The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA): Overview and Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy

October 28, 2021 – October 5, 2022 R46949

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA):
October 5, 2022
Overview and Ongoing Role in Election
Karen L. Shanton
Administration Policy
Analyst in American
National Government
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was enacted in response to issues with the

administration of the 2000 elections. The highest-profile problems in 2000 were in Florida—
where disputes about the vote count delayed the resolution of the presidential race for weeks—
For a copy of the full report,
but post-election hearings and reports identified issues with various aspects of election
please call 7-5700 or visit
www.crs.gov.
administration across multiple states.
Congress’s response to those findings, in HAVA, spanned a correspondingly wide range of elections topics. It took three
main approaches to the issues. First, it set requirements for the administration of federal elections. Some states and localities
had adopted policies or technologies before the 2000 elections that may have helped them avoid problems faced by other
jurisdictions in 2000, and other policy proposals were offered in post-2000 hearings and reports. HAVA was designed, in
part, to standardize use of some of those policies and technologies in federal elections. Title III of the act set new federal
requirements for voting systems, provisional voting, voting information, statewide voter registration databases, voter
identification, and the federal mail voter registration form created by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).
Second, HAVA authorized the first major federal grant programs for elections. Complying with HAVA’s Title III
requirements involved significant financial investments for many states and localities. There were also other post-2000
changes to election processes—not addressed by the HAVA requirements—that states and localities wanted or needed to
make. Congress authorized a pair of general grant programs in HAVA to help states meet the act’s Title III requirements and
make certain general improvements to election administration. HAVA also authorized more specialized grant programs to
facilitate or incentivize action on voting technology, disability access, youth voter participation, and poll worker recruitment.
Third, HAVA provided for creation of the election administration-dedicated U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Federal agency support for the general administration of elections was provided in 2000 by a small office at the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) known as the Office of Election Administration (OEA). The scope of the issues with the conduct
of the 2000 elections prompted calls for an expanded federal agency role in elections. Some proposed assigning any new
responsibilities to the existing OEA, while others wanted to create a new agency that would be fully dedicated to election
administration. There was also debate about whether a new elections agency should have the authority to issue regulations.
Congress struck a balance in HAVA by providing for a new agency, the EAC, but positioning it as a support agency.
HAVA and the agency it created have continued to play a central role in congressional engagement with election
administration issues since the act’s enactment in 2002. Congress responded to foreign interference in the 2016 elections and
the emergence of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the 2020 election cycle, for example, with new
funding for one of HAVA’s grant programs. Members have also introduced legislation to revisit HAVA or the EAC or to
extend them to new aspects of election administration.
The ongoing role of HAVA in federal elections policymaking is partly a result of two distinctive features of the act. HAVA
was (1) more wide-ranging in the topics it aimed to address than elections measures Congress had tended to approve in the
recent past, with (2) a greater emphasis on federal assistance for states and localities. Other recent federal election laws had
tended primarily to set requirements and to focus on particular aspects of election administration or access to the electoral
process for particular groups of voters. HAVA, by contrast, spans multiple issues and voter groups and pairs its requirements
with grant programs and the assistance-oriented EAC. Those features have made HAVA and the EAC common choices of
vehicles for proposals to set new federal standards for election administration or provide new federal support for elections.
Ongoing congressional engagement with HAVA can also be traced, in part, to interest in revisiting the act. There was broad
agreement during the HAVA debate that Congress should consider a legislative response to the problems with the conduct of
the 2000 elections but disagreement about exactly what that legislative response should look like. Compromises struck in
HAVA did not necessarily resolve the underlying disagreements, and new developments since 2002—both due to HAVA and
independently of it—have changed the election administration landscape. As a result, some Members have proposed
revisiting HAVA’s treatment of particular elections issues or the structure of the act or the agency it created.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 12 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Introduction
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) was
enacted in response to issues with the administration of the 2000 elections. The highest-profile
problems in 2000 were in Florida—where disputes about the vote count delayed the resolution of
the presidential race for weeks—but post-election hearings and reports identified issues with
various aspects of election administration across multiple states.1
Congress’s response to those findings, in HAVA, spanned a correspondingly wide range of
elections topics, from voting systems to voter identification to the accessibility of the electoral
process to individuals with disabilities. HAVA took three main approaches to the issues: (1)
setting requirements for the administration of federal elections, (2) authorizing the first major
federal grant programs for elections, and (3) providing for creation of the election administration-
dedicated U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
HAVA and the agency it created have continued to play a central role in congressional
engagement with election administration issues since the act’s enactment in 2002. Congress
responded to foreign interference in the 2016 elections and the emergence of the Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the 2020 election cycle, for example, with new funding
for one of HAVA’s grant programs.2 Members have also introduced legislation to revisit HAVA or
the EAC or to extend them to new aspects of election administration.
This report provides an overview of HAVA and the ongoing role the act has played in policy
discussions about election administration. It starts by describing major provisions of HAVA and
then summarizes proposals to revisit or extend the act or the agency it created. The report closes
by briefly introducing some considerations that might be relevant to discussions of any future role
for HAVA in federal policymaking on election administration.
Note on Terminology
HAVA defines “state” as including the 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), American Samoa,
Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.3 Congress has considered proposals to expand
the definition to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), but none
of those proposals has been enacted as of this writing.4

1 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology
Project, July 2001, at https://vote.caltech.edu/reports/1; The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To
Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, August 2001, at https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/10/NCFER_2001.pdf; and U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Elections: Perspectives on
Activities and Challenges Across the Nation, GAO-02-3, October 2001, at https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d023.pdf.
2 P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-93; and P.L. 116-136.
3 52 U.S.C. §21141. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) was not included in HAVA’s
definition of “state” because it did not hold federal elections when HAVA was enacted in 2002. Testimony of the
Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, in U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on
Elections, Voting Rights and Election Administration in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Other Territories, hearing, 116th
Cong., 2nd sess., July 28, 2020, p. 2.
4 See, for example, the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093) and the Voter Empowerment Act of 2021
(H.R. 2358/S. 954). The Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) Program Inclusion Act (P.L. 117-182)
extended eligibility for one of HAVA’s grant programs to the protection and advocacy (P&A) systems serving CNMI
and Native Americans in the Four Corners region of the country (American Indian consortium). Some appropriations
acts have also included language extending eligibility for certain other HAVA funding to CNMI. For more on those
acts, see Table 2 of this report and CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 26 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

This report generally follows HAVA’s usage of the term. Where the narrower meaning of “state”
is intended, the report uses the phrase “the 50 states.”
Overview of Major Provisions
A defining image of the 2000 elections was a picture of a member of a Florida county canvassing
board inspecting a punch card ballot with a magnifying glass.5 Florida’s closely contested race
would decide the 2000 presidential election. One of the issues highlighted by litigation and
recounts in the state was the challenge of interpreting incompletely punched “hanging chads” and
“dimpled chads” left by the punch card voting machines used in some Florida counties.6
Hearings and reporting on the 2000 elections emphasized, however, that the election
administration problems in 2000 were not limited to Florida or to punch card voting machines.7
Those investigations identified other problems with voting systems. The lever voting machines
used in some jurisdictions in 2000 could jam, for example, and did not produce paper trails that
could be used to reconstruct votes cast on a jammed machine.8 Confusing ballot formats
contributed to high rates of “overvoting”—or making more selections for a given contest than
permitted—in some counties.9
The investigations also revealed problems with other aspects of the administration of the 2000
elections, beyond voting systems. Eligible voters who had been erroneously removed from the
voter registration rolls were turned away from the polls in some states, for example.10
Representatives of military and overseas citizens and of individuals with disabilities and older
individuals reported particular obstacles to registration and voting by members of those groups.11
Congress took three main approaches, in HAVA, to responding to issues highlighted by the 2000
elections: (1) setting requirements for the administration of federal elections, (2) authorizing
elections grant programs, and (3) expanding agency support for election administration through
creation of the EAC.12

and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton.
5 See, for example, Robert Rosenberg, “‘I Had to Examine Every Disputed Ballot’: George W Bush v Al Gore, Florida,
2000,” The Guardian, July 1, 2016, at https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jul/01/disputed-ballot-george-
w-bush-al-gore-florida-recount-2000.
6 See, for example, Samantha Levine, “Hanging Chads: As the Florida Recount Implodes, the Supreme Court Decides
Bush v. Gore,” January 17, 2008, at https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/the-legacy-of-hanging-chads.
7 See, for example, The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the
Electoral Process, p. 18; and GAO, Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation, pp. 24-25.
8 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, p. 6.
9 See, for example, Alan Agresti and Brett Presnell, “Misvotes, Undervotes and Overvotes: The 2000 Presidential
Election in Florida,” Statistical Science, vol. 17, no. 4 (2002), pp. 438-439.
10 See, for example, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential
Election, June 2001, at https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs, Federal Election Practices and Procedures, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 2001.
11 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Department of Defense Voting Assistance and Military Absentee Ballot Issues, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 9, 2001
(Washington: GPO, 2001); and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Election Reform,
hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-1036 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003).
12 The following three subsections of this report provide an overview of major provisions of the act by type of
provision. For an overview of major provisions of HAVA by issue area, see Appendix A.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 link to page 31 link to page 7 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Requirements
Some states and localities had adopted policies or technologies before the 2000 elections that may
have helped them avoid problems faced by other jurisdictions in 2000. Voting systems that alerted
voters to multiple selections for a single office reportedly reduced overvoting in some cases, for
example, and statewide voter registration databases may have helped election officials in some
states maintain more accurate voter rolls.13 Provisional voting policies, which enabled voters
whose eligibility was challenged at the polls to cast provisional ballots, may have helped mitigate
some of the effects of voter registration list maintenance errors.14
Other policy proposals were offered in post-2000 hearings and reports. Technology experts
suggested setting national standards for voting system auditability, for example, and the U.S.
Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), among others,
proposed changes to military and overseas voting processes.15
HAVA was designed, in part, to standardize use of some of those policies and technologies in
federal elections. Title VII of the act amended existing law to incorporate some of the proposed
changes to military and overseas voting, and Title III set requirements for other aspects of the
conduct of federal elections. The Title III requirements are briefly summarized below. For details
of those requirements and the Title VII provisions, respectively, see Table 1 and Appendix B.16
 Voting systems. Require each state to set uniform standards for what counts as a vote
on each type of voting system it uses, and require voting systems to offer voters the
opportunity to check and correct their ballots; notify voters about overvoting;
produce a manually auditable permanent paper record; provide for accessibility for
individuals with disabilities; satisfy alternative language requirements of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (VRA; P.L. 89-110), as amended; and meet specified error rate
standards.
 Provisional voting. Require election officials to permit certain voters, including
voters whose names do not appear on the voter rolls, to cast provisional ballots; count
provisional ballots cast by voters who are found to be eligible under state law to vote;
and provide voters with specified options for checking the status of their provisional
ballots.
(Section continues following Table 1.)

