA allowable costs in the 2014 HAVA 

State Plan (Appendix 1-B) and will continue to follow these guidelines. 

The office has instituted a policy for subawardee monitoring of Maintenance of 

Effort and is detailed in the HAVA Policies and Procedures Manual (Appendix 1). It was 

previously detailed in the 2007 HAVA State Plan (Appendix 3) for South Dakota that “the 

EAC has allowed that South Dakota counties will be responsible for maintenance of effort 

according to the county fiscal year 1999. Counties have been advised to determine if there 

existed any spending for title III type activities in 1999. If any existed in the county, the 

county will be responsible for maintaining that level every year according to the first year 

that the county used any federal or county funds dedicated to HAVA title III requirements.” 

8
 

 


 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

Appendix 1
 

Help America Vote Act Policies &
 

Procedures Manual – Office of the 

South Dakota Secretary of State
 
 

 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

INDEX 

GRANT ADMINISTRATION 

• Equipment Management/Inventory 

• State Plan 

• Records Retention 

• In-Person Satellite Sites 

• HAVA Grants 

• Approving Title II Reimbursement Requests 

• Maintenance of Effort 

ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

• Reconciliation of HAVA County and State Balances/Year-End Reports 

• Payroll & Employee Compensation 

o Timekeeping System (TKS) 

o Conflict of Interest 

• Payments to counties (Title II Reimbursements) 

• Payments to non-counties 

• Receipting Systems (Elections) Instructions 

o Deposit Procedures 

• Procurement Policies 

• Contracts 

o BPro 

o GCR 

o AAMVA 

o MelissaData 

• Memoranda of Understanding 

o South Dakota Department of Health, Division of Vital Records 

o Unified Judicial System 

o Department of Public Safety, Division of Drivers Licensing 

o Interstate Voter Crosscheck 

PROGRAM INCOME 

• Sale of voter registration file 

• Interest proration voucher 

1
 
 

 

 

 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

GRANT ADMINISTRATION 

 Equipment Management/Inventory 

o	 All equipment purchased with Federal HAVA funds must be physically inventoried

every even numbered year by the County Auditors. 

o	 The county auditor must then sign a certification (Appendix 1-A) prescribed by the 

Secretary of State’s office indicating the equipment they have in their possession

and send it to the HAVA Coordinator in the South Dakota Secretary of State’s office 

by July 1 of the even numbered year. 

o	 A master spreadsheet will be kept by the HAVA Coordinator and will include: 

o	 A description of the property 

o	 Serial number or other identification number 

o	 Source of property 

o	 Who holds the title 

o	 Acquisition date 

o	 Cost of the property 

o	 Percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the property 

o	 Location 

o	 How often the Equipment is Used 

 Federal 

 County 

 Municipal 

 School 

 All 

o	 Condition of the property 

 Working 

 Needs Repair 

 Not Repairable 

 Disposed 

o	 Any ultimate disposition data including: 

 Date of disposal 

 Sale price of the property 

o	 State Sticker Identifying Number 

o	 Electronic location of spreadsheet: 

o N:/Elections/Federal/HAVA/Equipment/Master Inventory Equipment List 

o	 When a new piece of equipment is purchased, the HAVA Coordinator will send state 

issued numerical sticker to label equipment purchased with Federal funds. These 

numbers will be kept on the spreadsheet indicated above. 

o	 State issued numbered stickers will be in the following format: 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

o	 Secretary of State Office Equipment 

o	 When equipment comes in the office that was purchased with federal funds

the HAVA Coordinator places a sticker that states “purchased with federal

funds” on the equipment and also denotes them in the master spreadsheet. 

 HAVA State Plan (Appendix 1-B) 

o	 The mission of the South Dakota Help America Vote Act State Plan is designed to

use HAVA funds to facilitate the enfranchisement of as many eligible voters as

reasonably possible through the promotion, access and availability of voting. 

o	 Allowable expenditures that are reimbursable by HAVA are detailed within the 

South Dakota HAVA State Plan 

o	 The State Plan must be updated if there are changes in procedure in the office. 

o	 The updated State Plan must be sent to the Election Assistance Commission for

the review process and then are published in the Federal Register. 

 Records Retention 

o	 The following information shall be retained in the office until all funds are 

expended of the Federal HAVA Grant: 

 Reimbursement requests from counties and supporting documents 

 Year-End Reports for Section 101 and Section 251 

 Equipment Inventory List 

 Official Election Assistance Commission Correspondence 

 Employee Time Sheets tracking actual time worked on Federal Projects 

 Work Certifications 

 2016 Federal Audit Documentation 

 In-Person Satellite Sites 

o	 The following criteria must be met before a county may be allowed to use HAVA

funds to setup an additional in-person satellite absentee voting location in a 

particular jurisdiction. The voters living in the jurisdiction are*: 

 Have 50% more individuals below the poverty line than the rest of the 

county; and 

 Live, on average, 50% farther from the existing county seat or other 

satellite location than the rest of the county.

OR 

 Jurisdiction for the criteria listed below is limited to an incorporated

municipality, unincorporated town or a census designated place; and 

 Have no access to affordable, regular, convenient public transportation 

within the county from the proposed satellite location to the county seat;

and 

 The jurisdiction is composed of 75% or more individuals who belong to a 

suspect class. (Suspect Classes: a presumptively unconstitutional

distinction made between individuals on the basis of race, national origin,

alienage, or religious affiliation, in a statute ordinance, regulation, or

policy.1 ) 

3
 
 

 

 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

o	 *According to the most recent United States Census Bureau, American 

Community Survey results as analyzed by the Government Research Bureau at 

the University of South Dakota. A jurisdiction is defined as a voting precinct,

township, municipality, town, school district, or special district. The following

counties are approved to have met the criteria in this plan: Buffalo, Dewey and

Jackson Counties. 

 A county is not required to spend down their county held HAVA fund

balance prior to being awarded HAVA grant funds for an in-person 

absentee voting satellite location. 

 A county must submit estimated expenses to the South Dakota Secretary

of State’s office three (3) months prior to the election for pre-approval in 

order to be reimbursed with HAVA funds. 

 These parameters do not prohibit the Secretary of State from granting

additional HAVA funding to the 66 county auditors at any time due to

extraordinary circumstances. 

 A county is allowed (1) one HAVA funded satellite voting location,

however, these parameters do not preclude counties from spending

county funds to pay for an in-person absentee voting satellite location. 

1)	 As defined by: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/suspect_classification

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm
 

 HAVA Grants 

o	 HAVA grants were established by the South Dakota HAVA State Plan and

approved by the HAVA Grant Board. 

o	 The HAVA Grant Board, with the approval of the State Board of Elections, is

made up of: 

 Four (4) County Auditors, 

•	 Two (2) Democrats 

•	 Two (2) Republicans 

 HAVA Coordinator in the office of the Secretary of State, 

 One member from the disability community; and 

 One member from the Department of Tribal Relations. 

o	 A county may apply for a HAVA grant to reimburse election expenses related to

HAVA. All expenses submitted must meet the requirements of HAVA and may be 

subject to both federal and state audits. 

o	 Before a county may apply for a HAVA grant, all funds in the county’s State-Held 

account and County-Held Match Money account must be spent. 

o	 The maximum amount for which a county may apply for non-in-person satellite 

voting center related expenses is $9,000 per Primary and General Election cycle 

or $4,500 per year. Exceptions may be made in extraordinary cases. 

o	 Applications must be received by the Secretary of State’s office by July 1 of every

odd-numbered year for the following year’s anticipated expenses. 

o	 Applications will be approved or denied by November 1 of the odd-numbered 

year. 

4
 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

o	 If a county is denied a HAVA grant, the county may submit an appeal to the State 

Board of Elections to review the decision and must do so within 30 days of

receiving their denial notice. The decision of the State Board of Elections is final

and may not be appealed again. 

o	 A county that has received a HAVA grant must submit a Title II reimbursement 

with supporting invoices and documentation before being reimbursed. 

