The deadlocked November 2000 presidential election focused national attention on previously obscure details of election administration. Even before the U.S. Supreme Court decision resolving that election, more than a dozen bills had been introduced in the 106 th Congress to address the issues with voting systems, voter registration, and other aspects of election administration that the deadlock had exposed. Legislative activity continued when the 107 th Congress convened, along with the release of various independent reports and studies on election reform. In December 2001, the House passed H.R. 3295 , the Help America Vote Act, with no floor amendments. The Senate passed S. 565 , the Martin Luther King, Jr. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act, in early 2002, after adopting 40 amendments. Following conference negotiations, the compromise bill, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252 ), was enacted in October. HAVA, for the first time, provided major federal funding to the states for the purpose of purchasing more modern voting equipment and for improving various aspects of election administration highlighted in the controversial 2000 Presidential election cycle. In addition, HAVA imposed a number of requirements on the states with respect to election administration, created a new independent agency, made some changes to improve military and overseas voting, and authorized other election reform activities. Among its major provisions, HAVA did the following: It established payment and grant programs to help states meet the law's requirements; replace punchcard and lever voting machines and make general election improvements; promote accessibility in the electoral process; promote student participation; and support research and pilot programs. It created the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent, bipartisan agency to carry out payment and grant programs, provide for testing and certification of voting systems, study election issues, and assist state and local election officials by issuing guidelines and other guidance for voting systems and implementation of the act's requirements, in consultation with election officials and other stakeholders. It established requirements in the states to provide a provisional ballot to a voter who is not on the registration list or whose registration is in question; post a sample ballot and voter information at polling places on election day; restate the requirement for first time voters who registered by mail, to vote in person (first required by the National Voter Registration Act, NVRA) and impose a new voter identification standard; provide for voter error correction on voting systems used in federal elections; provide accessibility for persons with disabilities via at least one properly equipped voting machine per polling place; provide for manual auditing of the voting system and alternative-language accessibility; and create and maintain a computerized, verified statewide voter registration list. In addition, HAVA required the EAC to develop voting system guidelines for computer hardware and software for voluntary use by the states, and voluntary guidance to assist states in meeting HAVA requirements; left methods of implementation to the states and prohibited rulemaking by the EAC, leaving enforcement to the U.S. Attorney General while requiring states to establish grievance procedures; and amended the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) to make improvements to voting procedures for members of the military and overseas citizens. Although many bills have been introduced to amend HAVA since it became law, only a minor change has been enacted. In 2009, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act) established new military and overseas voting requirements under UOCAVA. It also amended HAVA to authorize appropriations to achieve compliance with those requirements. In general, local election officials (LEOs) have supported HAVA and its provisions, although some, such as the provisional ballot requirement, were initially controversial. A number of the issues raised during the legislative debate on HAVA have resurfaced subsequently, and some new ones have emerged. Topics and issues discussed in this report include the role of the EAC, HAVA funding and requirements, voter registration, voter identification, UOCAVA, the Voting Rights Act, and election technology, including cybersecurity. The report also discusses relevant legislative activity in the 114 th Congress. Before HAVA, federal activities relating to election administration were performed by the Office of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). OEA provided assistance in developing voluntary standards for voting systems and performed clearinghouse functions and some administrative activities under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA—also called the "motor-voter" law— P.L. 103-31 ). HAVA replaced the OEA with the Election Assistance Commission (EAC, http://www.eac.gov ), an independent, bipartisan federal agency. The act also established two EAC boards, with broad-based state and local membership. The Standards Board was designed to have 55 state election officials and 55 local election officials. The Board of Advisors was designed to have 37 members representing various associations, such as the National Governors Association and National Association of State Election Directors, as well as the Justice Department, the Federal Voting Assistance Program at the Department of Defense, and a number of science and technology professionals recommended by U.S. House and Senate leadership. HAVA also established the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, chaired by the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), with members jointly appointed by the EAC and NIST, to address aspects of voting system technical standards and certification. The statute also provides for technical support and participation by NIST (see http://vote.nist.gov/ ). The EAC carries out grant programs, provides for testing and certification of voting systems, studies election issues, and issues voluntary guidelines for voting systems and guidance for the requirements in the act. The EAC has no rule-making authority (except for limited authority under the NVRA) and does not enforce HAVA requirements. The act established two enforcement processes: The U.S. Attorney General may bring civil action with respect to HAVA requirements, and states, as a condition for receipt of funds, were required to establish administrative grievance procedures to handle complaints from individuals. At the time HAVA was being debated in Congress, there was some dispute about whether it should be a permanent agency. Some supporters contended that a permanent agency was necessary to ensure the fairness and integrity of federal elections, whereas opponents were concerned about a permanent federal role in what was historically a responsibility of state and local governments. The outcome of the debate was that HAVA authorized appropriations for the EAC only for FY2003 through FY2005, but it did not contain a sunset provision for the agency. Bills have been introduced subsequently both to reauthorize the EAC and to eliminate it, but none has been enacted. Since FY2005, the agency has continued to receive funding each year through the appropriations process, pursuant to its enabling authorization. One of the agency's prominent critics has been the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS). In most states, the Secretary of State is the chief election official. NASS first called for elimination of the EAC in a 2005 resolution encouraging Congress "not to reauthorize or fund the EAC after the conclusion of the 2006 federal general election," expressing concerns that the EAC not be allowed "to evolve into a regulatory body" and that the agency had "served its purpose" under HAVA. The association reaffirmed that resolution at its July 2010 summer conference and again at its July 2015 summer meeting. Local election officials appear to be more supportive. Three surveys of local election officials taken in 2004, 2006, and 2008 all found that a majority of officials believed that the EAC was advantageous for their jurisdictions. Several bills affecting the EAC's authorization have been introduced in recent Congresses. Some bills have called for the termination of the agency. Those included H.R. 3463 in the 112 th Congress, which was passed in the House, and H.R. 1994 in the 113 th Congress, which was reported by the Committee on House Administration. In addition, two bills that would have reauthorized the EAC were introduced. None of those bills received further action. In the 114 th Congress, H.R. 195 would eliminate the EAC and transfer its functions to the FEC. It was ordered to be reported by the Committee on House Administration on a voice vote on March 4, 2015. An amendment was offered to reauthorize the agency through FY2020 and was defeated on a voice vote. H.R. 12 and S. 3309 would reauthorize the agency through FY2019. HAVA established the EAC as a bipartisan agency with four commissioners nominated by the President with recommendations from the majority and minority leadership in the House and the Senate. No more than two commissioners can be from the same party. Commissioners must have experience or expertise relating to election administration and are appointed for a term of four years, renewable once. Commission actions require the approval of at least three members. The commission had such a quorum from December 2003 to December 2010 ( Table 1 ). All positions were vacant from December 2011 to January 2015, when three new commissioners were sworn in. An additional nomination was made in April 2016. A broad consensus emerged after the 2000 election that resolving the problems that were encountered would require a range of solutions that addressed diverse issues. As a result, HAVA facilitated replacement of obsolete voting technology—especially punchcard and lever-machine voting systems—and other improvements. As discussed below, the act established technical requirements for voting systems and voter registration lists, as well as mechanisms for developing and updating technical standards for voting systems, certifying systems against those standards, and providing guidance to the states. But the act also stimulated controversy about election technology and other issues in election administration. Many of those issues remain part of the current policy debate, and some have taken on new urgency in light of developments relating especially to cybersecurity. See " Election Administration Issues since HAVA " for discussion of several of those issues. States have various practices and requirements for voting systems.