13 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, S. 368 and Election
Reform, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), pp. 40-41; and Electionline, Election
Reform: What’s Changed, What Hasn't and Why, 2000-2006, February 2006, p. 19, at https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/
media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/election_reform/electionline022006pdf.pdf.
14 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Help America Vote Act of 2001, report
to accompany H.R. 3295, 107th Cong., 1st sess., December 10, 2001, H.Rept. 107-329 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001),
pp. 37-39; and Electionline, Election Reform: What’s Changed, What Hasn't and Why, 2000-2006, p. 32. For more on
voter registration list maintenance, see CRS Report R46943, Voter Registration Records and List Maintenance for
Federal Elections, by Sarah J. Eckman.
15 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, p. 24; Democratic Caucus Special
Committee on Election Reform, Revitalizing Our Nation’s Election System, pp. 79-80, at https://web.archive.org/web/
20011108222052/http:/housedemocrats.house.gov/documents/electionreformreport.pdf; The National Commission on
Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, pp. 42-43; and U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Department of Defense Voting Assistance
and Military Absentee Ballot Issues.
16 For more on military and overseas voting in general, see CRS In Focus IF11642, Absentee Voting for Uniformed
Services and Overseas Citizens: Roles and Process, In Brief, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report RS20764, The
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues, by R. Sam Garrett.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9
Table 1. Requirements for Federal Elections Established by Title III of HAVA

Effective Date
Requirements
Voting Systems
January 1, 2006
Require voting systems to permit voters privately and independently to verify and change or correct their
52 U.S.C. §21081
ballots before they are cast and counted; notify voters who have selected more than one candidate for a single
office that they have overvoted, inform them of the effects of overvoting, and provide an opportunity to
correct the ballot before it is cast and counted;a produce a manually auditable permanent paper record that is
available as an official record for recounts, and permit voters to change or correct their ballots before the
manually auditable permanent paper record is produced; be accessible to individuals with disabilities in a
manner that provides them the same opportunity for access and participation as other voters, through use of
at least one direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system or other accessible voting system at each pol ing
place;b provide alternative language accessibility as required by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
(VRA), as amended; and comply with the error rate standards established by Section 3.2.1 of the Federal
Election Commission’s (FEC’s) 1990 Voting Systems Standards.
Require each state to adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards for what constitutes and wil be counted
as a vote for each type of voting system it uses.
Provisional Votingc
January 1, 2004
Require individuals who do not appear on the official list of eligible voters or whose eligibility to vote is
52 U.S.C. §§21082(a),(c)
otherwise challenged by an election official to be permitted to cast a provisional ballot if they provide written
affirmation that they are registered in the jurisdiction and eligible to vote in the election.
Require election officials to notify eligible individuals that they may cast a provisional bal ot; transmit
provisional ballots to the appropriate officials for prompt verification; count provisional ballots cast by
individuals they find to be eligible under state law to vote; establish a free access system individuals can use to
check the status of their provisional ballots; provide individuals who cast provisional ballots with written
information about the free access system; and establish and maintain procedures to protect the security,
confidentiality, and integrity of personal information col ected, stored, or otherwise used by the free access
system.
Require individuals who vote during certain extended pol ing place hours to cast provisional rather than
regular ballots, and require those ballots to be held apart from other provisional ballots.d
Voting Information
January 1, 2004
Require election officials to post the fol owing information at the pol s: a sample ballot; information about the
52 U.S.C. §21082(b)
date of the election and pol ing place hours; instructions for how to vote, including how to cast a vote and a
provisional ballot; instructions about HAVA’s requirements for mail-in registrants and first-time voters; general
information about federal and state voting rights, including information about the right to cast a provisional
ballot and how to report violations of voting rights; and general information about federal and state
prohibitions on fraud and misrepresentation.
CRS-4

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9

Effective Date
Requirements
Statewide Voter Registration
January 1, 2004f
Require states to implement a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter
Databasese
registration list that is defined, maintained, and administered at the state level; includes the name and
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)
registration information of all registered voters in the state; assigns each registered voter a unique identifier;
and can be immediately electronically accessed by any election official in the state.
Require coordination of the statewide voter registration list with other agency databases in the state.
Require voter registration information obtained by local election officials to be electronically entered into the
list on an expedited basis, and require chief state election officials to provide any support required to facilitate
expeditious entry of such information.
Require election officials to comply with provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)
when removing individuals from the list and coordinate the list with state agency records on felony status and
death for purposes of removing ineligible voters from the list.g
Require list maintenance under the above provisions to be conducted in a manner that ensures that the name
of each registered voter appears in the computerized list, only voters who are not registered or are ineligible
to vote are removed from the list, and duplicate names are removed from the list.
Require state or local officials to provide adequate technological security measures to prevent unauthorized
access to the statewide voter registration list.
Require provisions to ensure that voter registration records are accurate and regularly updated, including
reasonable efforts to remove registrants who are not eligible to vote and safeguards against erroneous
removal of eligible voters.
Require voter registration applicants who have a current and valid driver’s license number or Social Security
number to provide the license number or the last four digits of the Social Security number with their
registration applications, and require states to verify the information applicants provide.
Require states to assign unique identifying numbers to voter registration applicants who have not been issued a
current and valid license or Social Security number.
Require the official responsible for the state motor vehicle authority of each state to enter into data-matching
agreements with the chief state election official of the state and the Commissioner of Social Security for
purposes of verifying the accuracy of information provided on voter registration applications.h
Voter Identification
January 1, 2004i
Require individuals who registered by mail, have not previously voted in a federal election in the state, and do
52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(1)-(3)
not meet certain conditions to present one of a specified list of types of identification at the pol s (if voting in
person) or include a copy of such identification with their ballot (if voting by mail).j
Require individuals who fail to meet the voter identification requirement to be permitted to cast a provisional
ballot or have their mail ballot counted as a provisional ballot.
CRS-5

Effective Date
Requirements
Federal Mail Voter Registration
January 1, 2004i
Require the federal mail voter registration form to include questions about citizenship status and age and
Form
boxes for applicants to check in response, a statement that voters who check “no” in response to either of the
52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(4)
questions should not complete the form, and a statement informing applicants who are registering for the first
time by mail that identification information must be submitted with the registration form to avoid additional
identification requirements when voting for the first time.
Require registrars to notify individuals who fail to answer the citizenship question that they did not answer the
question and provide them with an opportunity to complete the form.
Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code.
Notes: The requirements in this table apply to elections for federal office. The voting systems standards, for example, are for systems used in federal elections.
a. Jurisdictions that use paper ballot, punch card, or central count voting systems can meet this requirement by creating a voter education program that informs voters
of the effects of overvoting and providing voters with instructions for correcting overvotes before their ballots are cast and counted.
b. Voting systems purchased with requirements payments made available on or after January 1, 2007, are required to meet HAVA’s standards for disability access.
c. States that have not required voter registration on and since August 1, 1994, or that have permitted same-day registration on and since August 1, 1994, can use
their existing voter registration procedures to satisfy HAVA’s provisional voting requirements.
d. HAVA also requires that individuals who do not meet its voter identification requirement be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. For more on that requirement, see
the “Voter Identification” section of this table.
e. HAVA’s statewide voter registration database requirements do not apply to North Dakota, which does not require voter registration.
f.
HAVA provided for this deadline to be extended to January 1, 2006, for states or jurisdictions that certified to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) by
January 1, 2004, that they would not meet the original deadline for good cause.
g. HAVA indicates that states that have not required voter registration on and since August 1, 1994, or that have permitted same-day registration on and since August
1, 1994, should fol ow their state laws for removing ineligible voters from their voter registration lists rather than the HAVA requirements.
h. Compliance with this requirement and the above two requirements is optional for states that are permitted to use Social Security numbers—and that provide for
use of Social Security numbers—on voter registration applications in accordance with Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579).
i.
HAVA indicates that these requirements apply to any individual who registers on or after January 1, 2003.
j.
The relevant conditions are (1) registering to vote by mail under Section 6 of the NVRA and submitting a copy of acceptable identification with the registration; (2)
registering to vote by mail under Section 6 of the NVRA, submitting a driver’s license number or at least the last four digits of a Social Security number with the
registration, and having the submitted information matched by an election official to an existing state identification record with the same number, name, and date of
birth; or (3) being entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) or to vote other than in
person under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 (VAEHA; P.L. 98-435) or any other federal law.
CRS-6

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

 Voting information. Require election officials to post the following information at
the polls: a sample ballot, the date of the election, polling place hours, instructions for
voting and for complying with HAVA’s requirements for mail registrants and first-
time voters, and general information about voting rights and prohibitions on fraud
and misrepresentation.
 Statewide voter registration databases. Require states to implement centralized,
computerized statewide voter registration lists and follow specified procedures for
maintaining them.17
 Voter identification. Require certain first-time voters who register by mail to
provide one of a specified list of types of identification in order to cast a regular
ballot.
 Federal mail voter registration form. Require questions about citizenship and age
and statements about the new questions and HAVA’s voter ID requirement to be
added to the federal mail voter registration form established by the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA; P.L. 103-31; 52 U.S.C. §§20501-20511), and
require election officials to offer voters who fail to answer the citizenship question an
opportunity to complete the form.
HAVA left decisions about how to implement—and, to a certain extent, enforce—its Title III
requirements to the states. The act directed the EAC to issue voluntary guidance for
implementing the Title III requirements but left states discretion over exactly how to meet them.18
It assigned federal enforcement of the requirements to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) but
routed action by individual voters on violations through state-based administrative complaint
procedures19 rather than an explicit private right of action.20
Grant Programs
Complying with HAVA’s Title III requirements involved significant financial investments for
many states and localities. There were also other post-2000 changes to election processes—not
addressed by the HAVA requirements—that states and localities wanted or needed to make.
Congress accounted for both of those circumstances, in HAVA, with a pair of general grant
programs that were designed to help states meet HAVA’s Title III requirements and make certain
general improvements to election administration.
HAVA also authorized grant programs to facilitate or incentivize action on specific issues or
policy proposals, such as replacing lever and punch card voting systems. Those more specialized
grant programs included programs related to voting technology, disability access, youth voter
participation, and poll worker recruitment.