 Only the amount of the grant will be reimbursed 

 Approving Title II Reimbursements from Counties 

o	 Title II reimbursement forms and supporting documentation are received by the 

HAVA Coordinator via mail or electronic mail from the county and the line items

submitted are reviewed for HAVA compliance. 

 HAVA Compliant items are detailed in the 2014 HAVA State Plan 

(Appendix 1-B) 

 Once all items on the reimbursement are reviewed it is signed and dated

by the HAVA Coordinator then given to the Deputy Secretary of StateElections Services to review for compliance, sign and date. 

 If the reimbursement or part of the reimbursement is denied the HAVA

Coordinator will send an e-mail to the county auditor detailing why the 

request was denied including but not limited to: 

•	 Not an allowable expense to be reimbursed 

•	 No supporting documentation and a request to submit invoices 

•	 Not enough county-held HAVA funds to cover all expenses

requested to be reimbursed 

o	 One (1) copy of the signed and dated HAVA Title II Reimbursement Form is

made. 

 Copy of approved form is given to HAVA Accountant by the Deputy

Secretary of State – Elections Services to process for payment. 

 Original form and supporting documentation is kept and filed by the 

HAVA Coordinator in the Election office’s northern most filing cabinet. 

 HAVA Coordinator corresponds with the county that their request has

been fulfilled, partially fulfilled or denied via electronic mail. 

 HAVA Coordinator tracks expenditures in: 

• TitleIIReimbusrementFormTracking.xlsx 

o	 Location: N: Drive/Elections/Federal/HAVA/Title II/YEAR 

•	 SDSOS_HAVAFundBalances.xlsx 

o	 Location: N:Drive/Elections/Federal/HAVA/TitleII 

 Maintenance of Effort 

o	 The Office initiated maintenance of effort advisory on September 18, 2007. The

advisory placed the Maintenance of Effort responsibility, as detailed in HAVA

Section 254(a)(7), on the individual counties. Each county was to “make an 

accounting of any such expenses made in the county fiscal year ending prior to

November 2000. Each county should define a 1999 base level of expenses that 

relate to title III requirements.” 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

o	 Each county auditor/finance officer shall send their yearly maintenance of effort 

to the Secretary of State’s office by January 30 of the year after the associated 

fiscal year. 

o	 The office of the Secretary of State will send two reminders to counties prior to

the submission deadline of January 30. 

ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES / FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

 Reconciliation of HAVA County and State Balances/Year-End Reports 

o	 Federal Fiscal Year-End reports are annually submitted from the South Dakota 

Secretary of State’s office to the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC)

by December 30 immediately following the end of the Federal fiscal year. 

 County and state expenditures are reconciled between the HAVA

Accountant and the HAVA Coordinator and compiled into the year-end

report on the form prescribed by the EAC. 

•	 HAVA Coordinator’s record of county payments are matched with

record of payment from HAVA Accountant 

 The Secretary of State reviews and signs the reconciled reports and the 

HAVA Coordinator submits the signed reports to the Federal Election 

Assistance Commission via electronic mail. 

 Payroll & Employee Compensation/Timekeeping System 

o	 Employees paid with HAVA funds are required to record actual hours worked on

HAVA projects per pay period within the State’s Timekeeping system (TKS). 

 Name redacted - Deputy Secretary of State, Elections Services 

 Name redacted - State Election Coordinator 

 Name redacted - Election Coordinator 

 Name redacted - HAVA Coordinator 

 Name redacted - HAVA Accountant 

o	 Deputy Secretary of State-Election Services approves time sheets for the Election 

Team and is made aware of the actual hours worked that are related to HAVA 

projects. Deputy Secretary of State-Administrative Services is also made aware 

of the actual hours worked that the Accountant does that is HAVA related. 

o	 Time sheets are not allowed to be changed after the supervisor and payroll

coordinator signs off on them. 

o	 Time sheets are signed and approved on a semi-monthly basis. 

o	 Employee travel is not allowed to be reimbursed to the employee unless the 

agenda clearly states federal topics. 

 Travel detail is signed by the employee, supervisor and Secretary of State. 

 Travel must be submitted within 30 days of travel or a delayed travel

form must be filled out and indicate why the submission is late. This form

is signed by the employee and supervisor and submitted with the travel

voucher prior to the submission of the State Auditor’s office. 

o	 All employees of the office sign a conflict of interest waiver on a yearly basis

(Appendix 1-C). 

6
 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

 Payments to Counties (Title II Reimbursements) 

o	 Title II forms and supporting documentation are received by the HAVA

Coordinator via mail or electronic mail from the county and the line items

submitted are reviewed for HAVA compliance. 

 HAVA Compliant items are detailed in the 2014 HAVA State Plan 

 Once the reimbursement is approved it is signed and dated by the HAVA

Coordinator then given to the Deputy Secretary of State-Elections

Services to review, sign and date. 

 If the reimbursement or part of the reimbursement is denied the HAVA

Coordinator will send an e-mail to the county auditor detailing why the 

request was denied including but not limited to: 

•	 Not an allowable expense to be reimbursed 

•	 Not enough supporting documentation and a request to submit 

invoices 

•	 Not enough county-held HAVA funds to cover all expenses

requested to be reimbursed 

o	 One (1) copy of the signed and dated HAVA Title II Reimbursement Form is

made. 

 Copy of approved form is given to HAVA Accountant by the Deputy

Secretary of State – Elections Services to process for payment. 

 Original form and supporting documentation is kept and filed by the 

HAVA Coordinator in the Election office northern most filing cabinet,

third drawer. 

 HAVA Coordinator corresponds with the county that their request has

been fulfilled, partially fulfilled or denied via electronic mail. 

 HAVA Coordinator tracks expenditures in: 

• TitleIIReimbusrementFormTracking.xlsx 

o	 Location: N Drive/Elections/Federal/HAVA/Title II/YEAR 

•	 SDSOS_HAVAFundBalances.xlsx 

o	 Location: N:Drive/Elections/Federal/HAVA/TitleII 

o Once received by the Accountant payment is processed in the same week. 

 Payment is processed in the State’s Accounting System and a voucher is

created. 

 The voucher is signed off by the Accountant and Secretary of State. 

 Signed voucher is attached to the Title II form and scanned into File 

Director. 

•	 Location: Financial Direct Vouchers 

 Signed voucher and form is taken to the Auditor’s Office on a daily basis 

for final payment process. 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

 Payments to Non-Counties 

o	 All invoices that are to be paid with federal funds must be signed by the HAVA

Coordinator and Deputy Secretary of State-Elections Services. 

 Types of funds used for federal payments: 

•	 HAVA Title I 

•	 HAVA Title II - Funds are to only be used for county

reimbursements 

o Once received by the Accountant payment is processed in the same week. 

 Payment is processed in the State’s Accounting System and a voucher is

created. 

 The voucher is signed off by the Accountant and Secretary of State. 

 Signed voucher is attached to the Title II form and scanned into File 

Director. 

•	 Location: Financial Direct Vouchers 

 Signed voucher and form is taken to the State Auditor’s Office for final 

payment process. 

 Receipting Systems (Elections) Instructions 

o	 To process a payment of a voter registration list: 

 Log into the Tequity software receipting system 

 Click Accounting and select New Receipt 

 Choose Voter Registration File from drop down menu below “Type” on 

the Receipt Items tab 

 Enter in Check number under “Ref/Check #” 

 Enter Payment type 

 Type in who the payment is from 

 Enter Check number again 

 Enter Amount of the payment 

 Click Save 

 Print receipt 

o	 Reconcile at the end of the day 

 Click Accounting 

 Click Reconcile Individual Batch 

 Enter Amount that you have payment for 

 Click Next 

 Click Reconcile Batch 

 Print the page and sign 

 Paperclip the cash/checks to the balance sheet and place in the locked

desk drawer in the front desk’s southernmost filing cabinet. 

