There are more than 9,000 local election jurisdictions in the United States. (3) In most states, they arecounties or major cities, but in some New England and Upper Midwest states, they are smalltownships -- for example, more than 1,800 townships in Wisconsin. (4) Given that diversity and otherdifferences among states -- such as wealth, population, and the role of state election officials --responsibilities and characteristics of LEOs are likely to vary among the states. Nevertheless, somepatterns emerged from the survey. The demographic characteristics of LEOs are unusual for a groupof government officials. According to the survey results, the typical LEO is a whitewoman between 50 and 60 years old who is a high school graduate. She was elected to her currentoffice, works full-time in election administration, has been in the profession for about 10 years, andearns under $50,000 per year. She belongs to a state-level professional organization but not anational one, and she believes that her training as an election official has been good to excellent. As with any such description, the one above does not capture the diversity within thecommunity surveyed. About one-quarter of LEOs are men, about 5% belong to minority groups,40% are college graduates, and 8% have graduate degrees. They range from 24 to 89 years of age,and have served from 1 to 50 years. About one-third were appointed rather than elected to theirposts. Reported salaries range from under $10,000 to more than $120,000. About one-third belongto regional, national, or international professional organizations. The demographic profile of LEOs is unusual, especially for a professional group. While itis possible that some of the above results were statistical artifacts, it is likely that overall they reflectthe demographic characteristics of LEOs in general. If so, those characteristics appear to differ fromthose of other local government employees. For example, according to U.S. Census figures, whilewomen comprise a higher proportion of the local government workforce than men overall, (5) men comprise a higherproportion of local government general and administrative managers. (6) About 20% of those managersbelong to minorities. (7) The causes of those differences are not apparent. The patterns do not appear to be a result ofthe fact that most LEOs are elected, as the demographic characteristics of legislators appear to belargely similar to those for local government managers. (8) Potential policy implications of the demographic characteristicsof LEOs are discussed later in this report. The kinds of voting systems used in the United States have been changing over the past 20years. In particular, the computerization of voting has climbed dramatically during that period. Increasingly, jurisdictions have turned to computer-assisted voting systems -- especially optical scanand direct recording electronic (DRE) systems. In 1980, fewer than one-quarter of jurisdictions usedcomputer-assisted systems, with under 5% using optical scan and DRE systems. In contrast, morethan 75% used computer-assisted systems in 2004, with more than half of those using opticalscan. (9) Over that 20-yearspan, the most dramatic changes have been the seven-fold increase in the use of optical scan byjurisdictions, from about 7% in 1990 to more than 45% in 2004, and the doubling in DRE usebetween the 2000 and 2004 elections, from 10% to 20%. The number of jurisdictions usingpunchcards, lever machines, and hand-counted paper ballots was declining even before theenactment of HAVA. Use of these systems fell by more than half between 1990, when they wereused by more than 80% of jurisdictions, and 2004, with about 30% usage. The major alternativevoting systems in use at present are therefore optical scan and DRE. About half of jurisdictions with optical scan systems use precinctcount. In general, the survey results reflect the patterns found in other studies. (10) However, those studies,unlike the survey, did not distinguish between central-count and precinct-count systems. Thedistinction may be important from a policy perspective because for optical scan voting systems, onlythe precinct-count version provides for detection of improperly marked ballots by machine beforethe ballot is cast, allowing voters to correct mistakes such as overvotes (this is often called second-chance voting ). Central-count systems rely entirely on visual inspection by the voter todetect errors. About half (49.9%) of the jurisdictions surveyed use optical scan voting systems. Ofthose, 44.9% are central-count systems. (11) HAVA promotes but does not require the use of voting machinesthat detect errors. (12) LEOs are highly satisfied with whatever voting systems they areusing now. Most LEOs (more than 85% altogether) reported that they are highlysatisfied with their current voting systems and that the systems performed very well during theNovember 2004 election (more than 90%). There was little variation in the degree of satisfactionwith different kinds of voting systems, but the differences are illuminating: The most highly rated systems were precinct-count optical scan and DREs,which are the most compatible of current systems with the goals and requirements of HAVA. Ratings for these systems were not significantly different from each