17 For more on voter registration list maintenance, see CRS Report R46943, Voter Registration Records and List
Maintenance for Federal Elections, by Sarah J. Eckman.
18 52 U.S.C. §§21101-21102 and 52 U.S.C. §21085.
19 52 U.S.C. §§21111-21112. HAVA requires states that receive funding under any of its grant programs to establish a
state-based administrative complaint procedure. That requirement applies to all states in practice because all have
received HAVA funding.
20 Unlike some other federal statutes, such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), HAVA does not
provide for an explicit private right to sue for violations of its requirements. The question of whether there is a private
right of action for any of HAVA’s Title III requirements on other grounds has been the subject of litigation and
academic debate. For a discussion of that issue, see Daniel P. Tokaji, “Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The
Enforcement of Federal Election Laws,” Indiana Law Review, vol. 44, no. 113 (2010).
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 12 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Each of the grant programs authorized by HAVA is summarized below. Information about the
funding Congress has authorized and appropriated for each program as of this writing is available
in Table 2. For more on federal elections grant programs in general, see CRS Report R46646,
Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton.
 Requirements payments program. Grants to states for meeting requirements for the
administration of federal elections. Administered by the EAC.21 States are required
by HAVA to provide a match for funding they receive under this program and a state
plan for use of the funds.22 Funding was initially authorized for this grant program
primarily for helping states comply with HAVA’s Title III requirements.23 The
Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 amended HAVA to
authorize additional funding for the program to help states meet new requirements for
military and overseas voting established by the MOVE Act.24
 General improvements grant program. Grants to states for making certain general
improvements to election administration.25 Administered by the U.S. General
Services Administration (GSA) and the EAC.26
 Lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program. Grants to states
that used lever or punch card voting systems in the November 2000 election for
replacing those systems. Administered by GSA and the EAC. States that accepted
funding under this grant program were required to either replace all of their lever and
punch card voting systems by a deadline specified by HAVA or repay a portion of the
funds they received.27
 Voting technology improvements research grant program. Grants for researching
and developing improvements to the quality, reliability, accuracy, accessibility,

21 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) authorized the U.S. General Services Administration
(GSA) to make requirements payments while the EAC was being established but provided for expiration of that
authority by the earlier of (1) June 30, 2004, or (2) the end of the three-month period after appointment of all members
of the EAC.
22 52 U.S.C. §21003. The match amount is “5 percent of the total amount to be spent for [activities for which the
requirements payment is made] (taking into account the requirements payment and the amount spent by the State).”
23 52 U.S.C. §21001. States could also use requirements payments for more general improvements to the administration
of federal elections if they had already met the Title III requirements or limited their spending on such activities to a
specified amount.
24 52 U.S.C. §21001. The MOVE Act was enacted as Subtitle H of Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84).
25 HAVA lists specific permissible uses of this grant funding. The listed uses are complying with HAVA’s Title III
requirements; improving the administration of federal elections; educating voters about voting procedures, rights, and
technology; training election officials and volunteers; developing the state plan for requirements payments; improving,
acquiring, or modifying voting systems and technology and vote casting and counting methods; improving polling
place accessibility and quantity; and establishing toll-free hotlines for reporting voting fraud and rights violations and
accessing election information (52 U.S.C. §20901).
26 HAVA assigned initial responsibility for administering the general improvements and lever and punch card voting
system replacement grant programs to GSA but authority for overseeing audits and repayments of the funds to the EAC
(52 U.S.C. §§20901-20906 and 52 U.S.C. §21142). The EAC has also been charged with administering the funding
Congress appropriated under the general improvements grant program for FY2018, FY2020, and FY2022 (P.L. 115-
141; P.L. 116-93; P.L. 116-136; and P.L. 117-103).
27 52 U.S.C. §20902. The deadline for replacing voting systems was originally the regularly scheduled federal general
election in November 2004, with an optional waiver to the first federal election after January 1, 2006. Congress
extended the waiver deadline twice (P.L. 110-28 and P.L. 111-8). The final deadline was the first federal election after
November 1, 2010.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

affordability, and security of election systems. Administered by the EAC with support
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).28
 Voting technology pilot program grant program. Grants for conducting pilot
programs to test new voting technologies and implement them on a trial basis.
Administered by the EAC with support from NIST.
 Polling place accessibility grant program. Grants to states and localities for
improving the accessibility of polling places and sharing information about polling
place accessibility. Administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).29
 Protection and advocacy (P&A) system grant program. Grants to P&A systems—
state-level systems charged with empowering and advocating for individuals with
disabilities—for conducting activities related to electoral access for individuals with
disabilities. Administered by HHS.30
 Mock elections grant program. Grants for conducting voter education activities for
students and their parents. Administered by the EAC.
 Help America Vote College Program. Grant-making, among other program
activities, for encouraging students at institutions of higher education to serve as poll
workers and election officials to use their services. Administered by the EAC. HAVA
also authorized creation of a Help America Vote Foundation to perform a similar
function for secondary school students, although the act’s description of the
foundation does not explicitly list grant-making among its authorized activities.31
Table 2. Funding Authorized and Appropriated for HAVA Grant Programs
(as of the publication date of this report)
Grant Program
Amounts Authorized by HAVAa
Amounts Appropriated
Requirements payments
FY2003: $1.4 bil ion
FY2003: $830.0 mil ion
program
FY2004: $1.0 bil ion
FY2004: $1.5 bil ionc
52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008
FY2005: $600.0 mil ion
FY2008: $115.0 mil ion
FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years:
FY2009: $100.0 mil ion
Such sums as may be necessaryb
FY2010: $70.0 mil ion
FY2011:d
General improvements grant
FY2003: $650.0 mil ion (for
program
$650.0 mil ion (to be divided evenly
combination of general
between the two grant programs)
52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906
improvements grant program and