 Sign the Daily Deposit Sign-in sheet 

o	 Deposit Procedures 

 Cash/Check Deposits 

•	 After all staff members have completed their daily reconciliation,

all balance sheets and cash/checks are turned into the accountant 

to process the deposit for each day. 

8
 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

•	 There are two different software receipting systems, each with a 

separate receipting report. 

•	 For the Tecuity software system, each reconciled batch created

needs to be posted individually. 

•	 For the BPro software system a summary reconciliation report is

run for each receipted day. 

•	 An excel spreadsheet has been created to combine each receipting

systems totals. Within the spreadsheet the totals are reported by

receipt type. 

•	 When adding the checks up, they need to be put in order by size of

checks and split into groups of 50. Add all the groups up with their

own receipt tape. Make a separate receipt tape with the group

totals and cash listed. This small receipt tape goes on top of all

groupings. 

•	 Once the cash/checks on hand match the totals in the spreadsheet 

a Cash Receipt Transaction (CRT) document is created in the state 

accounting system. The document ID begins with a “C”, the 

department center number 31, the fiscal year indicator and then a 

three digit number. Example would be C31YXXX. 

•	 A voucher is created, and then approved and signed off by two

people – the accountant, Secretary of State or a Deputy Secretary

of State. This process confirms the deposit. 

 Credit Card Deposits 

•	 Credit cards are processed through the two software receipting

systems and daily transactions are deposited into the state’s main 

checking account. 

•	 The accountant accesses the credit card deposits from the state’s

automated report. A CRT document is created to deposit the 

transactions into a separate credit card holding account. To

indicate the difference between a cash/checks document and a 

credit card document, the credit card documents number is as

follows C31Y8XX. The Y is the fiscal year indicator and the XX is

the number sequence. 

•	 Once the CRT has been posted to the accounting system, the 

accountant generates a revenue document which will adjust the 

revenue from the credit card holding account to the appropriate 

revenue account. 

•	 The receipting reports from both software systems provide the 

allocation for each transaction. The total amounts are entered into 

an excel spreadsheet, which is used to prepare the CRT

reconciliation document. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

 Procurement Policies 

o	 All purchasing is processed by the Accountant and approved by Deputy

Secretary of State-Administrative Services. 

 Any new equipment purchased with federal funds will be made known to 

the Secretary of State and Deputies of Administrative Services and

Elections Services. 

 Inventory is taken by the HAVA Coordinator when equipment arrives and

is tagged with the sticker indicating that it was purchased with Federal

Funds. 

 Contracts 

o	 All contracts for the office are drafted by Deputy Secretary of StateAdministrative Services and are signed by the Secretary of State. 

o	 State policies are followed during procurement for contracts and are followed

when the contracts are established. 

o	 Original, signed contracts are kept in the office of the Deputy Secretary of State,

Administrative Services in a binder marked “Current Contracts” on the shelves of 

the north side of the office. 

o	 Current Contracts paid with HAVA Funds 

 BPro Inc. 

• Statewide Voter Registration System Maintenance 

 GCR Inc. 

• Maintenance of Vote605 Mobile Application 

 American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) 

•	 Contract Agreement held with the South Dakota Department of

Public Safety for verification against the Social Security

Administration for voter registration purposes 

 MelissaData 

• Provides Address Verification for Voter Registration 

 Memoranda of Understanding 

o	 The office of the Secretary of State operates under memoranda of understanding

with governmental agencies in regards to Voter Registration verification. 

 South Dakota Department of Health, Division of Vital Records 

•	 For purposes of verifying death records of registered voters and

those attempting to register to vote 

 Unified Judicial System 

•	 For purposes of verifying felony records of registered voters and

those attempting to register to vote 

 Department of Public Safety, Division of Drivers Licensing 

•	 For purposes of individuals registering to vote or updating their

voter registration information on their driver’s license application 

 Interstate Voter Crosscheck 

•	 Used after General Elections to verify voter registrations against 

other states 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

PROGRAM INCOME 

 Interest Proration Vouchers 

o	 In September of every year an interest proration voucher is sent to the Secretary

of State’s office from the South Dakota Bureau of Finance and Management 

Office. The interest proration is allocated based on the average daily balance of

the HAVA account during the previous state fiscal year. 

o	 The HAVA Coordinator allocates the interest earned to each county based on the 

balance of their state-held county account as of June 30 of every year. 

 Voter Registration List Sales 

o	 Dollars earned from the sale of voter registration lists are to be coded to Title II. 

o	 Payments can be processed by using the Receipting Systems (Elections)

Instructions outlined in the ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES / FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT section of this manual. 

Policies and procedures were established in July 2015 

Policies and procedures were revised in June 2016 

I have read through and understand the Policies & Procedures required of me in my official 

capacity in regards to the Help America Vote Act Grant Funding. 

____________________________________________________ 10-3-2016 

South Dakota Secretary of State, name redacted Date 

____________________________________________________ 10-3-2016 

Deputy South Dakota Secretary of State Date 

Elections Division, name redacted 

_____________________________________________________ 10-3-2016 

Date 

_____________________________________________________ 10-3-2016 

Date 

_____________________________________________________ 10-3-2016 

Date 

_____________________________________________________ 10-3-2016 

HAVA Coordinator, name redacted 

HAVA Accountant, name redacted 

State Election Coordinator, name redacted 

Election Coordinator, name redacted Date 

11
 
 


 


 


 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

Appendix 1-A
 

Biennial County Equipment Inventory
 

Certification
 

12
 
 

 

____________________________________________________ ________________________________________ 

 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

Equipment Purchased with HAVA Funds Biennial Certification 

I, ______________________________________, the county auditor/finance officer of 

____________________________ County certify that I have the below equipment purchased with 

Federal funds in my possession at the listed locations. I have physically inventoried the 

equipment and confirm the condition of the property. 

County Item 

Description 

Serial 

Number 

Condition 

of 

Equipment 

Where equipment is 

stored 

How Often 

Equipment 

is used 

(Election 

Type) 

Purchase 

Price 

Where 

equipment 

was 

purchased 

(Vendor 

Name) 

Purchased 

Date 

(MM/YY) 

Disposal 

Date 

(MM/YY) 

Sale 

Price 

State 

ID 

If there are any changes, please cross off the equipment or add to this list and detail the 

correct information prior to submitting to the HAVA Coordinator. 

Signature Date 

Please return this signed and dated form to the Secretary of State’s office by July 1 by email

(HAVA@state.sd.us) or mail: Secretary of State’s Office, ATTN: HAVA Coordinator, 500 East 

Capitol Avenue, Suite 204, Pierre, SD 57501 

13
 
 


 


 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

Appendix 1-B
 

2014 HAVA State Plan
 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

State of South Dakota
 
 

Help America Vote Act 

Revised State Plan 

2014 

As required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 

Jason M. Gant 

Secretary of State 1889 -2014 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Mission Statement 

The mission of the South Dakota Help America Vote Act State Plan is designed to use HAVA 

funds to facilitate the enfranchisement of as many eligible voters as reasonably possible 

through the promotion, access and availability of voting. 

(1) How the State will use the requirements payment to meet the requirements of title 

III, and, if applicable under section 251(b)(2), to carry out other activities to improve 

the administration of elections. 

Since South Dakota is HAVA compliant, all remaining HAVA funds, future interest earned and 

any additional requirements payments given to South Dakota will be spent on training election 

officials, educating voters, improving the accessibility of elections for individuals with 

disabilities and economically disadvantaged people, and making improvements to the 

administration of federal elections. 

Voters with disabilities include, but are not limited to, voters with vision impairments, speech, 

hearing and language impairments, mobility concerns, physical or intellectual disabilities, 

behavior health disabilities and other disabling conditions. 

