1
2
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

Page

Report Overview .................................................................................. 5 

Section 101 Funds ............................................................................... 7 

Section 102 Funds .............................................................................. 9 

Section 251 Funds ............................................................................ 11 

Election Data Collection Grants ........................................................ 14 

College Poll Worker Grants............................................................... 15 

Mock Election Grants ......................................................................... 17 

EAC Administration of HAVA Funds .................................................. 19 
4
5

Report Overview 

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

almost $3.2 billion to support States in improving the administration of Federal elections, primarily 

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

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

election officials, poll workers, and voters; (3) improve polling place accessibility; (4) provide voter 

information at the polling places; (5) provide language assistance; (6) use toll free telephone 

lines; and (7) establish identification requirements for first-time voters who register to vote by 

mail. Table 1 provides a general overview of activities supported through HAVA funding. 

This report presents financial and programmatic information on the programs currently 

administered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), including non-discretionary 

payments to States authorized under Sections 101, 102, and 251 of HAVA and competitive, 

discretionary grants to support College Poll Workers ($750,000), Mock Elections in High Schools 

($300,000), and Election Data Collection ($10 million). 

The reporting periods covered in this report differ by grant program, as follows: 

Grant Program Reporting Through 

Section 101 and 102 December 31, 2008 

Section 251 September 30, 2008 

Election Data Collection December 31, 2008 

Poll Worker May 31, 2008 

Mock Election May 31, 2008 

Overall, EAC and GSA (acting on EAC’s behalf) have awarded $3,183,860 to 55 States, U.S. 

Territories, and the District of Columbia (hereinafter referred to as States). HAVA stipulated that 

EAC disburse these grant funds to States in advance and that States use the interest earned on 

the advanced funds for HAVA-authorized purposes. Since the initial disbursement of funds in 

2003, States have reported interest in the amount of $279 million, making the aggregate available 

to States for allowable activities $3.46 billion. 

For the periods covered by this report, States are reporting aggregate total expenditures of $2.27 

billion, or approximately 76% of total Federal funds disbursed (71% including accrued interest). 

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

well as EAC’s discretionary grants is described in the succeeding chapters of this report. Briefly: 

Section 101 Funds. A total of $349 million has been disbursed to States under Section 

101. States report having spent approximately 70% of Section 101 funds with 13 States 

having spent 100% and 27 States reporting having spent over 80% of the Federal funds 

Table 1 Categories of Use HAVA Section 101, 102, and 251 Funds 

Description Amount Percent 

Voting Systems $1,604,367,413 71.01 

Voter Registration Systems 354,992,541 15.72 

Improving the Administration of Federal Elections* 155,299,936 6.87 

Educating Voters, Training Officials and Poll Workers, and Recruiting Poll 

Workers 77,140,039 

 3.41 

Improving Polling Places 29,765,726 1.32 

Provisional Voting 3,664,550 0.16 

Uncategorized 34,206,688 1.51 

Total $2,259,436,893 

 

*Includes costs associated with preparing State plans, administering the HAVA program, identification for first-time 

voters, posting voting information at polls, and language assistance. Also, includes additional costs of training, voting 

equipment, and voter registration systems that were reported collectively. Total does not include 2008 and 2009 

appropriations.
6

available. Section 101 funds are intended to improve administration of Federal elections 

and have fewer restrictions on their use as compared to Section 102 and Section 251 

funds. 

Section 102 Funds. A total of $300 million has been disbursed to States under Section 

102. These are dedicated to replacing punch card and lever voting systems. Of the 30 

States that received Section 102 funding, 27 States have used 95% or more of the funds 

allocated to their State. All but 3% of the remaining funds ($49.6 million) belong to the 

State of New York, which is planning to purchase new voting systems in FY 2010. 

Section 251 Funds. A total of $ 2.32 billion has been disbursed to States under Section 

251, with all but 1% of these funds being disbursed in FYs 2004 and 2005. As of the 2008 

reporting period, 11 States have reported using 100% of the Federal amount disbursed and 

15 States had reported using 85% or more. Almost 60% of the 55 States receiving Section 

251 requirements payments reported using 75% or more of the Federal amount available 

under this Section. 