28 HAVA charged NIST with recommending topics for projects funded under this grant program and the voting
technology pilot program grant program as well as reviewing grant applications for both grant programs and, on EAC
request, monitoring grant activities (52 U.S.C. §21041 and 52 U.S.C. §21051).
29 As authorized, HAVA’s polling place accessibility grant program was available to localities. However, the
appropriations acts that have funded the program have limited grant funds to states. See, for example, P.L. 108-7.
30 As initially authorized by HAVA, this grant program was available to the P&A systems serving the 50 states, DC,
American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The PAVA Program Inclusion Act extended
eligibility for the program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium.
31 President George W. Bush named nominees to the Help America Vote Foundation’s board of directors on July 9,
2004. The White House, “Personnel Announcement,” press release, July 9, 2004, at https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/07/text/20040709-6.html. CRS has not been able to locate additional
information about activities of the foundation.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Grant Program
Amounts Authorized by HAVAa
Amounts Appropriated
Lever and punch card voting
lever and punch card voting system
system replacement grant
replacement grant program)e
program
FY2018: $380.0 mil ion (for general
52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906
improvements grant program)f
FY2020: $825.0 mil ion (for general
improvements grant program)f,g,h
FY2022: $75 mil ion (for general
improvements grant program)h
Voting technology
FY2003: $20.0 mil ion
FY2009: $5.0 mil ion
improvements research grant
FY2010: $3.0 mil ion
program
52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043
Voting technology pilot program
FY2003: $10.0 mil ion
FY2009: $1.0 mil ion
grant program
FY2010: $2.0 mil ion
52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053
Pol ing place accessibility grant
FY2003: $50.0 mil ion
FY2003: $13.0 mil ion
program
FY2004: $25.0 mil ion
FY2004: $10.0 mil ion
52 U.S.C. §§21021-21025
FY2005: $25.0 mil ion
FY2005: $10.0 mil ion
FY2006: $11.0 mil ion
FY2007:i
FY2008: $12.4 mil ion
FY2009: $12.2 mil ion
FY2010: $12.2 mil ion
FY2011:i
FY2014-FY2022:j
Protection and advocacy (P&A)
FY2003: $10.0 mil ion
FY2003: $2.0 mil ion
system grant programk
FY2004: $10.0 mil ion
FY2004: $5.0 mil ion
52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062
FY2005: $10.0 mil ion
FY2005: $5.0 mil ion
FY2006: $10.0 mil ion
FY2006: $4.9 mil ion
Subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as
FY2007:i
may be necessary
FY2008: $5.4 mil ion
FY2009: $5.3 mil ion
FY2010: $5.3 mil ion
FY2011:i
FY2012: $5.2 mil ion
FY2013: $5.2 mil ion
FY2014-FY2022:j
Mock elections grant program
FY2003: $200,000
FY2004: $200,000l
52 U.S.C. §§21071-21072
Subsequent six fiscal years: Such sums FY2005: $200,000l
as may be necessary
FY2008: $200,000
FY2009: $300,000
FY2010: $300,000
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Grant Program
Amounts Authorized by HAVAa
Amounts Appropriated
Help America Vote Col ege
FY2003: $5.0 mil ion
FY2003: $1.5 mil ion
Programm
Subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as
FY2004: $750,000l
52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123
may be necessary
FY2005: $200,000l
FY2006:n
FY2008: $750,000l
FY2009: $750,000
FY2010: $750,000
Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code and relevant appropriations measures.
Notes: Figures are rounded and do not account for rescissions or sequestration reductions.
a. Authorized amounts are listed here as they are presented in statutory language.
b. Appropriations for the requirements payments program for FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years were
authorized only for complying with requirements established by the Military and Overseas Voter
Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009.
c. Report language accompanying the FY2004 appropriations act (H.Rept. 108-401; P.L. 108-199) indicated that
$750,000 of this funding was for the Help America Vote Foundation, $750,000 was for the Help America
Vote Col ege Program, and $200,000 was for the National Student Parent Mock Election.
d. HAVA required states that had not replaced all of their lever and punch card voting systems by the relevant
deadline to return some of the funds they received under this grant program and directed the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) to redistribute the returned funds as requirements payments. The EAC
made some funding for requirements payments available for FY2011 from returned funds. EAC,
Memorandum Re: 2011 Requirements Payments Disbursements, May 13, 2014, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/
default/files/eac_assets/1/6/
Instructions_for_Requesting_FY_2011_Requirements_Payments_Memo.2014.pdf.
e. The FY2003 appropriations resolution (P.L. 108-7) did not specify a distribution of appropriations between
these two grant programs. It indicated that some of the funding—not to exceed $500,000—was to be
available to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) for expenses associated with administering the
funds.
f.
The $380 mil ion appropriated under this program for FY2018 was provided by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), and $425 mil ion of the $825 mil ion appropriated for FY2020 was
provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93). Explanatory statements
accompanying those two appropriations acts listed some election security-specific purposes for which the
funds may be used.
g. This figure includes $425 mil ion from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and $400 mil ion from
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136). The CARES Act restricted
use of its HAVA funds to preventing, preparing for, and responding to coronavirus, domestically and
internationally, in the 2020 federal election cycle.
h. The appropriations acts that provided this funding extended eligibility for the funding to the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
i.
Appropriations for FY2007 and FY2011 for the HAVA grant programs administered by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) were included in general budget authority for the Administration for
Children and Families’ Children and Families Services programs. Information about the funding HHS
reported awarding for grants for those fiscal years is available in congressional budget justifications from the
Administration for Children and Families. Administration for Children and Families, Archived Congressional
Budget Justifications FY 2012-2004, June 29, 2012, at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/archive/olab/resource/archived-
congressional-budget-justifications-fy-2012-2004.
j.
Starting with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), appropriations for new funding for
HAVA grant programs administered by HHS have been included in general budget authority for the
Administration for Community Living’s Aging and Disability Services programs. The appropriations acts
reference both the pol ing place accessibility grant program and the P&A system grant program, but,
according to HHS, only the P&A system grant program has been funded during that period. The specific
totals HHS has reported awarding for P&A system grants each year are available from the Administration
for Community Living at https://acl.gov/about-acl/help-america-vote-act-hava.
Congressional Research Service

11

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

k. As initially authorized by HAVA, this grant program was available to the P&A systems serving the 50 states,
DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Protection and Advocacy for
Voting Access (PAVA) Program Inclusion Act (P.L. 117-182) extended eligibility for the program to the P&A
systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium.
l.
These figures are from report language rather than appropriations bil text. The report language indicated
that these amounts were to be appropriated from funds provided to an EAC account: the Election Reform
Programs account for FY2004 and the Salaries and Expenses account for FY2005 and FY2008.
m. The amounts listed here are for the Help America Vote Col ege Program as a whole. Grant-making is one
of a number of activities, including developing materials and sponsoring seminars and workshops, that
HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct as part of the program (52 U.S.C. §21122).
n. The joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2006 appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-307; P.L. 109-
115) stated that the conferees encouraged the EAC to apply $250,000 of the funding it received for Salaries
and Expenses to the Help America Vote Col ege Program.
To help ensure that grant funds are used as intended, HAVA provides for funding audits and
repayments. It includes provisions for audits by the agencies that administer its grant programs, as
well as regular audits of requirements payments and special audits of any HAVA funding on a
vote of the Commissioners of the EAC.32 Grantees who are found to be out of compliance with
the terms of their grant programs or to have received excess payments are required to repay
corresponding portions of the grant funds they received.33
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Federal agency support for the general administration of elections was provided in 2000 by a
small office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) known as the Office of Election
Administration (OEA).34 The scope of the issues with the conduct of the 2000 elections prompted
calls for an expanded federal agency role in election administration.
Some proposed assigning any new responsibilities to the existing OEA, while others wanted to
create a new agency that would be fully dedicated to election administration.35 There was also
debate among Members about whether a new elections agency should have the authority to issue
regulations.36
Congress struck a balance in HAVA by providing for a new agency, the EAC, but positioning it as
a support agency.37 The EAC’s rulemaking authority is explicitly limited by the act to regulations

32 As enacted, HAVA also required an audit by the Comptroller General of all HAVA funds at least once during the
lifetime of the corresponding grant program. That provision was repealed by the Government Reports Elimination Act
of 2014 (P.L. 113-188).
33 52 U.S.C. §21142. Information about audits of HAVA funds conducted by the EAC is available on the agency’s
website at https://www.eac.gov/inspector-general/hava-fund-audits.
34 EAC, History of the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/
History%20of%20the%20National%20Clearinghouse%20on%20Election%20Administration.pdf. Support for military
and overseas voting was provided at the time—and continues to be provided—by DOD’s FVAP. For more on FVAP,
see CRS In Focus IF11642, Absentee Voting for Uniformed Services and Overseas Citizens: Roles and Process, In
Brief, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act:
Overview and Issues, by R. Sam Garrett.
35 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Help America Vote Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st
sess., December 5, 2001, pp. 6-7; and The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and
Confidence in the Electoral Process, pp. 71-72.
36 See, for example, Daniel J. Palazzolo and Fiona R. McCarthy, “State and Local Government Organizations and the
Formation of the Help America Vote Act,” Publius, vol. 35, no. 4 (Fall 2005), p. 533; and Sarah F. Liebschutz and
Daniel J. Palazzolo, “HAVA and the States,” Publius, vol. 35, no. 4 (Autumn 2005), p. 505.
37 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Mark up of H.R. 3295, the Help
Congressional Research Service

12

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

about two responsibilities it inherited from the FEC—maintaining the federal mail voter
registration form established by the NVRA and reporting to Congress about the impact of the
NVRA on the administration of federal elections38—and its other duties are assistance-oriented.
Those duties include the following:
 Administering grant programs. The EAC has been charged with administering most of the
grant programs authorized by HAVA, as well as other grant funding Congress has provided
for improving the collection of election data.39 The agency’s grants administration
responsibilities have included dispersing funds to grantees, responding to inquiries about use
of the funds, collecting and reconciling required grant reporting, negotiating indirect cost
rates, and auditing grant spending.40
 Overseeing the voluntary federal voting system testing and certification program. The
FEC issued voluntary federal guidelines for voting systems in 1990 and 2002, and the
National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) operated a program to test and
qualify voting systems to the FEC guidelines.41 HAVA reassigned both of those sets of tasks
to the EAC. The EAC—with assistance from NIST and the EAC advisory bodies described
below—is charged with developing federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) and
overseeing a program to test and certify voting systems to them.42 The agency’s
Commissioners have adopted three versions of the guidelines to date: VVSG 1.0 in 2005,
VVSG 1.1 in 2015, and VVSG 2.0 in 2021.43
 Issuing voluntary guidance for implementing HAVA’s Title III requirements. HAVA left
discretion over how to meet its Title III requirements to the states but directed the EAC to
offer voluntary guidance about implementation. It charged the agency with issuing guidance
for implementing HAVA’s voting systems standards by January 1, 2004, and the other Title
III requirements by October 1, 2003.44
 Conducting research and sharing best practices. HAVA grants the EAC broad authority to
conduct research and issue best practices on elections topics.45 It also directed the agency to