other. Both precinct-count optical scan and DRE systems were rated significantlyhigher than lever machines, hand-counted paper systems, and central-count optical scan with respectto overall satisfaction. There were no significant differences in the performance ratings of differentsystems for the November 2004 election, except between DREs, which were rated highest, andcentral-count optical scan, which was rated lowest. (13) While generally satisfied with their current systems, LEOs also indicated areas whereimprovements are needed. In rating a set of desired qualities of voting systems and the degree towhich their current voting system has those characteristics, the four features rated highest for boththe current and desired system were accuracy in counting, reliability, security, and ease of use by voters. Current systems were rated lowest in comparison to desired features for prevention of voter errors, ease of use by persons with disabilities, and machine error. Two features were rated higher as characteristics of the current voting system than they were indesirability: speed in vote counting, and cost of acquisition. The characteristics rated lowest for both current and desired systems were impact on different socioeconomic groups, and alternative-language capability. Not surprisingly, users of DREs and precinct-count optical scan systems rated them higherfor prevention of voter error than users of other systems rated theirs. DRE users also rated theirsystems higher than users of other systems did theirs for ease of use by disabled persons and formultiple-language use. Most jurisdictions acquiring new voting systems choose those thathelp voters avoid errors. The length of time that jurisdictions reported using theircurrent voting systems varied widely, from one year or less to more than 200 years. The average is12 years. (14) About onein six jurisdictions reported that they had acquired a new voting system since 2000, and half of thoseobtained DREs, which prevent overvotes and can help voters minimize unintentional undervoting. The remainder chose optical-scan systems, and more than three-quarters of those acquiredprecinct-count versions. About 40% of respondents indicated that they are likely to replace theircurrent voting system within the next five years, with similar proportions as above expecting tochoose DREs, precinct-count, and central-count optical scan systems. Overall, 85% of recentlyacquired or planned voting systems assist voters in preventing or detecting many ballot-markingerrors. LEOs tend to choose new voting systems with similarcharacteristics to what they use at present. LEOs might be expected to choose newvoting systems that behave in a similar manner to those they have been using. In particular,jurisdictions replacing punch-card and hand-counted paper systems might be more likely to chooseoptical scan, which is also paper-based. Those replacing lever machines might be expected tochoose DREs, since neither system uses paper ballots. The survey results support that hypothesis: Lever machine users are four times more likely to switch to DREs than to optical scan. Levermachine users who switch to optical scan systems are five times more likely to choose precinct-countthan central-count, which might be expected, as lever machines are also precinct-count systems. Users of punchcards are more likely to switch to optical scan systems than to DREs and are morelikely to choose precinct-count than central-count. The results for LEOs using hand-counted papersystems are not conclusive but suggest a preference for optical scan over DRE systems. LEOs have more concerns about the security and performance ofvoting systems they are not using themselves. While LEOs tend to be very satisfiedwith the systems that they are using, they have more reservations about other kinds. Average supportfor other systems was substantially less than that for the system in use. Punchcards, lever machines,and hand-counted paper ballots all received negative average ratings from those LEOs not usingthose systems. DREs and the two types of optical scan received positive ratings on average, withprecinct-count rated the highest. Central-count optical scan was rated a bit higher than DREs, whichis perhaps surprising given the finding discussed above that most jurisdictions planning to obtainnew systems expect to adopt either DREs or precinct-count optical scan. This issue was also examined more specifically for DREs and optical scan users. DRE usersrated their systems higher than non-DRE users in all specific performance categories tested --including security, reliability, usability, and cost -- except for multiple-language capability. Thesame patterns held in comparisons of optical-scan users and nonusers. (15) The reasons why nonusersrated alternative-language capability higher than users is not clear. DRE users do not support the use of voter-verifiable paper audittrails (VVPAT), but nonusers do. One of the most striking differences betweenusers and nonusers of DREs is in their attitudes toward the proposal that DREs be required toproduce paper ballots on which voters can verify their choices before the ballot is cast (Fig. 1) -- asystem also called voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) . (16) Most DRE users (70%)do not support