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

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

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

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

for deposit in its election fund. The late enactment of the FY 2008 appropriation meant that 

many States missed the deadline for requesting State appropriated funds. A second factor 

was that many States were updating their HAVA State plans, which includes a public input 

process that can take many months to complete, and were not able to request funds until 

that process was concluded. Despite a relatively slow start to the disbursement of FY 2008 

funds, Table 4 illustrates that States have robust HAVA State plans and have spent over 

70% of the Federal funds made available under this section of HAVA. 

By the end of fiscal year 2009, most of the initial hurdles with requesting FYs 2008 and 

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

the first quarter of FY 2010, EAC disbursed over $70 million of the $215 million of Section 

251 funds appropriated in FYs 2008 and 2009. 

Report Methodology 

The financial data in this report is based on financial status and narrative reports self-reported by 

States and other grantees.1

 For grant expenditures, EAC used the net cash disbursements and 

unliquidated obligations2 listed in financial status reports (Standard Form 269) submitted by 

States to EAC. To estimate how States used funds under the Section 101, 102, and 251 

programs, EAC extracted information from narrative reports to group expenditures by types of 

activity authorized by HAVA. 

 

1

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

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

that were reported in prior periods. 

2

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

not been made. 
7

SECTION 101 Funds 

Background 

To qualify for Section 101 funds, States certified to the U.S. General Services Administration3

(GSA) that the funds would be used consistent with the provisions of HAVA Title III and the laws 

listed in Section 9064

 of HAVA, which relate to the provisions of HAVA. GSA distributed $349.2 

million in Section 101 funds to States between April 2003 and August 2003. 

The total amount of Section 101 funds appropriated for all States was $349,182,262. HAVA 

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

earned on Section 101 funds is approximately $39.8 million. Section 101 funds are available with 

no restriction on when they can be used. 

Expenditures 

States spent $246,602,226, or approximately 70%, of the $349,182,262 appropriated for Section 

101. These funds have generated an additional $39,835,643 in interest, which is available for 

States to use on activities authorized under Section 101. As of December 31, 2008, eight States 

had spent all of their funds and interest, 25 other States had expended more than 75%, while 22 

States had spent less than 50% of their funds and interest. 

Table 2.1 HAVA Title I, Section 101 Funds as of December 31, 2008 

State 

Total Section 

101 Funds 

Received 

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa

Balance of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Expended 

Alabama $4,989,605 $349,969 $1,890,501 $3,449,073 35.41 

Alaska 5,000,000 625,012 4,268,913 1,356,099 75.89

American Samoa 1,000,000 63,650 905,742 157,908 85.15 

Arizona 5,451,369 645,414 2,095,600 4,001,183 34.37 

Arkansas 3,593,165 226,287 3,819,452 0 100 

California 27,340,830 2,373,123 22,517,647 7,196,306 75.78 

Colorado 4,860,301 708,922 2,511,791 3,057,432 45.1 

Connecticut 5,000,000 510,276 5,382,213 128,063 97.68 

Delaware 5,000,000 426,971 4,500,404 926,567 82.93 

District of Columbia 5,000,000 592,331 3,531,113 2,061,218 63.14 

Florida 14,447,580 1,380,422 12,981,812 2,846,190 82.02 

Georgia 7,816,328 685,077 7,378,212 1,123,193 86.79 

Guamb1,000,000 0 827,234 172,766 82.72 

Hawaii 5,000,000 1,201,229 1,815,417 4,385,812 29.28 

 