America Vote Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st sess., November 15, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003), p. 2.
38 52 U.S.C. §20929.
39 52 U.S.C. §20981 note. For more on the election data collection grant program, see CRS Report R46646, Election
Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton.
40 See, for example, EAC, Grants Management and Oversight, at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/grants-
management-and-oversight.
41 Federal Election Commission (FEC), Performance and Test Standards for Punchcard, Marksense, and Direct
Recording Electronic Voting Systems, January 1990, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/
FEC_1990_Voting_System_Standards1.pdf; EAC, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, at https://www.eac.gov/
voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines/; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Voting
Technology Standards Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 2275, 107th Cong., 1st sess., October 31, 2001, H.Rept.
107-263 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001).
42 52 U.S.C. §20922; 52 U.S.C. §§20961-20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20971.
43 EAC, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. For more on the adoption of VVSG 2.0, see CRS Insight IN11592,
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG): An Overview, by Karen L. Shanton.
44 52 U.S.C. §§21101-21102. Delays in establishing the EAC prevented it from meeting those statutory deadlines.
Nominees for the Commission were not confirmed to their seats until December 9, 2003.
45 The agency produces parts of its biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) under this authority.
The EAVS includes general research on election administration data and policies, in addition to congressionally
mandated reporting on the NVRA that the EAC inherited from the FEC and on military and overseas voters that it
conducts as part of a Memorandum of Understanding with FVAP. For more on the EAVS, see CRS In Focus IF11266,
The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and 2018 Findings, by Karen L. Shanton.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 10 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

produce studies on the following topics: facilitating military and overseas voting (in
consultation with DOD); human factor research (in consultation with NIST); mail registration
and use of Social Security information; electronic voting and the electoral process; and free
absentee ballot postage [in consultation with the United States Postal Service (USPS)].46
 Operating the Help America Vote College Program. HAVA charged the EAC with
establishing and overseeing a program to encourage students at institutions of higher
education to serve as poll workers and election officials to use their services. In addition to
the grant-making described in the “Grant Programs” section of this report, the agency is
authorized to conduct activities like developing materials and sponsoring seminars and
workshops as part of this program.47
The structure of the EAC also reflects its positioning as a support agency. The EAC’s four-
member Commission, Office of Inspector General, and professional staff were paired by HAVA
with three advisory bodies—described below—that are designed to play a central role in the
direction and functioning of the agency. The memberships of those advisory bodies include state
and local election officials and a range of other elections stakeholders.
 Board of Advisors. 35 members representing a range of election administration
stakeholders,48 including state and local officials, federal agencies, science and technology
experts, and voters.49 The Board of Advisors is responsible for reviewing voluntary guidance
and draft VVSG before they are presented to the EAC’s Commissioners for a vote on
adoption; appointing a search committee in the event of a vacancy for Executive Director of
the agency; and consulting on the EAC’s research efforts, program goals, and long-term
planning and NIST’s monitoring and review of laboratories accredited by the EAC to test
voting systems to the VVSG.50
 Standards Board. 110 members, with one state official and one local official from each of
the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands and a
nine-member Executive Board chosen by the Standards Board from among its membership.51

46 52 U.S.C. §§20982-20986. For studies the EAC has published on these and other topics, see EAC, Other Topics¸
https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/other-topics; and EAC, Archives - Other Topics, https://www.eac.gov/research-
and-data/archives-other-topics.
47 The agency has tended to use the funding Congress has provided for this program for grant-making. For more on
grant funding provided under the program, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding
for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton.
48 The Board of Advisors initially had 37 members, but its membership was reduced to 35 with the 2016 merger of two
of the organizations responsible for appointing members. The National Association of County Recorders, Election
Officials and Clerks and the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers merged
to form the International Association of Government Officials. Doug Chapin, “Fewer Letters in the Alphabet Soup:
NACRC, IACREOT to Merge,” Election Academy, July 7, 2015, at http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/
07/07/fewer-letters-in-the-alphabet-soup-nacrc-iacreot-to-merge/.
49 The membership of the Board of Advisors includes the Director of FVAP; the chiefs or designees of the chiefs of
DOJ’s Office of Public Integrity and Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section; four members representing science and
technology professionals; eight members representing voter interests; and two members appointed by each of the
National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Secretaries of
State, National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), National Association of Counties, United States
Conference of Mayors, Election Center, United States Commission on Civil Rights, Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance (Access) Board, and International Association of Government Officials (52 U.S.C. §20944).
50 52 U.S.C. §20924; 52 U.S.C. §20942; 52 U.S.C. §20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20971.
51 According to HAVA, the Standards Board members serving as local officials for the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands are to be selected by the local election officials of the corresponding state or territory. The members
serving as local officials for DC, American Samoa, and Guam are to be selected according to a procedure established
Congressional Research Service

14

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Like the Board of Advisors, the Standards Board or its Executive Board is responsible for
reviewing voluntary guidance and draft VVSG before they are presented to the EAC’s
Commissioners for a vote on adoption; appointing a search committee in the event of a
vacancy for Executive Director of the agency; and consulting on the EAC’s research efforts,
program goals, and long-term planning and NIST’s monitoring and review of laboratories
accredited by the EAC to test voting systems to the VVSG.52
 Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC). 15 members, with the Director of
NIST as chair and 14 other members representing a range of election administration
stakeholders, including state and local officials, individuals with disabilities, and science and
technology experts.53 The TGDC is responsible for assisting the Executive Director of the
EAC with developing draft VVSG for consideration by the agency’s Commissioners.54
In 2021, the EAC used its authority to establish a fourth advisory body, the Local Leadership
Council, to offer the agency advice and recommendations and help it carry out its responsibilities.
The Local Leadership Council consists of two local election officials from each of the 50 states
who are appointed by the EAC and, if applicable, serve or have served in a leadership role in a
professional association for election officials in their state.55
For more on the duties and structure of the EAC, see CRS Report R45770, The U.S. Election
Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen L. Shanton.
Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy
No new federal election laws as multifaceted as HAVA have been enacted since 2002, as of this
writing. Congress has also made only relatively minor changes to HAVA, extending the deadline
for replacing voting systems under the act’s lever and punch card voting system replacement
grant program, authorizing new funding for the requirements payments program, eliminating
certain grant program audits, revising provisions related to the contents of and public notice about
states’ plans for use of requirements payments, and extending eligibility for the P&A system grant
program to the P&A systems serving CNMI and the American Indian consortium.56
New developments and continuing concerns have combined, however, to ensure ongoing
congressional interest in election administration. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
introduced novel complications for administration of the 2020 elections, for example, and foreign
interference in 2016 drew attention to the challenges of securing election systems. There are also
long-standing efforts among Members to ensure that eligible voters have access to the ballot and
ineligible voters do not.

by the corresponding jurisdiction’s chief election official (52 U.S.C. §20943).
52 52 U.S.C. §20924; 52 U.S.C. §20942; 52 U.S.C. §20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20971.
53 In addition to the Director of NIST, the members of the TGDC include an equal number of members of the Access
Board, Board of Advisors, and Standards Board; representatives of the American National Standards Institute and
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; two representatives of NASED who are not members of the Board of
Advisors or Standards Board; and other individuals with technical and scientific expertise relating to voting systems
and equipment (52 U.S.C. §20961).
54 52 U.S.C. §§20961-20962.
55 For more on the Local Leadership Council, see EAC, Local Leadership Council, at https://www.eac.gov/about-eac/
local-leadership-council.
56 P.L. 110-28; P.L. 111-8; P.L. 111-84; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-188; and P.L. 117-182.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 5 link to page 33 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

HAVA and the agency it created have played a role in much of that congressional activity. The
EAC-administered HAVA funds Congress provided in response to foreign interference in the
2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycle offer some notable
recent examples. Members have also introduced proposals to revisit HAVA or the EAC or to
extend them to other new aspects of election administration.
Proposals to Revisit HAVA or the EAC
There was broad agreement among Members, during the HAVA debate, that Congress should
consider a legislative response to the problems with the administration of the 2000 elections.57
Members disagreed, however, about exactly what that legislative response should look like. The
HAVA debate highlighted disagreements about which issues should be addressed in election
administration legislation and how they should be addressed.58
The enacted legislation reflects compromises on some of those disagreements. Some of HAVA’s
provisions reflect compromises about the treatment of particular elections topics. The requirement
that certain first-time voters who register by mail provide identification in order to cast a regular
ballot was a compromise, for example, between Members who preferred a more expansive voter
ID requirement and Members who opposed requiring any voters to show ID.59
Another compromise is built into the structure of the act. Some Members favored limiting federal
involvement in the response to the 2000 elections to voluntary guidelines and grant programs,
while others wanted a regulatory agency and binding national standards.60 As noted in the
“Overview of Major Provisions” section of this report, HAVA ended up setting some standards in
its Title III but leaving many decisions about how to implement and enforce them to the states. It
created a new federal agency but strictly limited its regulatory authority and gave states and
localities input into its work.
The compromises struck in HAVA did not necessarily resolve the underlying disagreements that
prompted them, however. New developments since 2002—both due to HAVA and independently
of it—have also changed the election administration landscape.
As a result, some Members have proposed revisiting the act or the agency it created. Some of
those post-HAVA proposals would revise the act’s treatment of particular elections topics, while
others would revise the structure of HAVA or the EAC. Examples of proposals to revise HAVA’s
treatment of particular elections topics include bills that would:
 Expand or limit voter identification requirements. The voter ID debate is often
characterized as a debate about how to balance ensuring access to the ballot for eligible voters
against preventing access by ineligible voters. Proponents of ID laws argue that they help
guard against voter fraud, while opponents say that they can disenfranchise eligible voters.

57 Close to 100 election administration bills were introduced between the November 2000 general election in the 106th
Congress and the enactment of HAVA in the 107th Congress, according to a CRS review of data from Congress.gov.
58 For a timeline of congressional deliberations about election administration between the November 2000 general
election and the enactment of HAVA in October 2002, see Appendix C.
59 52 U.S.C. §21083(b). See, for example, Sarah F. Liebschutz and Daniel J. Palazzolo, “HAVA and the States,” pp.
501, 505; and Sen. Christopher Dodd, “Help America Vote Act of 2002—Conference Report,” Congressional Record,
vol. 148, part 136 (October 16, 2002), p. S20854.
60 See, for example, Rep. Robert Ney, Comments, Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 172 (December 12, 2001), p.
H9287; and Daniel J. Palazzolo and Fiona R. McCarthy, “State and Local Government Organizations and the
Formation of the Help America Vote Act,” p. 533.
Congressional Research Service