the use of VVPAT and most do not plan to add them to their voting systems, whereasabout 70% of LEOs not using DREs do support VVPAT. DRE users opposing VVPAT mostcommonly cited risk to voter privacy, printer reliability, and cost as the reasons. While lack of utilitywas not listed as an option, it was written in by 9% of those respondents. However, even thoserespondents (DRE users and nonusers) who expressed support for VVPAT were generally willing(65%) to spend only $300 or less for the feature. Figure 1. Support for Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPAT) among LocalElection Officials Who Use DREs and Other Voting Systems Source: Texas A&M University, in coordination with the Congressional Research Service. Both DRE and optical scan users do not generally believe that their voting system softwareis vulnerable to attack by viruses or hackers. They also believe that current state and federalcertification procedures for software and hardware are adequate and that any security concerns withtheir systems can be adequately addressed by good security procedures. For both systems, nonusersare less confident in security and certification and more concerned about software vulnerability. However, they had greater concerns about the vulnerability of DREs than optical scan systems. Table 1. Importance of Different Factors in the Recent andPlanned Acquisition of New Voting Systems by Local Election Jurisdictions Note: Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each factor from 0 (not at all important)to 10 (extremely important). Recent systems are those acquired within the last three years. Plannedsystems are those expected to be acquired within five years. The number reported is the medianresponse. Source: Texas A&M University, in coordination with the Congressional Research Service. HAVA requirements and funding have been a major factor in the adoption of new votingsystems by LEOs. Among the 17% of jurisdictions reporting that they acquired voting systems since2000, about half reported receiving federal funding for that purpose, with about one-third reportingthat most of the funding was from federal sources. About 40% of respondents expect to acquire newsystems within the next five years. HAVA and state requirements and funding were listed as themost important factors in those decisions (Table 1). (17) Concerns about the accuracy or cost of the previous or currentsystems were among the least important factors. Most respondents who plan to replace their currentsystems expect to change all voting machines in the jurisdiction, but 42% anticipate acquiring onenew system per precinct to meet HAVA accessibility requirements. (18) Most LEOs consider themselves familiar with and knowledgeableabout HAVA. The requirements and other provisions of HAVA have substantialimpacts on local jurisdictions, and some requirements, such as provisional balloting, are aimeddirectly at local officials. It would therefore be expected that most local election officials would befamiliar with HAVA provisions, and that is in fact the case. Only 10% of LEOs reported a lack offamiliarity with the act, and more than half consider themselves to be very familiar with itsrequirements. Most LEOs support HAVA provisions. Whenasked about the specific provisions of HAVA, LEOs on average rated each of them positively (Table2), with the highest support given to the provision of federal funding and the lowest to theprovisional voting requirement. However, even with respect to federal funding, there werecomplaints, many relating to a perceived slowness in distribution of funds. LEOs were alsoconcerned that federal requirements would lead to higher operating costs that local jurisdictionswould not be able to afford. The results suggest that support is associated to some degree with ease of implementation,although none of the provisions was rated especially difficult or especially easy to implement onaverage. For example, the two provisions requiring implementation that received the highest levelsof support -- facilitating participation for military or overseas voters, and provision of informationfor voters -- were also rated as the easiest to implement, and provisional voting was considered thesecond most difficult. However, the disability access requirement received a substantially higherlevel of support than the identification requirement for certain first-time voters, even though theformer was considered the most difficult to implement while the latter was among the least difficult. A common remark about the disability requirement was the perception that it is unnecessary oronerous for jurisdictions with small populations. This argument was also made before HAVA wasenacted. Proponents of the accessibility provision counter that the mobility of U.S. society and thepresence of "hidden" disabled persons, as well as other factors, make the uniform application of thisprovision necessary. The creation of the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which has beensomewhat controversial, was seen as an advantage by most LEOs, with only one in seven seeing itas a disadvantage. During the debate on HAVA, some observers argued that the EAC should bepermanent, and others that it should exist only until all requirements payments authorized in the actare