Examples of such activities include but are not limited to: 

 The cost implementing and maintaining TotalVote (Statewide Election Management 

System); 

 Election night reporting; 

 Applications for mobile devices; 

 Secretary of State staff salaries and benefits; 

 Office computers, supplies and rent; 

 The use of electronic pollbooks; and 

 Programs that help improve the accuracy and efficiency of the State’s voter registration 

list. 

(2) How the State will distribute and monitor the distribution of the requirements 

payment to units of local government or other entities in the State for carrying out the 

activities described in paragraph (1), including a description of—

(A) The criteria to be used to determine the eligibility of such units or entities for 

receiving the payment; and 

(B) The methods to be used by the State to monitor the performance of the units 

or entities to whom the payment is distributed, consistent with the performance 

goals and measures adopted under paragraph (8). 

The Secretary of State will manage activities and projects funded by HAVA requirements 

payments, and the state will account for all expenditures, funding levels, program controls and 

outcomes in accordance with state and federal laws. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Secretary of State, with the approval of the State Board of Elections, will establish a local 

government grant program to assist County Auditors in complying with HAVA requirements. 

Only counties are eligible for local grant funding. Since South Dakota is HAVA compliant, a 

portion of the requirements payments authorized in Title III will be allocated for local 

government grants. 

HAVA Grant Board 

The Secretary of State, with the approval of the State Board of Elections, will establish a HAVA 

Grant Board, consisting of four County Auditors (two Democrats and two Republicans), the 

Senior Elections Coordinator in the office of the Secretary of State, one member from the 

disability community, and one member from the Department of Tribal Relations. All members, 

except for the Senior Elections Coordinator, will serve a four year term. The Senior Elections 

Coordinator will serve as the Chair of the HAVA Grant Board and the Secretary of State’s office 

will assist the HAVA Grant Board with anything necessary to meet the requirements set forth 

in this plan. This board is responsible for developing, reviewing, and making 

recommendations to the Secretary of State in matters pertaining to the local government grant 

program and will comply with the State’s open meeting laws. 

The Secretary of State will administer the grant program and will be responsible for meeting 

federal auditing requirements. 

Examples of activities eligible for local government grant funding are listed below: 

 Developing and requiring education and training programs and related services for 

state, county, and local election officials involved in the conduct of elections; 

 Replacing or upgrading voting equipment; 

 Purchasing additional voting equipment; 

 Approving an appropriate level of financial support of local activities related to HAVA 

requirements; and 

 Developing additional in-person absentee voting locations. 

The HAVA Grant Board will prescribe a general application form that counties shall use to 

apply for a HAVA Grant. Applications must be received by the Secretary of State by July 1st of 

every odd-numbered year for the following election year’s anticipated expenses. !pplications 

will be approved or denied by November 1st of that year. The county shall submit receipts, not 

to exceed the grant award, to the Secretary of State in a timely manner for reimbursement. 

Before a county may apply for a HAVA grant, all funds in their State-Held account and CountyHeld Match Money account must be spent. The HAVA Grant Board will review applications and 

award funds consistent with this plan. Should a county be denied a HAVA Grant, the county 

may submit an appeal to the Board of Elections to review the decision. The decision of the 

Board of Elections shall be final. The appeal application will be prescribed by the HAVA Grant 

Board. The county that is submitting the appeal must do so within 30 days of receiving their 

denial notice. Grant funds may only be used for an allowable HAVA expense. If a county 

3 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

spends HAVA funds on an expense that is determined not to be an allowable HAVA expense, 

the expense shall be repaid to the State using the county’s general fund. 

The following are HAVA reimbursable expenses that are approved prior to the implementation 

of the HAVA Grant Program: 

	 Total cost of voting machines; 

	 Acceptance of testing of voting equipment; 

	 Maintenance of voting equipment; 

	 Storage and transport of voting equipment; 

	 Election-specific programming and installation; 

	 Training election workers in the proper orientation and maintenance of voting 

machines and scanners; 

	 Voter education programs; 

	 Provisional voting; 

	 Posting sample ballots in a polling place on Election Day; 

	 Posting the following information in a polling place on Election Day: 

o	 Polling place hours, 

o	 Instructions on how to vote, 

o	 How to cast a provisional ballot, 

o	 Voting rights, 

o Laws prohibiting acts of fraud and misrepresentation; 

 Publishing voter education instructions and sample ballot in the newspaper; 

 Implementing and maintaining TotalVote (Statewide Election Management System) and 

maintaining accurate and up-to-date information in the voter registration list. This 

does not include costs associated with routine NVRA list maintenance; 

	 Supplies necessary for voting equipment (e.g. ballot boxes for optical scan ballots, 

privacy sleeves, accessible voting device print cartridges, media cards or drives); 

	 Insurance on voting equipment; and 

	 The following Secretary of State approved projects to improve the county 

administration of federal elections: 

o	 Cost for the portion of election school having to do with training poll workers on 

how to more effectively assist voters with disabilities, 

o	 Cost for software to better organize precinct/district relationships, 

o	 Cost for ballot printer training to improve ballot printing, 

o	 Cost for Election Reporting Manager (ERM) for quicker election night results, 

o	 ost of “Vote ere” signs to more clearly identify your polling places, 

o	 Cost of ballot trays to better organize ballots, 

o	 Cost of the appropriate portion of polling place help-station laptop computers, 

o	 Cost for providing absentee voting locations in Shannon or Todd Counties, 

o	 Cost of chairs for use with an accessible voting device, 

o	 Cost of accessible voting booths, 

o	 Cost associated with the Potential Duplicate Deletion Process, 

o	 Cost associated with providing Lakota language assistance, 

o	 Cost associated with implementing the Military and Overseas Voter 

Empowerment (MOVE) Act, 

4 
 

 

 

 

	 

	 

o	 Cost for label printers for absentee ballot systems, 

o ost of installing network connections in an auditor’s office. 

This list is not comprehensive and the state may fund grant applications for activities not listed 

as long as the activities are eligible under HAVA. 

(3) How the State will provide for programs for voter education, election official 

education and training, and poll worker training which will assist the State in meeting 

the requirements of title III. 

County Auditors are trained by the State on HAVA procedures at election workshops, 

conventions, publications, and e-mails. County Auditors in turn train precinct officials at 

county election schools. The State organizes an election workshop in every odd-numbered 

year to prepare the ounty !uditors for the following year’s election. This workshop is critical 

in the training and compliance of HAVA procedures. 

Two posters in 48 point font posted in each polling place and instructions posted in each 

voting booth inform voters of voting procedures, how not to overvote, how to obtain a 

replacement ballot, how to obtain assistance, the right to a provisional ballot, how to contact 

an election official if rights are violated, and how to avoid election crimes. Facsimile ballots are 

available in county auditor offices prior to elections, posted at each polling place, and 

published in newspapers. Voters can also access their individual sample ballot and polling 

place information through the Secretary of State’s Voter nformation Portal (VP) located on 

the Secretary of State’s website at sdsos.gov. Instructions are printed on all official ballots. 

The State also educates voters through its website at sdsos.gov. The Secretary of State also 

prepares a ballot question pamphlet, made available in alternate formats. 

(4) How the State will adopt voting system guidelines and processes which are 

consistent with the requirements of section 301. 

The original HAVA task force guided the State on the voting system that would be selected. 

South Dakota laws and administrative rules have been passed to provide for all Section 301 

requirements. The Secretary of State and County Auditors manage the processes needed to 

comply with Section 301. 

Existing voting systems in South Dakota are required to meet the standards set out in Section 

3-1 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The voting system standards include the following: 

 Permits the voter to verify in a private and independent manner the votes selected by 

the voter on the ballot before the ballot is cast and counted; 

 Provides the voter with the opportunity, in a private and independent manner, to 

change the ballot or correct any error before the ballot is cast and counted; and 

	 Notification of the voter of any over votes, the effect of the over vote and the 

opportunity to correct. Since South Dakota uses central count optical scan ballot; this 

will be achieved through voter education of the standards, including instructions to the 

voter at the polling place and on the ballot. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(5) How the State will establish a fund described in subsection (b) for purposes of 

administering the State's activities under this part, including information on fund 

management. 