16

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Disagreements about how to prioritize those two considerations persisted after HAVA was
enacted, and there have been proposals both to expand the act’s ID requirement and to set
federal limits on ID laws. Members have introduced legislation to require all voters to show
ID, for example, as well as to require states to accept sworn written statements as ID for voter
ID purposes or submit proposed ID laws for federal preclearance.61
 Establish standards for matching voter registration data. HAVA directs certain officials to
enter into database-matching agreements for purposes of verifying voter registration data.62
As election law professor Daniel P. Tokaji has argued, however, the wording of the relevant
provisions leaves open questions about exactly how voter registration data matching should
work and what the consequences of a failed match should be.63 Those questions could have
significant practical implications—Tokaji notes that different answers could affect who
appears on the voter rolls and which ballots are counted—and some have proposed offering
more definitive guidance. Members have introduced bills to prohibit rejecting voter
registration applications solely on the basis of a failed match, for example, or set (or direct a
federal agency to set) standards for matching registration data.64
 Set specifics for the manually auditable paper records voting systems produce. Voting
systems used in federal elections are required, under HAVA, to produce manually auditable
permanent paper records.65 As those provisions have been interpreted and implemented, they
do not specifically require production of individual paper records that voters can verify before
casting their ballots.66 Technology experts raised concerns during the HAVA debate about
voting machines that do not produce voter-verifiable paper records, however, and subsequent
events and reporting have drawn further attention to their potential for technical faults and
security vulnerabilities.67 Research since 2002 has also produced new methodologies for
auditing election outcomes, such as risk-limiting audits.68 Some have responded to such
developments by proposing more specific versions of HAVA’s audit and paper record

61 See, for example, the Promoting Election Integrity by Proving Voter Identity Act (117th Congress, S. 1130), the
America Votes Act of 2021 (H.R. 1059), and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (H.R. 4/S. 4).
62 52 U.S.C. §21083.
63 Daniel P. Tokaji, “Voter Registration and Institutional Reform: Lessons from a Historic Election,” Harvard Law and
Policy Review Online, vol. 3 (January 22, 2009). For more on voter registration data-matching procedures, see CRS
Report R46406, Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by Sarah J. Eckman.
64 See, for example, the Count Every Vote Act of 2007 (H.R. 1381/S. 804), the Voting Opportunity and Technology
Enhancement Rights Act of 2005 (H.R. 533/S. 17), and the Protection Against Wrongful Voter Purges Act (111th
Congress, H.R. 3835).
65 52 U.S.C. §21081.
66 See, for example, EAC, EAC Advisory 2005-004: How to Determine if a Voting System is Compliant with Section
301(a) - A Gap Analysis Between 2002 Voting System Standards and the Requirements of Section 301(a), July 20,
2005, https://web.archive.org/web/20051225131913/http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Advisory%2005-
004%20(%204%20page%20fit%20).pdf; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Hearing on
Oversight of HAVA Implementation, 109th Cong., 1st sess., February 9, 2005 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2006).
67 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Improving Voting Technologies: The Role of
Standards, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 2001 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001); Tadayoshi Kohno, Adam Stubblefield,
Aviel D. Rubin, et al., “Analysis of an Electronic Voting System,” Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute
Technical Report TR-2003-19, July 23, 2003; Maryland Department of Legislative Services, A Review of Issues
Relating to the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting System in Maryland, January 2004; and The Pew Center on the States,
Back to Paper: A Case Study, Washington, DC, February 2008, https://web.archive.org/web/20080306020841/http://
www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/EB21Brief.pdf.
68 See, for example, Mark Lindeman and Philip B. Stark, “A Gentle Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits,” IEEE
Security and Privacy, Special Issue on Electronic Voting, March 16, 2012. For more on risk-limiting audits, see CRS In
Focus IF11873, Election Administration: An Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits, by Karen L. Shanton.
Congressional Research Service

17

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

provisions. Members have introduced legislation to require voting systems to produce voter-
verifiable paper records, for example, and to require, facilitate, or incentivize use of certain
types of post-election audit.69
Examples of proposals to revisit the structure of HAVA or the EAC include bills that would:
 Terminate the EAC or expand its authority. The National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS) adopted in 2005—and renewed in 2010 and 2015—a
resolution it described as aimed at preventing the EAC from evolving into a
regulatory agency.70 That resolution, which asked Congress not to reauthorize or fund
the agency, was one of the rationales cited for proposals to terminate the EAC in the
112th through 115th Congresses.71 Members have also introduced bills that would take
the opposite approach, intentionally expanding the agency’s regulatory role. HAVA’s
explicit restriction on EAC rulemaking means that the agency has limited authority
beyond voluntary guidance to clarify ambiguities in the act, such as the open
questions about voter registration data matching described above, or fill in details of
future federal elections policies that Congress might not want to enshrine in statutory
text. As a result, some have proposed lifting the restriction in certain contexts or
repealing it entirely.72
 Revisit HAVA’s enforcement mechanisms. The limit on EAC rulemaking has also
been cited by some as a reason to revisit HAVA’s enforcement mechanisms.73
Without the option of agency regulations—and barring new federal legislation—the
primary federal forum for resolving ambiguities in HAVA is the courts.74 HAVA
expressly authorizes DOJ to bring civil action under certain provisions of the law,
and some have proposed also explicitly authorizing individuals to bring suit for relief
under the act. Members have introduced bills to add an explicit private right of action
for existing HAVA requirements, for example, or for new requirements that would be
established by amendments to the act.75

69 The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 (H.R. 2239/S. 1980), for example, would have
required voter-verifiable paper ballots. A version of that bill has been introduced in every Congress since its initial
introduction in the 108th Congress, including as part of the Freedom to Vote Act (117th Congress, S. 2747), the
Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act (H.R. 5746), and the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093). For more
on legislation related to risk-limiting audits, see CRS In Focus IF11873, Election Administration: An Introduction to
Risk-Limiting Audits, by Karen L. Shanton.
70 National Association of Secretaries of State, Resolution Reaffirming the NASS Position on Funding and
Authorization of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, July 2015, at
https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/resolutions/2015/nass-resolution-eac-summer15-_0.pdf. The resolution does not
appear to have been renewed since its expiration in 2020.
71 See, for example, the Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act (112th Congress, H.R. 672) and the Election
Assistance Commission Termination Act (115th Congress, H.R. 634). For more on proposals to terminate the EAC, see
CRS Report R45770, The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Karen
L. Shanton.
72 See, for example, the Polling Place Protection Act of 2019 (S. 955), the Early Voting Act (116th Congress, S. 957),
and the Election Integrity Act of 2016 (H.R. 6072).
73 See, for example, Daniel P. Tokaji, “Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The Enforcement of Federal
Election Laws.”
74 Daniel P. Tokaji, “Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The Enforcement of Federal Election Laws.”
75 See, for example, the Streamlined and Improved Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting Act of
2019 (H.R. 118), the Count the Vote Act (116th Congress, H.R. 1513), the People Over Long Lines (POLL) Act (117th
Congress, S. 2117), the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093), and the Voter Empowerment Act of 2021
(H.R. 2358/S. 954).
Congressional Research Service

18

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Proposals to Extend HAVA or the EAC
HAVA marked a departure from previous federal elections statutes in at least two ways: (1) it was
more wide-ranging in the topics it aimed to address than elections measures Congress had tended
to approve in the recent past, with (2) a greater emphasis on federal assistance for states and
localities. Other recent federal election laws had tended primarily to set requirements and to focus
on particular aspects of election administration or the accessibility of the electoral process to
particular groups of voters.76 HAVA, by contrast, spans multiple issues and voter groups—from
voter registration to voting information and voters with disabilities to young voters—and pairs its
requirements with grant programs and the assistance-oriented EAC.
Those features have made HAVA and the agency it created common choices of vehicles for
congressional proposals to engage with elections issues. First, the broad scope of the act has made
it a common choice for proposals to set requirements for aspects of election administration that
are not addressed by other, more specialized federal election laws. New HAVA requirements have
been proposed in response to developments in particular election cycles. Following the onset of
the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 cycle, for example, some Members proposed amending
HAVA to require states and localities to offer no-excuse absentee voting and registration during
emergencies, to require election officials to conduct public education campaigns about election
changes due to emergencies, or to require states to conduct their 2020 elections entirely by mail.77
Members have also proposed new HAVA requirements as part of broader efforts to advance
general objectives for election administration. For example, proposals to amend HAVA to require
states to offer early voting and permit observation of ballot tabulation have been presented as
ways of increasing access to the ballot for eligible voters and securing the integrity of the
electoral process, respectively.78
Second, HAVA’s emphasis on assistance has made it and the EAC common vehicles for proposals
to provide new federal support for election administration. Congress has appropriated funding for
existing EAC-administered HAVA grant programs to help address new election administration
challenges. For example, it provided funding for HAVA’s general improvements grant program in
response to foreign interference in the 2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in
the 2020 election cycle.79
Members have also introduced bills to authorize new EAC grant programs or other new agency
activities. Grant programs have been proposed to help states meet new federal requirements, such
as a proposed requirement to use independent commissions for congressional redistricting, and to
facilitate or incentivize voluntary policies, such as limits on third-party ballot collection.80 Other