distributed. In February 2005, the National Association of Secretaries of State took the positionthat the EAC should be temporary, although that position was tempered in subsequent statements. Provisional voting received the highest percentage of negative assessments, with 35% ofrespondents considering it a disadvantage, and 48% an advantage. It was the only category for whichresponses were strongly polarized, with many LEOs rating it a strong advantage and almost as manya strong disadvantage. It was not possible to determine for this report what factors might accountfor the polarized response. Table 2. Ratings of Individual HAVA Provisions as Advantageor Disadvantage Note: Respondents were asked to rate each provision on a scale of 1 (disadvantage) to 7 (advantage). The disadvantage column lists the percentage who rated a provision at 1, 2, or 3; the neutral columnthe percentage who chose 4; and the advantage column those who chose 5, 6, or 7. Source: Texas A&M University, in coordination with the Congressional Research Service. LEOs believe that HAVA is making some improvements in theelectoral process. The survey asked LEOs to rate the degree to which HAVA hasresulted in improvements in elections in their jurisdictions -- from no improvement to majorimprovement. Only 12% of LEOs responded that it led to no improvement, but only 7% respondedthat it led to major improvement. The average response was halfway between those two extremes. A comparison of how LEOs rated HAVA overall with other characteristics of the officials suggeststhat younger officials who are comfortable with technology and familiar with HAVA tended to besupportive of the legislation. Not surprisingly, those who believe that there is too much federalinvolvement in the election process tended to be less supportive. Less obvious was the finding thatcollege-educated LEOs also tended to be less supportive, although the effect was smaller than forthe other factors . About 23% of respondents provided suggestions for improving HAVA. The threemost common areas for improvement listed were federal funding, registration and voteridentification, and provisional ballots. There has been some debate and uncertainty about the role and influence of voting systemmanufacturers and vendors in the selection of voting systems by local jurisdictions. Some observershave argued that vendors have undue influence in what voting systems jurisdictions choose. Othersbelieve that such concerns are unwarranted. But little has been known of how LEOs view vendorsand their relationships with them. The results of the survey were mixed with respect to theimportance of vendors. LEOs appear to have high trust and confidence in them but do not rate themas being especially influential with respect to decisions about voting systems. LEOs trust and have confidence in the voting system vendors theywork with. Most jurisdictions using computer-assisted voting reported that theyhad interacted with their voting-system vendors within the last four years. (19) More than 90% of LEOsconsidered their voting system vendors responsive and the quality of their goods and services to behigh. They felt equally strongly that the recommendations of those vendors can be trusted. However, about a fifth of respondents thought that vendors are willing to sacrifice security forgreater profit, although 60% disagreed. Also, a quarter felt that vendors provide too many aspectsof election administration. LEOs do not believe that vendors are very influential in decisionsabout acquiring new voting systems. When LEOs were asked what sources ofinformation they relied on with respect to voting systems, state election officials received the highestaverage rating, with about three-quarters of LEOs indicating that they rely on state officials a greatdeal. Next most important were other election officials, followed by the EAC and advocates for thedisabled. About one-third stated that they rely on vendors a great deal, a level similar to that forprofessional associations. Only 2% rated vendors higher than any other source, whereas 20% ratedstate officials highest. Interest groups were rated lower than vendors, and political parties and mediareceived the lowest ratings. When LEOs were asked about the influence of different actors on decisions about votingsystems, the overall pattern of response was similar to that for information sources. Once again,state, local, and federal officials were judged the most influential, (20) and political parties andthe media the least, with vendors in between. An exception was that local nonelected officials wereconsidered less influential on average than vendors. Both voters and advocates for the disabled wererated as more influential on average than vendors. No LEOs rated vendors as more influential thanany other source. In contrast, 12% listed themselves as the most influential. About two-thirds ofLEOs believe that local elected officials should have more influence, about one-third that stateelected officials should, and about half believe that the federal government has too much influence. Fewer than 10% of LEOs believe that there is insufficient oversight of vendors by the federalgovernment and states, but about one in six believe that local governments do not exercise enoughoversight. About half of LEOs believe that the federal government exercises too much oversight ofvendors, about a third believe that states do, and about one in six that local governments do. As with any survey, care needs to be taken in drawing inferences from the results discussedabove. One question that could arise is whether the sample is representative of LEOs as a whole. Steps were taken in the design of the study to minimize the risk that the sample would not berepresentative. For example, simply drawing the sample at random from the nationwide pool ofelection administrators would have resulted in a disproportionately large number of jurisdictionsfrom New England and the upper Midwest, where elections are administered by townships ratherthan counties. (21) Toprevent such regional overrepresentation in the sample, no more than 150 officials were chosen tobe surveyed from each state. For states with fewer than 150 election jurisdictions, all were includedin the sample; for other states, 150 LEOs were chosen at random to be included in the sample. Overall, neither the sample design nor the characteristics of the responses suggest that the results areunrepresentative of the views and characteristics of local election officials. (22) Another potential caution for interpretation relates to the inherent limits of surveys such asthis one. In particular, there is no way to guarantee that the responses of the election officialscorrespond to their actual beliefs. In addition, there is no way to be certain that any particular beliefcorresponds to reality. The question of vendor influence provides an illustration of the possibilityfor disparity. For several reasons, LEOs might be reluctant to rate vendors as having the level ofinfluence on decisions about voting systems that they actually believe is the case. Alternatively, theymight believe that vendors have only modest influence whereas in fact the influence is much greater. The possibility of a disparity is raised in this case because LEOs indicated a very high level of trustand confidence in vendors but indicated that their influence was comparatively minor. A final caution involves how survey results might be used to inform policy decisions. Onthe one hand, the results could be used to support the shaping of policy in directions expressed byLEOs in their responses. In many cases, such policy changes might be appropriate. On the otherhand, it is possible that at least some of those desired changes would not in fact yield the mosteffective or appropriate policies. In such cases, the results might more constructively be used to helppolicymakers identify issues for which improvements in communication and understanding areneeded. The survey results may have policy implications for several issues at the federal, state, andlocal levels of government. Some issues that may be relevant for congressional deliberations arehighlighted below. Election Officials. Many observers havecommented favorably on the experience and dedication of the nation's local election officials. Survey results are consistent with that view. At the same time, other observers, including someelection officials, have called for increased professionalism in election administration. Some surveyresults suggest areas of potential professional improvement, such as in education and in professionalinvolvement at the national level. Congress could address this potential need by means such asfacilitating educational and training programs for LEOs and promoting professional certification ofelection officials by entities accredited through the EAC. The seemingly unique demographic characteristics of LEOs as a group of governmentofficials may have other policy implications, but they are not altogether clear. However, someobservers may argue that efforts should be undertaken to ensure that LEOs reflect the diversity ofthe workforce or voting population as a whole, especially with respect to minority representation. Voting Systems. Since the enactment of HAVA,controversy has arisen over whether DRE voting systems are sufficiently secure and reliable. Thesurvey revealed that LEOs who have experience with DREs are very confident in them and do notgenerally support the addition of a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) to address securityconcerns. However, LEOs using other systems are much less confident in DREs and moresupportive of VVPAT. The strongly dichotomous results suggest that as Congress considers whetherto require the use of VVPAT or similar security mechanisms, it might be useful to determine whetherDRE users are overconfident in the security of their systems or, alternatively, whether nonusers needto be better educated about the reliability and security of DRE systems. (23) The Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Thesurvey results suggest that HAVA is in the process of achieving several of its policy goals. Thegeneral support of HAVA provisions -- including those such as the creation of the EAC and theprovisional ballot requirement that have been somewhat controversial -- implies that LEOs are inagreement with the goals of the act and are active partners in its implementation. The overwhelmingchoice of new voting systems that assist voters in avoiding errors indicates that the HAVA goal ofreducing avoidable voter error is in the process of being met. The areas of concern expressed byLEOs -- such as how to meet the costs of ongoing implementation of HAVA requirements -- raiseissues that Congress may wish to address as it considers HAVA appropriations and reauthorization. The close relationship between LEOs and the vendors of their voting systems seems unlikelyto change as a result of HAVA. However, with the codification by HAVA of the voting systemstandards and certification processes, the influence of the federal government in decisions about newvoting systems might be expected to increase in relation to that of vendors and others. However, theinfluence of state elected officials seems unlikely to decline, especially given the responsibilities thatHAVA places on state governments with respect to election administration. Research Needs. Scientific opinion surveys oflocal election officials are rare, (24) and additional research may be useful to address some of thematters raised by this study. For example, a survey of state election officials might provide usefulinformation and might additionally be helpful in assessing the most appropriate federal role inpromoting the effective implementation of HAVA goals at all levels of government. One common suggestion of LEOs for improving HAVA was to provide a means of adjustingrequirements to fit the needs of smaller jurisdictions. To determine what, if any, such adjustmentswould be appropriate, it may be useful to have specific information on how the needs andcharacteristics of different jurisdictions vary with size -- something that was beyond the scope of thissurvey. It could also be useful to identify how the duties of LEOs vary with size and othercharacteristics of the jurisdiction. In many jurisdictions, election administration is only part of theLEO's job. It is not known to what degree these other responsibilities might affect electionadministration -- negatively or positively. Finally, this survey provided only one snapshot of LEO characteristics and perceptions. Itmight be beneficial to perform similar surveys periodically to identify trends and explore newquestions and issues.

Summary: There are more than 9,000 local election jurisdictions in the United States. Local electionofficials (LEOs) are responsible for administering elections in those jurisdictions. LEOs aretherefore critical to the successful implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252 ) and state election laws, but there has been little objective information on theperceptions and attitudes of those officials about election reform. This report, which will not beupdated, discusses the results of a recent scientific survey of LEOs. The findings may be useful toCongress in considering funding and possible reauthorization of HAVA. The demographic characteristics of LEOs are unusual for a group of government officials. Almost three-quarters are women, and 5% belong to minority groups. Most do not have a collegedegree, and most were elected to their positions. Some survey results suggest areas of potentialprofessional improvement, such as in education and in professional involvement at the national level. Over the past 20 years, jurisdictions have turned increasingly to computer-assisted votingsystems -- especially optical scan and direct recording electronic (DRE) systems. The mostimportant factors reported by LEOs in the acquisition of new systems are federal and staterequirements and funding. HAVA encourages but does not require systems that detect voter error,but it does require that voting machines be available that are fully accessible to persons withdisabilities. About half of jurisdictions with optical scan systems use central-count, which cannothelp voters to correct mistakes before casting the ballot. However, most jurisdictions acquiring newvoting systems are choosing either precinct-count optical scan or DREs, both of which can helpvoters avoid errors. LEOs are generally highly satisfied with whatever voting systems they are using now. Theyhave less confidence in the performance and security of other systems. DRE users generally opposethe use of voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT) for DREs, but users of other systems favor it. This result could mean that users are overconfident in DREs or that nonusers are insufficientlyknowledgeable about them. LEOs also tend to favor new systems that have characteristics similarto what they have been using -- for example, lever machine users tend to favor DREs. LEOs trustthe voting system vendors they work with but do not believe that those vendors are very influentialin decisions about acquiring new voting systems. LEOs consider themselves knowledgeable about and familiar with HAVA. They supportindividual provisions of the act, most strongly for federal funding and least strongly for provisionalballoting. To some extent, provisions rated more difficult to implement receive less support. MostLEOs believe that HAVA has resulted in some improvement in elections in their jurisdictions. Those rating HAVA higher overall tend to be younger, more comfortable with technology, and morefamiliar with the act. The areas for improvement of HAVA most commonly listed are federalfunding and the requirements for registration, voter identification, and provisional balloting.