An election fund has been established in the South Dakota State Treasury containing Title II 

Section 251 funds. Expenditures are made as needed by the Secretary of State, with oversight 

by the State Auditor, through spending authority granted by the State Legislature. Interest is 

earned and credited to the fund annually. All expenditures from the fund are subject to state 

government accounting and audit procedures. 

(6) The State's proposed budget for activities under this part, based on the State's best 

estimates of the costs of such activities and the amount of funds to be made available, 

including specific information on—

(A) The costs of the activities required to be carried out to meet the requirements 

of title III; 

(B) The portion of the requirements payment which will be used to carry out 

activities to meet such requirements; and 

(C) The portion of the requirements payment which will be used to carry out 

other activities. 

Since the State has fulfilled !V!’s requirements and will continue to do so, the State wishes 

not to restrict itself unnecessarily through this state plan. New programs to improve the 

administration of federal elections may develop that have not yet been contemplated. The 

State will continue to submit annual financial status and narrative reports to the EAC 

concerning HAVA grants as required. 

In previous HAVA state plans the State described a budget for projected amounts to fund Title 

III required programs. All programs were fulfilled within that budget and significant funds 

remain available to the State. Since South Dakota is HAVA compliant, all remaining HAVA 

funds, future interest earned and any additional requirements payments given to South Dakota 

will be spent on training election officials, educating voters, improving the accessibility of 

elections for individuals with disabilities and economically disadvantaged people, and making 

improvements to the administration of federal elections. 

South Dakota received a Title II Section 251 payment in April of 2005 in the amount of 

$11,596,803.00. As of September 30, 2013, the State has a total of $6,267,333.12 of Title II 

funds remaining available. Of this amount, $3,323,913.24 is reserved in the counties’ stateheld Title II accounts. As of September 30, 2013, the counties have $1,385.41 (including 

interest) remaining in reserved county-held match money accounts. 

The State expects that costs to counties will continue and increase at least at the rate of 

inflation to prepare and implement federal elections within the framework of the current 

voting system. When new voting systems are required, counties will face significant additional 

costs in acquiring the new equipment. The State and counties will work to maintain the 

current voting system for as long as practicable. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With continued conservative management of the HAVA grant funds and the benefit of 

accumulating interest, the State may be able to indefinitely continue to meet HAVA obligations 

and continue to improve the administration of federal elections in South Dakota. However, the 

State is concerned that with the lack of future appropriations, the State may be faced with 

unfunded mandates. 

(7) How the State, in using the requirements payment, will maintain the expenditures of 

the State for activities funded by the payment at a level that is not less than the level of 

such expenditures maintained by the State for the fiscal year ending prior to November 

2000. 

In previous HAVA state plans, the State described the expense to the State for the State 

Election Supervisor as maintenance of effort. However, in 2007 the EAC advised that 

maintenance of effort (MOE) applies specifically to prior expenses that became Title III 

requirements. !V!’s maintenance of effort requirement is designed to ensure that federal 

funds do not replace already occurring state or county expenses. With that new understanding, 

the State clarified that it had no such spending prior to HAVA and, therefore, had no level of 

spending to maintain. 

With the new advisory issued by the EAC on February 19, 2010, regarding MOE pending, the 

State has once again reviewed the HAVA maintenance of effort issue and has again concluded 

that the State of South Dakota in State Fiscal Year 2000, had no prior expenses that became 

Title III requirements. Therefore, the State has no level of spending to maintain. 

The pending ! advisory on MO states, “MO tracks State expenditures on a prescribed set 

of Federal election activities, which includes any funds appropriated by the State to lower tier 

entities to support those activities. Under this MOE policy, States may exclude lower tier 

spending from MOE when the funds used by the lower tier entities are not derived from a State 

appropriation or expenditure.” 

The State also hereby clarifies that in the State Fiscal Year 2000 no State appropriations were 

given to the counties for election related expenditures. Therefore, South akota’s 66 counties 

also, have no level of spending to maintain. 

(8) How the State will adopt performance goals and measures that will be used by the 

State to determine its success and the success of units of local government in the State in 

carrying out the plan, including timetables for meeting each of the elements of the plan, 

descriptions of the criteria the State will use to measure performance and the process 

used to develop such criteria, and a description of which official is to be held 

responsible for ensuring that each performance goal is met. 

South Dakota believes that accurate measurable objectives and the tracking of performance 

goals help achieve what our mission statement lays out. Performance goals give a high-level 

overview of the desired mission. The State’s main goal has always been to achieve election 

reform and compliance with HAVA requirements through the successful implementation of the 

programs outlined in the State Plan. The 2004 State Plan laid out specific goals and 

7 
 

 

 

 

measurables. In March 2007, the Secretary of State certified to the Election Assistance 

Commission that South Dakota had fulfilled all Title III requirements. This State Plan 

specifically details how and when each objective was met. 

301 (a)(1)(B)(i) - Establish a voter education program on the effect of casting 

multiple votes for an office. 

Performance Goal Eliminate overvotes 

Performance Measurement Counties have a capability to produce overvote reports from 

their tabulating systems. 

Timetable Continuous 

How to Measure 

Performance 

Determine the proper instructions are posted in the polling 

place. Compare percentage of overvotes to votes cast in 

each election. 

Who will Measure County auditors will report to the Secretary of State. 

301 (a)(1)(B)(ii) - Establish instructions on how to correct ballot errors. 

Performance Goal Provide easily accessible instructions in each polling place. 

Performance Measurement Are the instructions posted? 

Timetable Continuous 

How to Measure 

Performance 

Determine the proper instructions are posted in the polling 

place. Precinct workers report to county auditor on 

compliance. 

Who will Measure County auditors 

301 (a)(3)(B) - Provide one accessible voting device per polling place. 

Performance Goal Provide an accessible voting device per polling place. 

Performance Measurement Is there a functioning machine in each polling place? 

Timetable Continuous 

How to Measure 

Performance 

Precinct workers report to county auditor on compliance. 

Who will Measure County auditors 

302 - Provisional voting. 

Performance Goal 1. Provide notice to voters on availability of provisional 

ballot. 

2. Provide provisional ballot materials at each polling 

place. 

3. Train poll workers on provisional ballot 

requirements. 

4. Offer provisional ballots to voters who qualify. 

5. Allow all voters who claim to be registered to vote in 

8 
the precinct, but who can’t be confirmed to vote a 

provisional ballot. 

Performance Measurement Monitor the number of calls to county auditors or Secretary 

of State reporting a person was not able to vote a 

provisional ballot. 

Timetable Continuous 

How to Measure 

Performance 

Determine the auditors were trained by the Secretary of 

State, the poll workers were trained by the auditors, 

training materials were provided to the auditors, and 

provisional ballots were printed and available at the polling 

place. 

Who will Measure County auditors will report to Secretary of State. 

302 (b) - Posting of information at the polling place. 

Performance Goal Provide easily accessible instructions in each polling place 

including at least three 48-point or larger font poster-sized 

versions. 

Performance Measurement Are the instructions posted? 

Timetable Continuous 

How to Measure 

Performance 

Determine the Secretary of State provided the auditors 3 

poster-sized directions in 48-point font or larger addressing 

provisional voting and hours of operation of the polling 

place. Determine the auditor displayed a sample ballot, 

directions on overvoting, how to mark a ballot, and how to 

correct a ballot in each voting booth. Precinct workers 

report to county auditor on compliance. 

Who will Measure County auditors 

303 (a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) - Felony record check. 