3

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

4

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

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

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

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

seq.). 
8

Table 2.1 cont. HAVA Title I, Section 101 Funds as of December 31, 2008 

State 

Total Section 

101 Funds 

Received 

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa

Balance of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Expended 

Idaho 5,000,000 1,265,725 2,014,294 4,251,431 32.15 

Illinois 11,129,030 1,084,308 10,410,863 1,802,475 85.24 

Indiana 6,230,481 918,236 3,734,865 3,413,852 52.25 

Iowa 5,000,000 661,085 5,342,310 318,775 94.37 

Kansas 5,000,000 1,164,164 1,607,417 4,556,747 26.08 

Kentucky 4,699,196 885,887 376,210 5,208,873 6.74 

Louisiana 4,911,421 817,093 1,762,796 3,965,718 30.77 

Maine 5,000,000 547,366 3,237,251 2,310,115 58.36 

Maryland 5,636,731 693,263 2,646,214 3,683,780 41.8 

Massachusetts 6,590,381 557,441 3,283,792 3,864,030 45.94 

Michigan 9,207,323 1,364,287 2,194,720 8,376,890 20.76 

Minnesota 5,313,786 62,945 5,376,731 0 100 

Mississippi 3,673,384 393,427 3,136,267 930,544 77.12 

Missouri 5,875,170 790,597 3,083,880 3,581,887 46.26 

Montana 5,000,000 446,054 3,459,181 1,986,873 63.52 

Nebraska 5,000,000 911,464 2,895,876 3,015,588 48.99 

Nevada 5,000,000 405,163 3,786,630 1,618,533 70.06 

New Hampshire 5,000,000 899,686 1,387,707 4,511,979 23.52 

New Jersey 8,141,208 698,815 8,153,900 686,123 92.24 

New Mexico 5,000,000 292,244 5,292,244 0 100 

New York 16,494,325 2,787,762 9,076,159 10,205,928 47.07 

North Carolina 7,887,740 623,777 6,847,059 1,664,458 80.44 

North Dakota 5,000,000 63,997 5,063,997 0 100 

Ohio 10,384,931 426,837 10,811,768 0 100 

Oklahoma 5,000,000 86,853 1,501,407 3,585,446 29.52 

Oregon 4,203,776 59,199 4,262,975 0 100 

Pennsylvania 11,323,168 1,309,181 11,795,199 837,150 93.37 

Puerto Rico 3,151,144 317,093 1,562,478 1,905,759 45.05 

Rhode Island 5,000,000 140,275 5,140,275 0 100 

South Carolina 4,652,412 619,122 3,769,519 1,502,015 71.50% 

South Dakota 5,000,000 868,676 1,154,330 4,714,346 19.67 

Tennessee 6,004,507 882,871 1,609,343 5,278,035 23.37 

Texas 17,206,595 2,708,352 10,519,647 9,395,300 52.82 

Utah 3,090,943 540,816 2,522,461 1,109,298 69.46 

Vermont 5,000,000 569,433 4,565,803 1,003,630 81.98 

Virginia 7,105,890 1,084,655 2,721,451 5,469,094 33.23 

Virgin Islands 1,000,000 21,535 1,004,018 17,517 98.29 

Washington 6,098,449 259,047 6,357,496 0 100 

West Virginia 2,977,057 102,558 2,731,457 348,158 88.69 

Wisconsin 5,694,036 633,888 2,003,588 4,324,336 31.66 

Wyoming 5,000,000 1,081,783 2,972,597 3,109,186 48.88

Total $349,182,262 $39,835,643 $245,602,226 $143,415,679 63.13 

a Includes cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations. 

bGuam did not file a report for Section 101 for 2008; data is from FY 2006. 
9

SECTION 102 Funds 

Background 

GSA distributed $300,317,737 in Section 102 funds to 30 States in FY 2003 using a HAVA 

formula based on the number of precincts within an eligible State that used punch card or lever 

voting systems during the November 2000 Federal general election. To qualify for a Section 102 

payment, States certified that they would: 

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

card or lever voting systems by the required deadline. 

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

301. 

• Comply with applicable Federal laws. 

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

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

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

the EAC, which will redistribute the funds to all States in the form of Section 251 requirements 

payments. The amount of the funds to be returned is the greater of either: 

• The amount of unobligated funds, or 

• The amount percentage of noncompliant precincts multiplied by the total amount of 

Section 102 payments provided to the State. 

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

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

election held in the State after March 1, 2008.5 The extension applied only to those States that 

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

Federal election held after November 1, 2010.6

 

Table 3.1 shows the status of Section 102 funds as of December 31, 2008. 

Expenditures 

States have spent $254,088,558 (Table 3.2) of the $300,317,737 of Section 102 funds received 

including interest earned on the deposited funds. As of December 31, 2008, 24 of the 30 States 

expended more than 90% of funds including interest earned and 15 States expended the full 

amount. 

 

5

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

Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 110-28. 

6

 The extension is contained in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Public Law 111-8. 
10

Table 3.2 Section 102 Funds as of December 31, 2008 

State 

Total Section 

102 Funds 

Received 

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa 

Balance of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Expended 

Alabama $51,076 $3,582 $919 $53,739 1.68 

Arizona 1,564,188 0 1,564,188 0 100 

Arkansas 2,569,738 184,915 2,754,653 0 100. 

California 57,322,707 1,133,995 57,322,707 1,133,995 98.06 

Colorado 2,177,095 146,757 2,323,852 0 100 

Florida 11,581,377 39,385 11,581,377 39,385 99.66 

Georgia 4,740,448 0 4,740,448 0 100 

Illinois 33,805,617 1,230,026 33,669,568 1,366,075 96.10 

Indiana 9,522,394 142,040 9,664,434 0 100 

Kentucky 469,256 19,028 469,229 19,055 96.10 

Louisiana 7,351,684 193,790 7,545,474 0 100 

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

Massachusetts 1,519,497 11,803 1,446,076 85,224 94.43 

Michigan 6,531,284 405,703 6,432,323 594,046 91.44

Mississippi 1,778,067 105,925 1,883,992 0 100 

Missouri 11,472,841 646,780 12,119,621 0 100 

New Jersey 8,695,609 283,762 8,979,371 0 100 

New York 49,603,917 9,067,860 0 58,671,777 0 

North Carolina 893,822 0 893,822 0 100 

Ohio 30,667,664 1,186,901 31,854,565 0 100 

Oregon 1,822,758 43,763 1,711,406 155,115 91.69 

Pennsylvania 22,916,952 4,901,423 23,926,816 3,891,559 86.01 

South Carolina 2,167,518 108,060 1,998,330 277,248 87.82 

Tennessee 2,473,971 134,659 2,608,630 0 100 

Texas 6,269,521 295,410 6,266,685 298,246 95.46 

Utah 5,726,844 536,464 6,263,308 0 100 

Virginia 4,526,569 210,768 4,737,337 0 100 

Washington 6,799,430 511,810 6,313,881 997,359 86.36 

West Virginia 2,349,474 111,131 2,460,605 0 100 

Wisconsin 1,308,810 144,024 1,006,714 446,120 69.29

Total $300,317,737 $21,851,117 $254,088,558 $68,080,296 78.87

a

Includes cash disbursements and unliquidated obligations. 

Table 3.1 Section 102 Funds Status as of December 31, 2008 

State Date of Waiver 102 Deadline Unexpended Funds

Alabama None Filed November 2, 2004 $50,157 

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

Kentucky December 5, 2003 November 4, 2010 27 

Massachusetts December 23, 2003 November 4, 2010 73,421 

Michigan December 30, 2003 November 4, 2010 188,343

New York December 23, 2003 November 4, 2010 49,603,917 

Oregon None Filed November 2, 2004 111,352 

South Carolina None Filed November 2, 2004 169,188 

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

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

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

Total $51,122,935 
11

SECTION 251 Funds 

Background 

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

the EAC affirming that the State: 

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

procedures required by HAVA Section 402; 

• Appropriated matching funds equal to “5 percent of the total amount to be spent for such 

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

State)...”; 

• To the extent that any portion of the requirements payment is used for activities other 

than meeting the requirements of Title II, provided that the proposed uses are not 

inconsistent with the requirements of HAVA Title III and are consistent with the usage 

restrictions set forth in HAVA Section 251(b); 

• Is in compliance with the laws listed in Section 906 of HAVA, as related to HAVA; and 

• Filed a State plan that complies with the requirements listed in Sections 254, 255, and 

256 of HAVA. 

EAC disbursed a total $2.3 billion in requirements payments in FYs 2003 ($830 million), and 2004 

($1,489 million). Congress appropriated $115 million in FYs 2008 and $100 million in 2009. As 

of October 1, 2009, EAC distributed approximately $78 million of the FYs 2008 and 2009 

requirements payments. 

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

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

deposits of Section 251 funds have no fiscal year limitation. 

Expenditure of Section 251 Funds

States spent $1,770,722,528 or about 76% of Section 251 funds appropriated by Congress 

($2,319,360,617) and interest earned ($217,467,497). Twelve States have spent 90% or more, 

while 25 States spent more than 75% of their funds and interest. On the other hand, 13 States 

have spent less than 50% of their funds and interest. 

Table 4.1 HAVA Title II, Section 251 Funds 

State 

Total Section 

251 Funds 

Received($)a

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa 

Balance 

Of Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Expended 

Alabama $35,866,513 $2,260,382 $26,785,313 $11,341,582 70.25 

Alaska 11,596,803 1,581,881 6,829,221 6,349,463 51.82 

American Samoa 2,319,361 133,973 1,643,416 809,918 66.99 

Arizona 40,584,515 4,857,270 24,392,214 21,049,571 53.68 

Arkansas 21,598,570 1,888,869 18,968,929 4,518,510 80.76 

California 264,237,124 33,002,325 197,446,357 99,793,092 66.43 

Colorado 34,545,365 4,337,216 33,724,080 5,158,501 86.73 

Connecticut 27,719,501 3,351,016 19,097,193 11,973,324 61.46 
12

Table 4.1 Cont. HAVA Title II, Section 251 Funds 

State 

Total Section 

251 Funds 

Received($)a

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa 

Balance 

Of Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Expended 

Delaware 11,596,803 817,986 5,603,999 6,810,790 45.14 

District of Columbia 11,596,803 1,356,564 4,979,978 7,973,389 38.45 

Florida 132,502,091 15,230,008 93,291,172 54,440,927 63.15 

Georgia 64,748,170 696,778 64,961,519 483,429 99.26 

Guamb2,319,361 0 1,652,099 667,262 71.23 

Hawaii 11,596,803 820,675 8,753,279 3,664,199 70.49 

Idaho 11,596,803 899,265 12,484,297 11,771 99.91 

Illinois 98,595,252 7,271,927 89,451,036 16,416,143 84.49 

Indiana 48,544,987 2,127,175 50,318,460 353,702 99.30 

Iowa 23,739,383 1,339,361 25,033,616 45,128 99.82 

Kansas 21,409,789 1,976,843 19,369,228 4,017,404 82.82 

Kentucky 32,899,292 3,083,286 22,182,252 13,800,326 61.65 

Louisiana 35,067,672 3,399,269 34,498,557 3,968,384 89.68 

Maine 11,596,803 1,437,130 7,766,150 5,267,783 59.58 

Maryland 42,478,430 3,362,223 32,960,662 12,879,991 71.90 

Massachusetts 52,222,225 3,707,231 10,257,040 45,672,416 18.34 

Michigan 78,960,474 6,371,291 59,637,152 25,694,613 69.89 

Minnesota 39,178,788 4,642,050 36,301,371 7,519,467 82.84 

Mississippi 22,418,203 1,071,010 20,163,416 3,325,797 85.84 

Missouri 44,914,650 3,698,128 41,613,242 6,999,536 85.60 

Montana 11,596,803 602,461 11,295,094 904,170 92.59 

Nebraska 13,749,549 629,726 14,155,595 223,680 98.44 

Nevada 16,166,810 1,054,922 12,644,293 4,577,439 73.42 

New Hampshire 11,596,803 1,714,936 4,075,465 9,236,274 30.62 

New Jersey 68,067,586 5,501,660 53,522,329 20,046,917 72.75 

New Mexicoc 14,279,790 902,473 15,123,547 58,716 99.61 

New York 153,414,430 22,744,148 60,713,108 115,445,470 34.47 

North Carolina 65,477,808 6,099,413 58,616,996 12,960,225 81.89 

North Dakota 11,596,803 1,152,269 5,215,421 7,533,651 40.91 

Ohio 90,992,517 6,174,851 93,743,145 3,424,223 96.48 

Oklahoma 27,659,637 348,163 3,446,283 24,561,517 12.30 

Oregon 27,837,407 3,041,940 13,863,641 17,015,706 44.90 

Pennsylvania 100,578,829 15,278,254 96,921,297 18,935,786 83.66 

Puerto Rico 2,319,361 176,159 527,369 1,968,151 21.13 

Rhode Island 11,596,803 483,942 12,080,745 0 100.00 

South Carolina 32,421,280 623,579 32,421,280 623,579 98.11 

South Dakota 11,596,803 985,430 5,574,409 7,007,824 44.30 

Tennessee 46,236,130 5,572,841 21,769,684 30,039,287 42.02 

Texas 160,691,949 10,779,735 135,236,716 36,234,968 78.87 

Utah 16,467,182 623,198 17,090,380 0 100.00 

Vermont 11,596,803 2,011,107 0.00 13,607,910 0.00 

Virginia 57,489,361 5,199,726 35,047,607 27,641,480 55.91 

Virgin Islands 2,319,361 103,737 707,897 1,715,201 29.21 

Washington 47,195,971 4,805,038 33,337,308 18,663,701 64.11 

West Virginia 15,303,569 1,121,238 14,474,244 1,950,563 88.12 

Wisconsin 43,063,935 4,191,432 36,532,637 10,722,730 77.31 
13

Table 4.1 Cont. HAVA Title II, Section 251 Funds 

State 

Total Section 

251 Funds 

Received($)a

Interest 

Earned 

Total 

Expendituresa 

Balance 

Of Funds and 

Interest 

Percent of 

Funds and 

Interest 

Expended 

 

Wyoming 11,596,803 823,987 12,420,790 0 100

Total $2,319,360,617 $217,467,497 $1,770,722,528 $766,105,586 69.80 

a

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

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

bGuam did not file a report for Section 251 for FY 2008. Reported data is from the last report filed, which reported 

Section 101 and Section 251 in a joint report covering FY 2006. Guam has not reported any interest. 

cNew Mexico did not file a report for Section 251 for FY 2008. The data provided is from its FY 2007 report. 
14

ELECTION DATA 

COLLECTION GRANTS 

Background

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

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

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

election data collection that can be replicated by other States; 

2. Improve data collection processes; 

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

election data; and 

4. Document and describe particular administrative and management data collection 

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

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

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

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

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

carry out such changes. 

Awards and Expenditures 

EAC received proposals from 10 States, and awarded grants to five States. The grants were 

awarded on May 28, 2008. Table 5.1 lists the grantees, the amounts awarded and the amounts 

expended as of October 26, 2009. 

Table 5.1 Election Data Collection Grants 

Amount 

Grantee Awarded Expended* 

Illinois $2,000,000 $2,000,000 

Minnesota 2,000,000 1,913,453 

Ohio 2,000,000 1,973,308 

Pennsylvania 2,000,000 603,740 

Wisconsin 2,000,000 1,548,767 

 Total $10,000,000 $8,039,270 

*Includes unliquidated obligations 
15

COLLEGE POLL 

WORKER GRANTS

Background 

Section 501 of HAVA created the College Poll Worker Grant Program to encourage students 

enrolled at institutions of higher education to assist State and local governments in the 

administration of elections by serving as nonpartisan poll workers or assistants. Congress 

appropriated $750,000 for this program in FY 2008. This amount represents a significant 

increase over $300,000 appropriated in FY 2006. 

Awards and Expenditures 

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

with an average grant award amount of $27,778. Table 6.1 lists the grantees, the amounts 

awarded, and the amounts expended as of September 30, 2009. 

Table 6.1 2008 College Poll Worker Grants 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Expended 

 

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

Auburn University Alabama 25,750 25,239 

Citizens Union New York 29,114 29,114 

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

Greensboro College North Carolina 32,167 18,309 

Henry Ford Community College Michigan 32,167 32,167

Loyola University Illinois 30,322 30,322 

McDaniel College Maryland 32,038 32,038 

Middlesex Community College Connecticut 18,852 18,852 

Muhlenberg College Pennsylvania 10,409 8,695 

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

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

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

Onondaga Community College New York 16,785 11,627 

Rural Ethnic Institute South Dakota 32,167 23,764 

Southern Connecticut State University Connecticut 28,160 20,910 

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

Suffolk University New York 31,849 20,939 

Texans Together Education Fund Texas 32,167 28,830 

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

University of Baltimore Maryland 32,103 32,103 

University of Missouri Missouri 25,705 25,651 

Vassar College New York 31,785 31,785 

Virginia 21 Virginia 32,103 11,574 

Washtenaw Community College Michigan 30,767 10,396 

Winona State University Minnesota 29,495 29,424 

Youngstown State University Ohio 25,278 22,335 

 

Total $750,000 $620,547 
16

College Poll Worker program Results 

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

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

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

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

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

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

program into the future. 

Grantees reported that approximately 2,800 students served as poll workers. From using the 

internet, to placing flyers on campus bulletin boards, methods for identifying poll workers were 

varied. Examples include: 

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

submit their contact information. 

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

to create entire pages promoting the program. 

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

future student poll workers. 

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

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

students to reach a broader audience. 

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

averaged 2-3 hours. Students attended an average of two training sessions each. Student poll 

workers set up the polling places, greeted voters, checked off names on the registry (the most 

common activity), checked voters’ identification, staffed the information booths, demonstrated 

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

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

voters with curbside voting, secured the machines at the end of the day, counted the votes, and 

transmitted the results. 

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

including: 

• Many jurisdictions required all poll workers to be registered to vote in that jurisdiction while 

students were registered in different jurisdictions. 

• The supply of college poll workers exceeded the demand for poll workers. Many students 

who were already recruited and trained were disappointed to discover that they were not 

needed on Election Day. 

• Lack of transportation coordination on Election Day resulted in difficulties getting students 

to the polls. 
17

MOCK ELECTION 

GRANTS 

Background 

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

and Parent Mock Election (NSPME) in FYs 2004 and 2006 to conduct simulated national 

elections for students and parents from each of the 50 States in the United States, its territories, 

the District of Columbia, and United States schools overseas. 

For FY 2008, Congress appropriated $200,000 for a competitive grant program to promote voter 

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

building community involvement in and awareness of the elections process, and to encourage 

continued civic engagement and participation by the youth population. 

Awards and Expenditures 

The EAC awarded grants to 12 organizations. The average grant award was $16,667. Table 7.1 

lists the grantees, the amounts awarded and the amounts expended as of September 30, 2009. 

 

Table 7.1 2008 Mock Election Grants 

Grantees Amounts 

Name Location Awarded Spent 

Bernalillo County Clerk's Office New Mexico $20,091 $14,011 

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

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

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

Montana Secretary of State Montana 20,109 4,261 

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

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

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

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

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

 

TOTAL $200,000 $166,913 

Results 

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

program’s success. At the start, grantees estimated that over 5 million students would participate 

in the program. When final numbers came in, the participation level at the schools was higher 

than expected, with a total of 6,317,988 students taking part. These numbers demonstrate that 

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

friends and family, about the importance of voting.

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

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

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

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

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

invaluable lesson in elections. 

 
18

Characteristics of a successful Mock Election Program included: 

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

roles, and lay out the blueprint for program leaders. 

• Developing a publicity plan to specify the modes of communication such as: site visits to 

schools; attendance at public events; and advertising on websites as well as through 

direct mail and email. 

• Preparing informative, educational, and engaging election materials. 

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

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

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

The programs found it beneficial to involve students and teachers through the use of program 

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

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

blogs. 

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

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

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

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

election. 
19

 

EAC Administration of 

HAVA FUNDS 

 MONITORING OF HAVA FUNDS

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

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

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

submitted by recipients; 

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

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

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

Streamlining/Reform Efforts 

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

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

disburse 2008 and 2009 requirements payments more timely and efficiently, EAC: 

• Allowed States to request both 2008 and 2009 requirements payments at the same time; 

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

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

payments to be requested based on available matching funds; and 

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

amount; (2) matching share; (3) grant period; (4) administrative and reporting 

requirements; and (5) information needed by EAC before it will disburse the grant funds 

(Federal assurances, certifications, and banking information). 

Reporting 

The EAC changed the State reporting requirements on HAVA funds for cycles beginning in fiscal 

year 2009 to comply with the new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) mandates and to 

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

forms (including SF-269) with one form. The new form is called the SF-425 (Appendix 2), Federal 

Financial Report (FFR). EAC made the reporting periods consistent for Section 101, 102, and 

251 grants. Reports are now due by December 31 for the periods beginning October 1 and 

ending September 30 of each Federal Fiscal year