76 The NVRA sets requirements for voter registration, for example, and the VRA, as amended, primarily addresses the
accessibility of the electoral process to members of racial and language minority groups. For more on those statutes, see
CRS Report R45030, Federal Role in Voter Registration: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and Subsequent
Developments, by Sarah J. Eckman; and CRS Testimony TE10033, History and Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, by L. Paige Whitaker, respectively.
77 See, for example, the Resilient Elections During Quarantines and Natural Disasters Act of 2020 (H.R. 6202/S. 3440),
the Vote From Home America Act of 2020 (H.R. 7118), and the Voter Notice Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6512).
78 See, for example, the Expanding Access to Early Voting Act of 2021 (H.R. 640) and the Save Democracy Act (117th
Congress, H.R. 322/S. 459).
79 P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-93; and P.L. 116-136.
80 See, for example, the John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (117th Congress, H.R. 80/H.R.
4307) and the Election Protection Act of 2021 (H.R. 2844).
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 18 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

legislation would direct the EAC to offer nonfinancial support for election administration, such as
ballot design research or cybersecurity best practices for voting system vendors.81
Potential Considerations for Congress
As noted in the “Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy” section of this report, no new
federal election laws as multifaceted as HAVA have been enacted as of this writing. As that might
suggest, Congress has generally tended to defer to state and local officials on policy responses to
election administration issues. The enactment of HAVA and other federal election laws and the
ongoing introduction of new election administration bills demonstrate, however, that Members
sometimes also see a role in elections policy for the federal government.
HAVA and the EAC offer potential vehicles for any future federal involvement in election
administration policymaking. HAVA is perhaps the closest thing in federal law to a general
elections statute, and the EAC has subject matter expertise in election administration, existing
relationships with state and local election officials, and experience administering elections grant
programs.
There are also other possible vehicles, however, as well as various ways Congress might structure
federal involvement in election administration through HAVA or the EAC. The following issues
might be relevant to Members who are weighing whether or how to engage with election
administration policy.
 Prioritization of considerations. The HAVA debate was framed by many of its
participants as about making it “easier to vote and harder to cheat,” or ensuring
access to the ballot for eligible voters on one hand and preventing fraud in elections
on the other.82 Foreign interference in the 2016 elections highlighted another possible
consideration for elections policymaking—security—and state and local experiences
suggest others. For example, state and local officials factored considerations like
accessibility, ease of administration, and cost-effectiveness into their post-HAVA
decisions about voting systems. As debates over issues like voter ID requirements
illustrate, different choices about how to prioritize such considerations can produce
different policy preferences. An initial step in elections policymaking might,
therefore, be to determine which considerations to factor into policy decisions and
how to prioritize them.
 Choice of agency. As the only federal agency dedicated to the general administration
of elections, the EAC might often be a logical choice for new federal agency work on
elections. However, some features of the agency, such as its limited rulemaking
authority and current size and funding level, could introduce challenges for certain
types of work. Other agencies might also have or acquire expertise that is particularly
relevant to certain aspects of election administration. HHS has subject matter
expertise in disability access, for example, and NIST has subject matter expertise in
standards and technology. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has

81 See, for example, the Protect our Elections Act (116th Congress, H.R. 4777) and the For the People Act of 2021
(H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093).
82 See, for example, David Nather, “Election Overhaul May Have to Wait in Line Behind Other ‘Crisis’ Issues,” CQ
Weekly, July 27, 2002; Sen. Kit Bond, “Help America Vote Act of 2002—Conference Report,” Congressional Record,
vol. 148, part 136 (October 16, 2002), p. S10488; and Sen. Christopher Dodd, “Help America Vote Act of 2002—
Conference Report,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 136 (October 16, 2002), p. S10505.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 19 link to page 19 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

also taken on new election security responsibilities since designating election systems
as critical infrastructure in January 2017.83 Congress might choose to delegate new
elections tasks to the EAC—either with or without changing some of its features—or
to assign them to other agencies instead of or in conjunction with the EAC.
 Choice of legislative approach. Like the EAC, HAVA might often be a logical
choice of vehicle for congressional engagement with election administration policy.
Also like the EAC, it might have some features that are less logical fits for certain
purposes. Members have sometimes chosen to address such features by proposing
amendments to HAVA or, in the case of grant programs in particular, including
funding conditions in appropriations language.84 Members might also choose to
create new law with features that are better suited to their purposes or to amend
existing laws others than HAVA. For example, some election security and youth voter
participation bills would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA; P.L. 107-
296) and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329), respectively.85
 Balance of statute and regulation. As noted in the “Proposals to Revisit HAVA or
the EAC” section of this report, the wording of HAVA’s voter registration data-
matching provisions left some open questions about how data matching should work.
Legislative proposals to provide more definitive guidance illustrate two of the options
available for federal policymaking: (1) specifying policy details in statute, and (2)
delegating details to a federal agency. Some bills would amend the text of HAVA’s
data-matching provisions to add more specifics, for example, while others would
direct a federal agency to set data matching standards. Either of those two options—
or a combination of both—might be a better fit in certain circumstances. Specifying
policy details in statute might be a better fit for cases in which Congress knows
exactly how it wants a policy to be implemented, for example, while delegating
details to an agency might better fit cases in which new developments are likely to
change the policy landscape or more information or expertise is required to determine
how best to implement the policy.
 Balance of federal action and state or local action. The structure of HAVA
highlights a third option for federal policymaking, in addition to specifying policy
details in statute and delegating them to a federal agency: deferring on some policy
details to states and localities. HAVA set requirements for the administration of
federal elections, for example, but left states significant discretion over exactly how
to implement them. It established a federal elections agency but limited its authority
to set regulations for states and localities and provided for state and local input into

83 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election
Infrastructure as a Critical Infrastructure Subsector,” press release, January 6, 2017, at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/
01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical. For more on the critical infrastructure
designation and Election Infrastructure Subsector, see CRS In Focus IF10677, The Designation of Election Systems as
Critical Infrastructure, by Brian E. Humphreys; and CRS In Focus IF11445, The Election Infrastructure Subsector:
Development and Challenges, by Brian E. Humphreys and Karen L. Shanton.
84 See, for example, the proposals to revisit HAVA’s enforcement mechanisms in the Streamlined and Improved
Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting Act of 2019 (H.R. 118), the Count the Vote Act (116th
Congress, H.R. 1513), the People Over Long Lines (POLL) Act (117th Congress, S. 2117), and the For the People Act
of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093). See also the new match requirements for funding under HAVA’s general improvements
grant program set by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136); the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93); and
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103).
85 See, for example, the Election Protection Act of 2021 (H.R. 2844), the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S.
2093), and the Help Students Vote Act (117th Congress, H.R. 2232/S. 992).
Congressional Research Service

21

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

its work. Members who are interested in engaging with elections issues might
similarly consider how they seek to distribute decisionmaking among federal, state,
and local officials. States and localities have primary responsibility for administering
elections in the United States, so state and local officials might often be particularly
well positioned to identify the best policy options for their jurisdictions. On the other
hand, deferring to states and localities on policy details might contribute, in some
cases, to variations in the effectiveness of a policy across states or policy choices that
are at odds with congressional objectives.

Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 30 link to page 30 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Appendix A. Major Provisions of HAVA by Issue
Area
Table A-1. Major Provisions of HAVA by Issue Area
Issue Area
Corresponding Section of Reporta
Provisionb
Absentee Voting
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Study and report on electronic voting and
(EAC)
the electoral process
52 U.S.C. §20985

EAC
Study and report on free absentee ballot
postage
52 U.S.C. §20986
Individuals with
Requirements
Accessibility for individuals with disabilities
Disabilities and Older
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(3)
Individuals

Requirements
Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission
52 U.S.C. §§21101

Grant Programs
Process for development and filing of plan
52 U.S.C. §21005

Grant Programs
Payments to states and units of local
government to assure access to individuals
with disabilities
52 U.S.C. §§21021-21025

Grant Programs
Grants for research on voting technology
improvements
52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043

Grant Programs
Pilot program for testing of equipment and
technology
52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053

Grant Programs
Payments for protection and advocacy
systems
52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062

EAC
Membership of Board of Advisors
52 U.S.C. §20944

EAC
Technical Guidelines Development
Committee (TGDC)
52 U.S.C. §20961

EAC
Report on human factor research
52 U.S.C. §20983

EAC
Study and report on free absentee ballot
postage
52 U.S.C. §20986
Individuals with Limited
Requirements
Alternative language accessibility
English Proficiency
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(4)

Requirements
Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission
52 U.S.C. §§21101
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Issue Area
Corresponding Section of Reporta
Provisionb

Grant Programs
Grants for research on voting technology
improvements
52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043

Grant Programs
Pilot program for testing of equipment and
technology
52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053

EAC
Report on human factor research
52 U.S.C. §20983
Military and Overseas
Requirements
Voting assistance programs
Citizens
Appendix Bc
10 U.S.C. §1566

Requirements
Designation of single state office to provide
Appendix Bc
information on registration and absentee
ballots for all voters in state
52 U.S.C. §20302(b)

Requirements
Report on absentee ballots transmitted and
Appendix Bc
received after general elections
52 U.S.C. §§20302(c), note

Requirements
Extension of period covered by single
Appendix Bc
absentee ballot application
52 U.S.C. §20306d

Requirements
Additional duties of Presidential Designee
Appendix Bc
under Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act
52 U.S.C. §§20301-20302

Requirements
Prohibition of refusal of voter registration
Appendix Bc
and absentee ballot applications on grounds
of early submission
52 U.S.C. §20306

Requirements
Other requirements to promote
Appendix Bc
participation of overseas and absent
uniformed services voters
52 U.S.C. §20302(d)

Grant Programs
Authorization of appropriations for
requirements payments
52 U.S.C. §21007(a)(4)e

EAC
Membership of Board of Advisors
52 U.S.C. §20944

EAC
Study, report, and recommendations on best
practices for facilitating military and overseas
voting
52 U.S.C. §20982
Pol Workers
Grant Programs
State plan
52 U.S.C. §21004

Grant Programs
Help America Vote Foundation
36 U.S.C. §§90101-90112

Grant Programs
Help America Vote Col ege Program
EAC
52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123
Provisional Voting
Requirements
Provisional voting requirements
52 U.S.C. §21082(a)
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 30 link to page 30 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Issue Area
Corresponding Section of Reporta
Provisionb

Requirements
Voters who vote after the polls close
52 U.S.C. §21082(c)

Requirements
Fail-safe voting
52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(2)(B)

Requirements
Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission
52 U.S.C. §§21101
Voter Identification
Requirements
Requirements for voters who register by
mail
52 U.S.C. §§21083(b)(1)-(3)

Requirements
Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission
52 U.S.C. §§21101

EAC
Study and report on voters who register by
mail and use of Social Security information
52 U.S.C. §20984
Voter Registration
Requirements
Computerized statewide voter registration
list requirements implementation
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(1)

Requirements
Computerized list maintenance
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(2)

Requirements
Technological security of computerized list
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(3)