Performance Goal Every person convicted of a felony is removed from the 

voter registration list and is not able to reregister until their 

entire sentence is completed. Establish a computer system 

to conduct checks and notify auditors about felony 

convictions. 

Performance Measurement 1. Ensure each new or updated voter registration is 

checked against the felony conviction file. 

2. Ensure all new felony convictions are checked 

against the statewide voter file. 

3. Remove all those who are ineligible from voter file. 

4. Secretary of State will double check felony 

convictions identified by this system to prevent 

erroneous removal of eligible voters. 

Timetable Continuous 

9 
 

 

 

How to Measure 

Performance 

Verify accuracy of the telephone complaint against actual 

voter and felon records. 

Who will Measure County auditor and Secretary of State 

303 (a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) - Death records check. 

Performance Goal Every deceased person is removed from the voter 

registration list and that no deceased person's name is 

added to the voter registration list. Establish a computer 

system to conduct checks and notify auditors about deaths. 

Performance Measurement 1. Ensure each new or updated voter registration is 

checked against the vital statistics file. 

2. Ensure all new deaths are checked against the 

statewide voter file. 

3. Remove all those who are deceased from voter file. 

4. Secretary of State will double check death notices 

identified by this system to prevent erroneous 

removal of eligible voters. 

Timetable Continuous 

How to Measure 

Performance 

Verify accuracy of the report against actual voter and death 

records. 

Who will Measure County auditor and Secretary of State 

303 (a)(5)(A)(iii) - Verify driver license or verify last four digits of SSN. 

Performance Goal Ensure no person is allowed to register to vote without 

providing an accurate driver license number or last four 

digits of their social security number. 

Performance Measurement Establish computerized access system for information 

verification to validate all new registrations. 

Timetable Continuous 

How to Measure 

Performance 

Verify accuracy of the system by comparing actual voter and 

driver license records. 

Who will Measure Secretary of State 

303 (b)(4) - New voter registration forms. 

Performance Goal Provide voter registration forms which comply with HAVA. 

Performance Measurement Check to make sure all official voter registration sites have 

new forms. 

Timetable Complete 

How to Measure 

Performance 

Telephone and mail verification with sites. 

Who will Measure County auditor and Secretary of State 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

251(b)(2) - Other activities to improve administration of elections. 

Performance Goal Provide daily electronic transmission of new voter 

registration data from all driver license offices to the 

appropriate county auditor office. Eliminate missed voter 

registration deadlines because of registration card transit 

time. 

Performance Measurement Affirm all voter registrations completed at a driver license 

office by a registration deadline are added to the official 

registration list for that election. 

Timetable Continuous 

How to Measure 

Performance 

Affirm all voter registrations completed at a driver license 

office by a registration deadline are added to the official 

registration list for that election. 

Who will Measure County auditor and Secretary of State 

(9) A description of the uniform, nondiscriminatory State-based administrative 

complaint procedures in effect under section 402. 

South Dakota law was written, effective July 1, 2003, to comply with HAVA Section 402. South 

Dakota Codified Law 12-1-21 thru 12-1-30 provides the procedure for the administrative 

complaint process. Initial complaints are resolved by the State Board of Elections using an 

existing administrative complaint process. The alternative dispute process involves judicial 

appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the complaint. 

(10) If the State received any payment under title I, a description of how such payment 

will affect the activities proposed to be carried out under the plan, including the amount 

of funds available for such activities. 

South Dakota received a Title I Section 101 payment in the amount of $5,000,000 in April of 

2003. Title I funds have been used for payments to counties for punch card voting system 

buyouts; voter education; statewide voter registration system programming; computer 

hardware, internet and intranet connection costs for the counties; development of additional 

systems such as a new voter registration system (TotalVote); training and materials for 

election personnel; travel for election personnel; salary and expenses for select Secretary of 

State staff working on HAVA required projects and state plan development. The State may 

continue to use Title I funds on these programs and for other programs permitted by HAVA 

§101(b). 

!s of September 30, 2013, the State’s Title  Section 101 fund remaining total is $4,770,732.56. 

(11) How the State will conduct ongoing management of the plan, except that the State 

may not make any material change in the administration of the plan unless the change—

(A) Is developed and published in the Federal Register in accordance with section 

255 in the same manner as the State plan; 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(B) Is subject to public notice and comment in accordance with section 256 in the 

same manner as the State plan; and 

(C) Takes effect only after the expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the 

date the change is published in the Federal Register in accordance with 

subparagraph (A). 

South Dakota has used the State Plan as the basis for managing activities necessary for the 

implementation of HAVA requirements. The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for the 

management and implementation of the State Plan. Local election officials have responsibility 

for the day-to-day coordination and implementation of distinct projects with the HAVA plan. 

These election officials may be State Elections Division staff, County Auditors, or contractors. 

The State understands and agrees to comply with HAVA requirements related to the ongoing 

management of the State Plan. Specifically, the State agrees not to make any material change 

in the administration of the state plan unless the change: 

 Is developed and published in the Federal Register in accordance with HAVA Section 

255 in the same manner as the State Plan; 

 Is subject to public notice and comment in accordance with HAVA Section 256 in the 

same manner as the State Plan; and 

 Takes effect after the expiration of the 30-day comment period that begins on the date 

the change is published in the Federal Register in accordance with subparagraph (A). 

(12) In the case of a State with a State plan in effect under this subtitle during the 

previous fiscal year, a description of how the plan reflects changes from the State plan 

for the previous fiscal year and of how the State succeeded in carrying out the State plan 

for such previous fiscal year. 

The methods by which the State fulfilled its previous state plans have already been described 

in this plan. The State anticipates no major changes to its implementation of HAVA, except the 

implementation of the HAVA Grant Board and that Title II Section 251 funds may now be used 

for additional in-person satellite absentee voting locations provided they meet the criteria set 

out in this plan. 

Additional In-Person Satellite Absentee Voting Location 

The following criteria must be met before a county may be allowed to use HAVA funds to setup an additional in-person satellite absentee voting location in a particular jurisdiction. The 

voters living in the jurisdiction are*: 

 Have 50% more individuals below the poverty line than the rest of the county; and 

 Live, on average, 50% farther from the existing county seat or other satellite location 

than the rest of the county. 

12 
 

 

 
 


 


 


 


 


 

*According to the most recent United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey 

results as analyzed by the Government Research Bureau at the University of South Dakota. 

A jurisdiction is defined as a voting precinct, township, municipality, town, school district, or 

special district. The following counties are approved to have met the criteria in this plan: 

Buffalo, Dewey and Jackson Counties. 

If a county spends HAVA funds on an expense that is determined not to be an allowable HAVA 

expense, the expense shall be repaid to the State using the county’s general fund. 

(13) A description of the committee which participated in the development of the State 

plan in accordance with section 255 and the procedures followed by the committee 

under such section and section 256. 

The HAVA Task Force held public meetings on the following dates:
 

November 21, 2013 at the State Capitol in Pierre, SD;
 

December 18, 2013 at the State Capitol in Pierre, SD;
 

January 29, 2014 at RedRossa in Pierre, SD; and
 

February 26, 2014 at RedRossa in Pierre, SD.
 

The Secretary of State appointed the following persons or their designee to assist in the 

development of this State Plan: 

Office of the Secretary of State State Representative 

Jason M. Gant, Secretary of State Karen Soli 

Office of the Secretary of State SD Advocacy Services 

Patricia Miller, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Kean 

Office of the Secretary of State SD Coalition of Citizens With Disabilities 

Brandon Johnson, Senior Elections Coordinator Shelly Pfaff 

State Board of Elections South Dakota Municipal League 

Patty McGee, Sully County Auditor Yvonne Taylor, Executive Director 

State Board of Elections City of Harrisburg 

Pam Lynde, Deuel County Auditor Andrew Pietrus, City Administrator 

State Board of Elections South Dakota Democratic Party 

Linda Lea Viken Zach Crago, Executive Director 

State Board of Elections ACLU of South Dakota 

Richard D. Casey Heather Smith, Executive Director 

State Board of Elections Four Directions, Inc. 

Christopher Madsen O.J. Semans, Executive Director 

13 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 

State Board of Elections 

Drew Duncan 

Minnehaha ounty !uditor’s Office 

Bob Litz, County Auditor 

Pennington ounty !uditor’s Office 

Julie Pearson, County Auditor 


rant ounty !uditor’s Office 

Karen Layher, County Auditor 

The Secretary of State also invited the following: 

State Senator 

Billie Sutton 

State Senator 

Mark Kirkeby 

South Dakota Republican Party 

Craig Lawrence, Chairman 

US Department of Justice 

Sara Beth Donovan 

Department of Tribal Relations 

J.R. LaPlante, Secretary 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

Kevin Keckler, Chairman 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

Anthony Reider, President 

Oglala Sioux Tribe 

Bryan Brewer, President 

Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate 

Robert Shepherd, Chairman 

Yankton Sioux Tribe 

Robert Flying Hawk, Chairman 

Chiesman Center for Democracy
 

Rob Timm, President/CEO
 

South Dakota Driver Licensing
 

Cindy Gerber, Director
 

South Dakota American Legion
 

Rick MacDonald
 

South Dakota Advisory Committee 

Richard Braunstein 

US Senator 

John Thune 

US Senator 

Tim Johnson 

US Representative 

Kristi Noem 

Department of the Military 

Timothy Reisch 

Department of Veteran Affairs 

Larry Zimmerman, Secretary 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

Brandon Sazue Sr., Chairman 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

Michael Jandreau, Chairman 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Cyril Scott, Chairman 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

Charles Murphy, Chairman 

Office of the Governor 

Dennis Daugaard, Governor 

14 
 


 


 


 

Help America Vote Act Policies & Procedures Manual – Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State 

Appendix 1-C
 

Conflict of Interest Waiver
 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE
 

CONFLICT WAIVER DECISION MATRIX
 

SDCL 3-16-8
 

SDCL 5-18A -17 to 5-18A-17.6
 

DO I NEED TO REQUEST A
 

WAIVER?
 

This matrix is designed to assist a current or past officer or employee in determining whether it 

is necessary to seek a waiver in order to be a party to or benefit from a contract with a state agency. 

This matrix is designed to be utilized in conjunction with the Secretary of State's Office Conflict Waiver 

Policy and Instructions and Form, review of the statute, and contact with your supervisor. 

NOTE: SDCL 3-16-8 provides that state officers and employees may not solicit or accept any gift, 

favor, reward or promise of reward, including any promise of future employment, in exchange for 

recommending, influencing, or attempting to recommend or influence the award of a state contract. 

This prohibition is absolute and cannot be waived. 

This matrix is intended as a general guide only and is not by itself determinative of whether a 

conflict of interest exists. 

The questions in this matrix may not address your specific situation. When in doubt as to the 

answer to any of the questions below, you are encouraged to complete the entire matrix and decide 

whether you need to ask for assistance. 

As used in this matrix, except as used in question #2 below, the term "contract" means a 

contract between the Secretary of State's Office and a person or entity outside state government. 

1. Am I now, or within the past year was I, an officer or employee of the Secretary of State's Office? 

If YES, proceed to next question.
 

If NO, you do not need to proceed further.
 

2. Have I entered into, or am I thinking of entering into, a contract or other business transaction (other 

than a contract of employment) with any state agency and have I ever been involved in recommending, 

approving, awarding, or administering a state contract or supervising those who were involved in 

approving, awarding or administering a state contract? (NOTE that an agreement need not always be in 

writing to be considered a contract.) 

If YES, you must request a waiver. 

If NO, proceed to next question.
 

3. Did I have any role in recommending the award of a contract? 

If YES, proceed to question 7.
 

If NO, proceed to next question.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4. Did I have any role in approving or awarding a contract? 

If YES, proceed to question 7.
 

If NO, proceed to next question.
 

5. Do or will I administer the contract, meaning do or did I have any decision-making authority, or 

substantive influence on decision-makingby others, concerning the manner, method, or means of the 

contract's performance or enforcement, such as the ability to terminate, suspend, change terms, or 

evaluate the outside party's performance under the contract? 

If YES, proceed to question 7.
 

If NO, proceed to next question.
 

6. Am I or was I in the chain of supervisors above a person who approved or awarded, or will administer 

a contract to an outside person or entity, or am I or was I in the chain of supervisors above a person who 

can or does exercise decision–making or substantive influence on decision making by others concerning 

the manner, method or means of the contract's performance or enforcement? 

If YES, proceed to question 7.
 

If NO, no waiver is needed.
 

7. Will or do I, my spouse or any other person with whom I live and commingle assets fit into any of the 

following categories vis-a-vis the contract or the contracting person or entity: (a) have a five percent or 

more ownership or other interest (such as being a creditor) of the contracting person or entity; (b) will 

earn or receive a salary, commission, or other income from the contracting person or entity or directly 

as a result of the contract; (c) acquire anything under the contract? 

If YES, you must request a waiver. 

If NO, proceed to question 8.
 

8. Do I, my spouse or any other person with whom I live and commingle assets serve on the board of
 

directors of a for-profit entity that benefit from the contract?
 

If YES, you must request a waiver. 

If NO, no waiver is needed.
 

Date: ________________________________ Print Name: _______________________________ 

Sign: ____________________________________ 

 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

Appendix 2
 

Employee Payroll Allocations 

and Certifications
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Employee 1 

Funds HAVA - 2007 

Pay Period 4/24/2006-5/8/2006 

Pay Day 05/16/2006 

Description Amount 

Full Time Wages 1,500.00 

OASI - Employer Share 112.71 

Retirement - Employer's Share 90.00 

Hlth Insurance - Employer's Share 207.73 

Unemployement Comp 0.75 

Grand Total 1,911.19 

Name Employee 1 

Funds HAVA - 2007 

Pay Period 5/26/2008-6/6/2008 

Pay Day 06/16/2008 

Description Amount 

Full Time Wages 5,952.32 

OASI - Employer Share 441.46 

Retirement - Employer's Share 125.00 

Hlth Insurance - Employer's Share 230.13 

Grand Total 6,748.91 

Name Employee 2 

Funds HAVA - 2007 

Pay Period 7/9/2008-7/23/2008 

Pay Day 08/01/2008 

Description Amount 

Full Time Wages 1,375.00 

OASI - Employer Share 99.41 

Retirement - Employer's Share 82.50 

Hlth Insurance - Employer's Share 240.54 

Workers' Comp 2.34 

Unemployement Comp 0.89 

Grand Total 1,800.68 

Name Employee 3 

Funds General - 1000 

Pay Period 3/24/2011-4/7/2011 

Pay Day 04/15/2011 

Description Amount 

Full Time Wages 1,770.84 

OASI - Employer Share 134.05 

Retirement - Employer's Share 106.25 

Hlth Insurance - Employer's Share 217.29 

Workers' Comp 5.67 

Unemployement Comp 1.51 

Grand Total 2,235.61 

Name Employee 3 

Funds HAVA - 2007 

Pay Period 3/24/2011-4/7/2011 

Pay Day 04/15/2011 

Description Amount 

Full Time Wages 312.49 

OASI - Employer Share 23.65 

Retirement - Employer's Share 18.75 

Hlth Insurance - Employer's Share 38.34 

Workers' Comp 1.00 

Unemployement Comp 0.26 

Grand Total 394.49 
Certification Creation Dates - Help America Vote Act Audit - South Dakota Secretary ofState's Office 

Name 

..semi- annual certification.doc 

- semi-annual certification.9.26.2007 .doc 

(\) ct<'~ mlsemi-annual certification.5.27 .2008.doc 

~) t( sem i- annual certification.8.05.2008.doc 

sem i- annual certification 12-11-2009.doc 

_:: . HAVA certification letter signed.pdf 

_:: HAVA Timesheets.pdf 

msemi-annual certification 06-01 -2009.doc 

••••••semi-annual certification 04--06-11.pdf 

······ emi-annual certification 04--06-11.doc

...·;. ......
semi-annual certification 10-19-11.pdf 

Date modified 

~ 

03!30/2007 7:03 PM 

CY:J/26n007 4:49 PM 

05/2712008 7:05 PM 

08/05/2008 9:25 AM 

12/11/2009 10:20 AM 

08/1212010 4:16 PM 

01/07/20114:15 PM 

03/08/2011 9:38 AM 

04/11120111:47 PM 

10119no11 s:oo PM 

10/20/2011 8:()3 AM 

Type 

Microsoft Word 97 - 2003 Docu ... 

Microsoft Word 97 - 2003 Docu ... 

Microsoft Word 97 - 2003 Docu ... 

Microsoft Word 97 - 2003 Docu ... 

Microsoft Word 97 - 2003 Docu ... 

Adobe Acrobat Document 

Adobe Acrobat Document 

Microsoft Word 97 - 2003 Docu ... 

Adobe Acrobat Document 

Microsoft Word 97 - 2003 Docu ... 

Adobe Acrobat Document 

Size 

24 KB 

20 KB 

20 KB 

20 KB 

39 KB 

20 KB 

147 KB 

38 KB 

34 KB 

43 KB 

66 KB 
August 5, 2008 

I, certify that I work full-time in the South Dakota Office of Secretary 

ofState for this office and the people ofSouth Dakota on program activities relating to 

the Help America Vote Act. 
~ May27, 2008 

I, certify that I work full-time in the South Dakota Office of Secretary of 

State for this office and the people ofSouth Dakota on program activities relating to the 

Help America Vote Act. 

 


 

South Dakota Secretary of State HAVA Audit Responses 

Appendix 3

2007 HAVA State Plan Excerpt
 
HAVA State Plan for South Dakota Updated Oct/Nov 2007 Page 6 of 8 

HAVA obligations and continue to improve the administration of federal elections in 

South Dakota without needing further state resources or additional federal grants. 

The estimate for the development of ST25 is $200,000; support costs will continue. 

For ST25, South Dakota may use either title I section 101 or title II section 251 funds. 

South Dakota may effect additional programs as determined useful by the State. 

(7) How the State, in using the requirements payment, will maintain the

expenditures of the State for activities funded by the payment at a

level that is not less than the level of such expenditures maintained

by the State for the fiscal year ending prior to November 2000. 

In previous HAVA state plans, the State described the expense to the State for the 

State Election Supervisor. However, in 2007 the EAC advised that maintenance of 

effort applies specifically to prior expenses that became title III requirements. 

HAVA’s maintenance of effort requirement is designed to ensure that federal grant 

funds do not replace already occurring state or county expenses. With this new 

understanding, the State clarifies that it had no such spending prior to HAVA and, 

therefore, has no level of spending to maintain. 

Some counties, however, did have expenses consistent with title III requirements 

prior to HAVA. The EAC has allowed that South Dakota counties will be 

responsible for maintenance of effort according to the county fiscal year 1999. 

Counties have been advised to determine if there existed any spending for title IIItype activities in 1999. If any existed in the county, the county will be responsible for 

maintaining that level every year according to the first year that the county used any 

federal or county funds dedicated to HAVA title III requirements. 

(8) How the State will adopt performance goals and measures that will

be used by the State to determine its success and the success of units

of local government in the State in carrying out the plan, including

timetables for meeting each of the elements of the plan, descriptions

of the criteria the State will use to measure performance and the

process used to develop such criteria, and a description of which

official is to be held responsible for ensuring that each performance

goal is met. 

South Dakota has fulfilled the goals described in earlier state plans – including 

reducing the percentage of overvotes, educating voters on how to avoid and correct 

ballot errors, providing at least one §301(a)(3)(B) voting device in every polling 

place for any federal election, providing provisional voting, posting required notices 

at polling places as described above in (1.1), removing every person convicted of a 

felony and sentenced to the adult state penitentiary system from the statewide voter 

registration list, verifying every new voter registration against either the person’s 

driver license or last four digits of social security number, providing voter registration 

cards as described above in (1.5), and providing quicker, easier one-form voter 

registration and updating at driver licensing stations as described above in (1.6). 
 

 


 


 


 

APPENDIX A-2 

Response of the
 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
 

to the Draft Report
 
EAC RESPONSE TtfTff£. llAAFTAl)Dln: 

()l<tl!~tfqqnal)c1;;,AJJ.t:/ft,H~mPt:ft:>n t:h~'ilifmlnisimflan.PfPctJtment$ .Rf1P~l\f}!!l/ f..JJ1t/er .t!Je,Help !H'tJetlC<:! Vote,Acttwth.e.~#th Pflk():t(J SecretaJyoj$.h;itefodhe 'P!tdodliptif.J.07 2003 tftrcagh$epterrib¢t ,$p, 20i~ ' . 

Patflcia :Layfieldt lnspectot Ge.neral 

Bri(Jn Nf!!Wt>y, ~~t:cW:i~ [)Jrect:0r ·.~ 

br:~ft P~.tformao~e Ati.cJit Rf!pqi:t ,,_.#A.~'l:n1r:fi$trat1Pri of l?'avme:nttt J\eeetv~d. 

un(lerthe Help..Am~ric~ Ve>te·At:tb.:y·:the$<:totf1·oako:ta se~etary;of.State. 

thattk you fotthls OPPot:tJ.ml:tY tP revtew and respond t¢rtlte draft:audit rep~dtffot:the

south fr kotaSta ·ret~· , fst :~e ··· · .·..... ·...ct. . .... c: ryo . a ~ 

The Electien ·Assistance: Comrnissian{EA:C} .. '·•· apptedates ,. the audJtorsdetailedJindings .. . . . ·' 

and tecCimmehdatfol'lsoutnned irrthe dr1;1ftaugftr1;port 9;rtQ wUJ we>rkwl~h tJi.e, 

Secretary's Office to en.s~r.e apprgprt~~r~rr.ec;tive ill~i9ns :illre:taken ,io 9 'tltneiya11<:1· 

l:Ompletemanner~ 
APPENDIX B 

Audit Methodology 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

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 and of 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 Office employees about the organization and operations of the 

HAVA program. 

•	 Reviewed prior single audit reports and other reviews related to the State’s financial 

management systems and the HAVA program for the period under review. 

•	 Reviewed policies, procedures and regulations for the Office management and accounting 

systems as they relate to the administration of the HAVA program. 

•	 Analyzed the inventory lists of equipment purchased with HAVA funds 

•	 Tested major purchases and the supporting documentation. 

•	 Tested randomly sampled payments made with HAVA funds. 

•	 Tested randomly sampled subawardee costs charged to the award. 

•	 Evaluated compliance with the requirements for accumulating financial information 

reported to the Commission on the financial status reports and progress reports, accounting 

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

•	 Verified subawardees were adequately monitored. 

•	 Verified the establishment and maintenance of an election fund. 

•	 Verified the State expenditures met the Maintenance of Expenditures requirement 

•	 Conducted site visits of selected counties to observe physical security/safeguard of 

equipment purchased with HAVA funds and ensure compliance with federal regulation. 

•	 Verified that the matching requirement was timely met and matching expenditures met the 

prescribed criteria and allowability requirements of HAVA. 

•	 Verified program income was properly accounted for and not remitted to the State’s 

general fund. 

65
 

 


 

APPENDIX C
 

Monetary Impact
 
 


 

Appendix C 

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 

Additional 

Questioned Funds for 

Description Costs Program 

Unsupported Payroll Costs $ 10,855 $ -

Unallowable Ballot Costs 1,474 ­

Total $ 12,329 $ ­

66