Requirements
Minimum standard for accuracy of State
voter registration records
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(4)

Requirements
Verification of voter registration information
52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(5)

Requirements
Requirements for voters who register by
mail
52 U.S.C. §§21083(b)(1)-(3)

Requirements
Contents of mail-in registration form
52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(4)

Requirements
Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission
52 U.S.C. §§21101

EAC
Study and report on voters who register by
mail and use of Social Security information
52 U.S.C. §20984

EAC
Study and report on electronic voting and
the electoral process
52 U.S.C. §20985
Voting Information
Requirements
Voting information requirements
52 U.S.C. §21082(b)

Requirements
Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission
52 U.S.C. §§21101
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 30 link to page 30 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Issue Area
Corresponding Section of Reporta
Provisionb

Grant Programs
State plan
52 U.S.C. §21004

EAC
Study and report on electronic voting and
the electoral process
52 U.S.C. §20985
Voting Systems
Requirements
Voting systems standards requirements in
general
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(1)

Requirements
Audit capacity
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(2)

Requirements
Accessibility for individuals with disabilities
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(3)

Requirements
Alternative language accessibility
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(4)

Requirements
Error rates
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(5)

Requirements
Uniform definition of what constitutes a
vote
52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(6)

Requirements
Adoption of voluntary guidance by
EAC
Commission
52 U.S.C. §§21101

Grant Programs
State plan
52 U.S.C. §21004

Grant Programs
Payments to states for replacement of punch
card and lever voting machines
52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906

Grant Programs
Grants for research on voting technology
improvements
52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043

Grant Programs
Pilot program for testing of equipment and
technology
52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053

EAC
Technical Guidelines Development
Committee (TGDC)
52 U.S.C. §20961

EAC
Process for adoption of Voluntary Voting
System Guidelines (VVSG)
52 U.S.C. §20962

EAC
Certification and testing of voting systems
52 U.S.C. §20971

EAC
Report on human factor research
52 U.S.C. §20983

EAC
Study and report on electronic voting and
the electoral process
52 U.S.C. §20985
Young Voters
Grant Programs
National Student and Parent Mock Election
52 U.S.C. §§21071-21072
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 6 link to page 31 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Issue Area
Corresponding Section of Reporta
Provisionb

Grant Programs
Help America Vote Foundation
36 U.S.C. §§90101-90112

Grant Programs
Help America Vote Col ege Program
EAC
52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123
Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code.
Notes: Provisions of HAVA that relate to election administration generally—such as the act’s enforcement
mechanisms, its general improvements grant program, most aspects of its requirements payments program, and
the EAC’s general research authority—are not included in this table. Provisions that address more than one
issue area are listed for all of the issue areas they address.
a. Provisions are categorized here as they appear in the text of this report. For more on a given provision, see
the corresponding section of the report.
b. Provisions are generally listed here as they are presented in statutory language.
c. These provisions amended existing law on military and overseas voting. They are discussed briefly in the
“Requirements” section of this report and summarized in Appendix B.
d. This provision was repealed by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009, which
was enacted as Subtitle H of Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L.
111-84).
e. The MOVE Act amended HAVA to authorize funding for the requirements payments program for FY2010
and subsequent fiscal years. The funding was authorized to meet new requirements for military and
overseas voting established by the MOVE Act.
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 32 The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Appendix B. HAVA Amendments to Military and
Overseas Voting Processes
Table B-1. HAVA Amendments to Military and Overseas Voting Processes

Summary of Changes
Voting Assistance Programs
Require voting assistance officers to be given sufficient time and
10 U.S.C. §1566
resources to perform specified voting assistance duties
Direct the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to implement and
report on measures to ensure that postmarks or other official proofs
of mailing date are provided for absentee ballots that are col ected
overseas or at sea
Direct the Secretary of each military department to provide notice of
absentee ballot mailing deadlines; information about requirements and
deadlines for voter registration and absentee ballot applications and
the availability of voting assistance officers; and federal voter
registration forms
Require designation of day(s) for providing information at military
installations about election timing, registration requirements, and
voting procedures
Designation of Single State Office to
Require each state to designate a single state office to provide
Provide Information on Registration and
information about the voting and registration processes available to
Absentee Ballots for All Voters in State
military and overseas voters
52 U.S.C. §20302(b)
Recommend that the designated office carry out the state’s
responsibilities under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act (UOCAVA)
Report on Absentee Ballots Transmitted
Require states and localities to report to the U.S. Election Assistance
and Received After General Elections
Commission (EAC) and the public after each regular federal general
52 U.S.C. §§20302(c), note
election on the number of absentee ballots transmitted to and
received from military and overseas voters
Direct the EAC and its Board of Advisors and Standards Board to
develop a standardized format for the reports and make the
standardized format available to states and localities
Extension of Period Covered by Single
Extend the period covered by absentee ballot applications submitted
Absentee Ballot Application
by military and overseas voters to the fol owing two regular federal
52 U.S.C. §20306
general electionsa
Additional Duties of Presidential
Direct the Presidential Designee under UOCAVA to ensure that
Designee Under Uniformed and
election officials are aware of the act’s requirements, develop a
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
standard oath affirming potential penalty of perjury for material
52 U.S.C. §§20301-20302
misstatements of fact on UOCAVA documents, and provide statistical
analysis of voter participation by overseas voters
Require states that require oaths or affirmations for UOCAVA
documents to use the standard oath developed by the Presidential
Designee
Prohibition of Refusal of Voter
Prohibit states from refusing to accept or process an otherwise valid
Registration and Absentee Ballot
voter registration or absentee bal ot application from a military voter
Applications on Grounds of Early
on the grounds that the application was submitted before the first
Submission
date on which the state otherwise accepts or processes such
52 U.S.C. §20306
applications
Congressional Research Service

28

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Summary of Changes
Other Requirements to Promote
Require states to provide military and overseas voters with reasons
Participation of Overseas and Absent
for rejecting their voter registration or absentee ballot applications
Uniformed Services Voters
52 U.S.C. §20302(d)
Source: CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code.
Notes: The requirements in this table generally apply to elections for federal office.
a. This provision was repealed by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009, which
was enacted as Subtitle H of Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L.
111-84).
Congressional Research Service

29

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

Appendix C. Timeline of Congressional
Deliberations on Election Administration
Table C-1. Timeline of Congressional Deliberations on Election Administration
(from the November 2000 general election to the enactment of HAVA in October 2002)
Date
Action
November 7, 2000
November 2000 regular federal general elections are held.
December 12, 2000
U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in Bush v. Gore.
February 14, 2001
House Committee on Energy and Commerce holds hearing on “Election Night
Coverage by the Networks.”
March 7, 2001
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation holds hearing on
“Election Reform.”
March 14, 2001
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds hearing on “Election
Reform.”
March 19, 2001
Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act (S. 565) is introduced in Senate.
March 22, 2001
Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act (H.R. 1170) is introduced in House of
Representatives.
May 3, 2001
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs holds hearing on “Federal Election
Practices and Procedures.”
May 8, 2001
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation holds hearing on
“S. 368 and Election Reform.”
May 9, 2001
House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel holds
hearing on “Department of Defense Voting Assistance and Military Absentee Ballot
Issues.”
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs holds hearing on “Federal Election
Practices and Procedures.”
May 10, 2001
House Committee on House Administration holds hearing on “Federal Election
Reform.”
May 17, 2001
House Committee on House Administration holds “Voting Technology Hearing.”
May 22, 2001
House Committee on Science holds hearing on “Improving Voting Technologies:
The Role of Standards.”
May 24, 2001
Bipartisan Federal Election Reform Act (S. 953) is introduced in Senate.
House Committee on House Administration holds “Hearing on Technology and
the Voting Process.”
June 27, 2001
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds hearing on “Report of the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the November 2000 Election and on Election
Reform Issues.”
June 28, 2001
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds hearing on “Members of the
House of Representatives on Election Reform Issues.”
July 23, 2001
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration holds “Field Hearing in Atlanta,
Georgia on Election Reform Issues.”
November 14, 2001
Help America Vote Act (H.R. 3295) is introduced in House of Representatives.
November 15, 2001
House Committee on House Administration holds “Mark Up of H.R. 3295, the
Help America Vote Act of 2001.”
Congressional Research Service

30

The Help America Vote Act of 2002: Overview and Ongoing Role

November 28, 2001
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration reports S. 565 to ful Senate.
December 5, 2001
House Committee on the Judiciary holds hearing on “Help America Vote Act of
2001.”
December 10, 2001
House Committee on House Administration reports H.R. 3295 to ful House of
Representatives.
December 12, 2001
House of Representatives passes H.R. 3295 362-63.
February 13-15, 2002
Senate considers S. 565.
February 25-27, 2002
Senate considers S. 565.
March 1, 2002
Senate considers S. 565.
March 4, 2002
Senate considers S. 565.
April 10, 2002
Senate considers S. 565.
April 11, 2002
Senate passes S. 565 99-1, amends text of H.R. 3295 with text of S. 565, and
requests conference with House of Representatives.
May 1, 2002
Senate appoints conferees.
May 16, 2002
House of Representatives appoints conferees.
October 8, 2002
Conference report on H.R. 3295 (H.Rept. 107-730) is filed.
October 10, 2002
Conference report on H.R. 3295 is agreed to in House of Representatives 357-48.
October 16, 2002
Conference report on H.R. 3295 is agreed to in Senate 92-2.
October 29, 2002
H.R. 3295 is signed by President George W. Bush and becomes P.L. 107-252.
Source: CRS, based on review of data from Congress.gov, the Congressional Record, and the U.S. Government
Publishing Office.

Author Information

Karen L. Shanton

Analyst in American National Government

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46949 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED
31

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Oct. 5, 2022

HTML · PDF

1% changed

Sep. 28, 2022

HTML · PDF

2% changed

Oct. 28, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

American Law

National Defense

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON