Help America Vote Act 2002: State Plans and Legislative Compliance Progress

Transcription

1 Help America Vote Act 2002: State Plans and Legislative Compliance Progress Tim Storer 19th May Introduction On the 29th October, 2002, President Bush signed PL , the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), mandating minimum standards for states conducting federal elections. Since then, states have begun implementing the necessary changes in order to bring their election law and practice into compliance with the new federal requirements. This report examines the progress states have made so far, identifying the trends in published state plans and reviewing the considerable amount of compliance legislation introduced in the state legislatures (and to a lesser extent passed). This report also identifies a number of areas of concern, including the uncertainties regarding federal funding and the ambitious time table with regard to the implementation of centralised voter registration systems. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Outline of Hava 1 3 State Plans Voting Machine Standards Disabilities Compliant DRE Machines and Polling Place Accessability Paper Audit Trail Appropriations Budget Distribution Maintainance of Effort Education And Training Statewide Voter Registration System Legislation Summary Failed Legislation Adoption of Provisional Voting Requirements Amendments to HAVA Conclusions 9 A State Plan Summary 10 B HAVA Legislation Summary 27 2 Outline of Hava 3 State Plans At the time of writing, no state has formally prepared a plan for submission to the Election Assistance Commission, although 16 states have prepared and published drafts for public comment, at varying stages of completion. This 1

2 section of the report examines some of the key areas of the reports that have raised issues of concern, as well as comparing areas where states have taken variations in approach. The states with draft state plans are Alaska, Arizona, Califonia, Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Vermont[7]. All these states have adopted a common format of responding to the 13 requirements of the state plan in separate sections. A summary of the plans so far published is included in Appendix A, which compares the state s responses in each of the sections. The summary also includes the relevant universal resource locators (URLs) for each of the published drafts. Although the states have adopted a common format for their responses, there individual responses to the requirements set by HAVA vary considerably. Many of the states have produced novel suggestions for improving the conduct of elections, which include: Detailed performance charts for quantifying progress defined in the plan. Ohio s plan to use one Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) machine for practice by voters at each polling place. The training of high school students as poll workers as a means of engaging them in the democratic process before they are eligible to vote. The variation has been noted in another review of the plans [8], which recommends that states (whether they have already produced a state plan or otherwise) review the suggestions of others in order to achieve best practice. 3.1 Voting Machine Standards HAVA provides some flexibility in the adoption of voting standards, which is reflected in the variations of state plans. Under state control, Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and South Dakota will initially purchase enough Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting systems to ensure they comply with the disabilities requirements of HAVA (sec 301, 3). These states will comply with the over-voting and other voting system standards via the voter specific outreach provisions of HAVA. In addition to using the DRE machines for immediate compliance purposes: Alaska will also use these machines for evaluation purposes, in order to determine whether a complete transition to a DRE system is feasible at a later date. Oregon, with a tradition of mail-in balloting, proposes to make some of the voting machines mobile in order to reach some voters unable to reach fixed polling places. Arizona, Ohio and Maryland all maintain procedures, committees or technical staff for the certification/decertification of election systems. Other states have adopted a more immediately comprehensive approach to voting system replacement. Maryland will continue the existing programme of replacing current voting systems with DRE machines, whilst Arizona, Ohio, Utah and North Carolina plan to replace almost all their current voting systems in order to ensure HAVA compliance. Texas has not specified a type of voting system, instead making funds available to counties to procure the systems themselves Disabilities Compliant DRE Machines and Polling Place Accessability There is some uncertainty as to how the states will purchase DRE machines for use by disabled voters. As the Maryland plan notes, no vendor currently supplies such machines. The absence is due to the lack of agreed standards for such compliance. Although, the Voting Rights Act (1965) specifies requirements for alternative language support, no similar legislation specifies similar requirements for disabled voters. It is anticipated that the Election Assistance Commission will be responsible for producing such standards Paper Audit Trail The paper audit trail proscribed for hand recounts of votes is also not currently available for voting machines, although a number of machines, or retro-fits for existing machines are being trialed. 2

3 3.2 Appropriations The state plan (HAVA, sec 254, 6) requires each state to describe a budget of the appropriations that will be made available from both state and federal sources. This section must include a description of the distribution of title II appropriations between title III requirements and other activities. Unfortunately, all the state plans published to date have acknowledged the uncertainty with regards to what proportion of the title II payments authorised will actually be appropriated in the federal budget for the next three years. This uncertainty has been approached differently by the states. Some states have planned against the proportion they expect from the entire amount authorised by Congress (some $3.5 billion in title I and II funds) and annotated their budgets with priorities, indicating which projects will lapse if funding is insufficient. Other states have budgeted against projected amounts, deliberately scaling the scope of their projects to within these limitations. As illustration of the current uncertainties amongst states: There is an unbudgeted expenditure of up to $34, 920, 000 in Maryland s projected costings for HAVA, only partly due to uncertainties regarding federal funding levels. Maryland plans to search for other funding streams for some of these expenditures. Nevada has identified the other activities as required in the state plan (section 6) but has not allocated any amounts due to the uncertainties in federal funding. California will not produce a draft budget until federal HAVA appropriations are established. The two largest topics for funding by states is the procurement of the statewide voter registration system and the replacement of existing voting technology with new DRE machines. By mean average, ignoring unallocated funds, the states expect to spend as much as 84.6% of their entire appropriations on title III requirements, of which the voting and registration systems are by far the largest allocations. Encouragingly, this suggest realistic assumptions regarding the cost of statewide registration systems (see Statewide Voter Registration System for a discussion of implementation time scales) and also the voting systems, which are generally easier to budget for given the set cost per device. Unfortunately, though the mandatory requirements of HAVA may well be implemented, the budgeting leaves relatively little for ambitious education and outreach programmes, which may well lapse as estimations of federal funding are reduced. One partial remedy for this problem was suggested in the Ohio state plan, which would require a chosen vendor to supply training and education materials for poll workers and voters [6]. 3.3 Budget Distribution The plans for distribution of funding to local officials and election boards vary considerably between states, partly reflecting the existing division of responsibilities. Alaska, Maryland and North Carolina and Oregon will centrally manage the funding of projects, although Maryland and Oregon undertake to allow local organisations to apply for any unallocated funds. The Arizona state election administration will act as negotiator on behalf counties when procuring voting machines in order to maximise purchasing power. South Dakota plans to manage funding of centralised projects, but also use the federal appropriations to establish a revolving loan fund for counties to access in order to ensure the long term maintainance of election reform. Ohio, Idaho and California intend to manage some projects centrally but also establish a grant system to allow counties to apply for funding for HAVA related projects. The budgeting of such projects will be monitored by the states, with funds allocated according to state priorities. Texas and Utah intend to devolve most of the funding to the counties. In the case of Utah, counties will establish individual HAVA compliance plans and request funding for the plan s budget. As described above, the state plans vary on a spectrum from complete state management of HAVA implementation, through to the devolution of responsibilities and much of the funding to the individual counties. The nature of this allocation may well be partly due to the different characteristics of the states. Alaska, for example with a population less than a number of US counties(626, 932[1]), may well find central organisation most appropriate. States that have a stronger tradition of devolving responsibility for administering elections to the counties may well find implementing HAVA easier at this level, where much of the state s expertise in these matters may reside. 3

4 Alaska Arizona Delaware California Voter outreach Public broadcasts Poll worker training & certification Train high school/college students Information websites/toll free lines Idaho Maryland Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Oregon Rhode Island South Dakota Texas Utah Vermont Table 1: State education activities However, given the requirement for a statewide voter registration system, some funding will have to be managed centrally, even if other purchases, for compliant voting machines, for example, are made locally. So far 13 states have explicitly acknowledged the need to manage such a project centrally (including Utah and Texas) by appropriating on average $6.3 million in funding, although there is a considerable range of figures (see Statewide Voter Registration System below). 3.4 Maintainance of Effort HAVA requires that each state receiving federal funding in order to improve elections maintain there only level of appropriations for election administration. This provision is intended to prevent HAVA monies from, in effect, being reallocated to other parts of a state s budget through comparable reductions in funding of elections. To obtain federal funding for HAVA, the state must: (7) How the State, in using the requirements payment, will maintain the expenditures of the State for activities funded by the payment at a level that is not less than the level of such expenditures maintained by the State for the fiscal year ending prior to November [HAVA, sec 254, 7] However, there is considerable discrepency between the levels of funding at state level for election administration. Alaska (population 626,932), for example spends a factor of 10 times as much on elections at state level ($537, 000) than does South Dakota ($55, 024), a state with a comparable population (754, 844). Such variation is a result of different settlements regarding the administration of elections. Budgeting for South Dakota predominantly occurs at the county or local level, whilst in Alaska, the budgeting occurs at state level. Crucially, the terms of HAVA do not seem to specify that total spending within a state for elections is not reduced, only that spending which occurs at state level. Such an omission may cause difficulties in states where funding occurs at county level, whose administrations are not bound by the commitment of HAVA to maintain election expenditure. One state at least, Maryland, has addressed this by requiring that counties that receive federal funding from the state distribution also maintain there levels of funding as part of the state plan. 3.5 Education And Training States plans for the education of voters and the training of election officials and poll workers are consistently thorough. The states describe commitment in these areas through the appropriate allocation of funds in budgets and in some states the willingness to provide grants to non-government organisations (California, for example) to develop independent training schemes. The states have demonstrated a desire to embrace new technologies to facilitate dissemination of information, notably interactive training websites, or the use of demonstration voting systems. The table below summarises the common themes employed by the states in their plans for voter education and poll worker training. In addition, states have demonstrated considerable individual ingenuity in their education programmes, producing a number of innovative proposals: Ohio will require the vendors of new voting systems to provide the associated training for both poll workers and voters. This places the educational responsibility with the the organisation most knowledgable with the systems. Idaho will recruit bilingual poll workers. 4

5 Oregon will provide poll workers with training specific to the needs of voters with disabilities. This is highly appropriate for a state that will use mobile voting systems in order to reach voters unable to attend polling places. Vermont will deliber birthday cards to citizens when they reach the 18 years voting age to inform them of their new voting rights. It is recommended that education and training be a particular area where formal procedures for idea swapping and best practice are established between states. Such practice would also have the advantage of providing additional scrutiny of education material, allowing incorrect or misleading information on forms or guides to be identified and corrected more quickly. 3.6 Statewide Voter Registration System A key provision of HAVA (sec303) requires a computerised statewide voter registration list to be implemented by each state election organisation. Prior to the enactment of HAVA, less than twenty states were either maintaining a statewide registration database, or in the process of implementing such a system with some form of automation[3]. The system described in HAVA must complying with a number of specifications, such that even those states with existing systems will likely require some modifications or updates: Unique identifiers for each voter, through use of social security numbers or driver s licences. Real time access for local and county election officials. Automated links between the central registration list and other organisations such as the state s driver s licence agency such that the agency may act as a registration office. Standards of security and integrity of data to prevent unauthorised access/loss of data. Case Study: United Kingdom Registration The procedure for registration in the United Kingdom utilises an annual canvass of households conducted by mail. A form is sent to each household listing those voters currently on the electoral register. A member of each household removes any voters that are no longer eligible and lists the names of those voters resident but not on the form. A declaration that to the best of their knowledge the form is correct must be completed and the form returned to the electoral registration officer for processing. Voters may also register throughout the year in a similar manner to the system used in the United States. Such a process results in far higher registration rates in the UK than in the US. The cost of this process for a single local council (Chiltern) with a resident population of 90,000 was approximately 30,000 annually for printing and postage. Assuming no economies of scale or other savings from reducing other forms of registration, for Alaska this would equate to an extra $200, 000 a year to implement. Given this, it is suggested that long term consideration is given to states implementing this process as an alternative to voter motivated registration. Such requirements present states with a considerable challenge comparable to many other large and complex software projects. Additionally, HAVA contains conflicting security and functionality requirements for the system, notably the demand for distributed real time access (functionality) against the need for centralised maintainance (integrity and security), both of which are laudable aims. Providing all local election officials across a state with access to a single registration system allows voters to be registered immediately. Election day difficulties can also be resolved more quickly (if a voter has moved counties within a state, for example). However, this access conflicts directly with the security requirements for the system, particularly if social security numbers are used as a unique identifier. Traditionally, controls which limit functionality and or access are implemented to prevent unauthiorised access or accidental data loss[5], but given the wide distribution of access rights required by HAVA, these are likely to be extremely difficult to implement. The real time access gives rise to one likely scenario where an election worker simply leaves a work station unattended whilst logged on to the statewide system, either in a polling station or an election office. The risk of such a scenario only increases with the number of terminals and the number of workers who have access to the system, regardless of whether they themselves have any malicious intent. Additionally, HAVA mandates a deadline of 1st of January 2004, by which time states should have implemented a system compliant with the requirements of HAVA (sec303, a). Those states that have already procured a voter 5

6 Table 2: Statewide Voter Registration System Estimated Appropriation State Amount Resident Amount by ($ million) Population[8] Population Alaska , Arizona , 130, California N/A 33, 871, 648 N/A Delaware , Idaho 1.5 1, 293, Maryland 9.0 5, 296, Nevada 3.5 1, 998, New Hampshire , 235, North Carolina 5.0 8, 049, Ohio , 353, Oregon 3.0 3, 421, Rhode Island N/A 1, 048, 319 N/A South Dakota N/A 754, 844 N/A Texas , 851, Utah 1.0 2, 233, Vermont , Mean (excluding Alaska and New Hampshire) (1.3) Standard Deviation 2.8 (excluding Alaska and New Hampshire) (0.7) registration system have discovered that a period of between 2 and 4 years is necessary for complete implementation of such a complex project[3]. At the time of writing, most states have not yet secured sufficient appropriations for the registration system, partly due to federal funding uncertainties, allowing at best another 1 1 / 2 years before the deadline. It is to be anticipated that those states procuring their first centralised registration system will almost all invoke the waiver to delay complete implementation until 1st January Although federal funding for the registration systems has not yet been secured 13 states have included cost estimations in their state plan (see 2 below). The table illustrates the appropriations proposed by each state against resident population. The data is interesting because considerable variation from the mean exists in the amounts each state expects to spend on constructing and/or maintaining a statewide election system. One of the most extreme cases, Alaska, estimates an appropriation of 4.5 million in order to make upgrades to an existing system that serves a relatively small population. Even where the amounts for Alaska and New Hampshire are ignored, there is a considerable (figures in brackets) standard variation from the mean. This data suggests considerable uncertainty as to the costs of the statewide registration system, as is to be expected for such a complex and large software project. An alternative to immediate implementation of the system described in HAVA would be a centralised system that underwent a weekly batch update with manual checking of data by state election officials prior to the changes being made. Errors could be identified by unusually high numbers of registrants from a particular county, for example. Such a system might be suitable for some states to implement by 1st January 2004, with a specific intention to upgrade this system to real time access by 1st January Legislation 4.1 Summary Table 3 above illustrates the progress made by state s implementing HAVA. The table suggests that state legislatures that have already adjourned have completed much of their legislation and that almost all states have introduced bills in order to bring state election law into compliance with HAVA. The exceptional state, Ohio, has not yet introduced any legislation since much HAVA reform will be undertaken by the Secretary of State. 6

7 Table 3: State legislative progess in implementing HAVA. Date All Legislatures All Legislatures Passed Failed Pending Total Passed Failed Pending Total 15th May The themes of the HAVA legislation are unsurprisingly quite similar, although the number of bills introduced varies considerably from state to state, some using a catch-all HAVA compliance bill whilst overs choose to use sate bills for each HAVA requirement. Overall, the main topics of legislation relating to mandatory HAVA compliance are: Appropriations of 5% matching funds in order to obtain federal funding(hava sec253, a, 5). The matching funds must be extra to existing funding. Establish election fund to comply with section under the control of either the chief election official, or as part of the state treasury (HAVA sec 254, b) Adoption of voting system standards as part of system certification law/ polling day procedures. Administrative complaints procedure (HAVA sec 402), usually as an addition to election law. Provisional voting requirements (HAVA sec 302) in most cases by modifying existing legislation or by addition of extra provisions to existing election law. Table 4 below summarises the legislation introduced during the 2003 session by subject. The summary shows the current status of legislatures with bills passed or pending. Failed bills are not shown in the table. The table shows the variation in legislative approaches. Although most states have introduced at least one general compliance bill that may cover the other subjects, many states have introduced different aspects of HAVA requirements as separate bills. 4.2 Failed Legislation A number of HAVA compliance bills have failed during the 2003 sessions: Arkansas passed most of its HAVA compliance legislation, but not the requirement for an election fund due to failure of SB745. Four bills failed in the Mississippi legislature due to adjournent. These would have covered HAVA compliance and the requirements for a statewide registration database using social security numbers as unique identifiers. SB1500 and HB1861 failed in the Florida legislature due to adjournment of the Regular Session. These two bills comprised general HAVA compliance legislation. HB7-A has now been introduced into the special session in order for Florida to comply with the provisions of HAVA. AB527 modifying Nevada election law to comply with HAVA failed in committee. The Nevada legislature is still is session. SB453 has been amended to adopt the provisions of AB Adoption of Provisional Voting Requirements An issue that has occurred in reviews of HAVA implementing legislature is the conflict between allowing the casting of a provisional vote and a state s voter identification requirements. It has been suggested demos-pending, for example, that Colorado bill HB may contradict the provisional voting terms of HAVA, requiring that a voter who s registration cannot be established may cast a provisional ballot on completion of an affadavit or similar attesting to the voter s residence and right to vote. HB requires that a voter produce certain identification before casting a provisional ballot. If the voter does not produce identification, the provisional ballot, shall not be counted unless the county clerk or designated election official determines that the voter was properly registered in the precinct and county. [HB , 6] 7

8 Table 4: Summary of introduced legislation during 2003 sessions by topic. Key Pending Passed Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado General Compliance Appropriations Election Fund Registration Voter Identification Election Machines Provisional Voting Connecticut Delaware D.C. Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan General Compliance Appropriations Election Fund Registration Voter Identification Election Machines Provisional Voting Minnesota Mississipi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island General Compliance Appropriations Election Fund Registration Voter Identification Election Machines Provisional Voting South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsis Wyoming 8

9 The language of this section of the bill would thus seem to be simply redundant, rather than contrary to the provisions of HAVA. On the one hand, the bill demands that the voter provides identification documents in order for the provisional ballot to be counted, whilst also stating that the identification document may be waived if the voter s eligibility can be established by election officials. Note that the language of the bill does not prevent a provisional ballot being cast without identification documents. This then raises the question as to why identification documents should be provided at all, since the purpose of a provisional ballot is that it should not be counted unless the citizen is in fact registered as a voter. 4.4 Amendments to HAVA Although HAVA was only signed by the president a little over 6 months ago, there have already been numerous bills introduced to supplement the provisions of HAVA. HR1510 and HJRES 28 have included provisions to mandate same day registration. HR1510 would also authorise an extra $15 billion for the purposes of election reform. SB726 (=HR1508) and HR1510 Would make election days a federal holiday. HR1433 and HR259 would return the right to vote to all felons who have completed their sentences. Additionally, HR2319 attempts repeal the National Voter Registration Act Conclusions In general, given the uncertainty with regard to federal funding of HAVA, the states are making reasonable progress with implementation. 15 states have so far published drafts of state plans with detailed descriptions of the states activities, and California has produced a discussion document. Of the plans published so far, most note the concern that is associated with the uncertainty over funding, exasperating the difficulty of achieving the early deadlines specified by HAVA. Those projects that are expected to receive relatively little funding are most developed in the state plans, notably a broad range of educational programmes. Legislation also continues a pace. Given that all the states (except Ohio) and the District of Columbia having at least introduced HAVA related bills and measures, the states have given considerable attention to implementing the measures specified in HAVA. In the legislatures that have now adjourned, 30 HAVA bills were passed (a further 9 failed) and it is worth noting that 12 states have passed all their HAVA related legislation this session. Assuming that federal funding begins to reach states within the next few months, the prospects for implementing HAVA are reasonably optimistic, although the deadlines for the major projects will almost certainly be extended by the waiver. Monitoring of the state s progress in implementing their plans will likely prove informative over the next year, particular with regard to the variations between appropriations authorised in HAVA and those actually made in the federal budget. Such information would provide data for the discussion of budgeting for the estimated levels of federal funding for fiscal years 04 and 05. States would then be able to modify their plans, as required by HAVA, to ensure that compliance is achieved at whatever level of funding is decided and the plans are tailored to the precise amounts available. References [1] U.S. Census Bureau. Resident population, December [2] CARLAW. State legislative session calendar, February [3] David Callahan Charis Varnum and Sarah Tobias. An overdue reform the need for statewide computerized voter registration systems. Technical report, Demos, January [4] Electionline. Hava information central. links to all published state plans and a selection of HAVA bills. [5] Dieter Gollmann. Computer Security. John Wiley and Son Ltd, [6] J. Kenneth Blackwell(Secretary of State). Ohio state plan 30 day draft, May [7] Demos Organisation. Pending hava-related bills in the states. [8] Demos Organisation. Hava plans: States take varying approaches to hava (memo), May

10 A State Plan Summary The forms below summarises the 16 state plans evalutated by 15th May Each state must complete a plan in order to qualify for HAVA Title II (requirements payments) detailing how the states will implement the mandatory requirements of HAVA and use requirements payments for the purpose of election reform in general. Section 254 of HAVA specifies 13 topics that each state plan must address at minimum in order to qualify for funds; the response of the states is reflected in the 13 rows of the table. For consistency, the calculation in row six assumes full federal funding of HAVA. The amounts shown represent the distribution of all payments to the state under HAVA, distributed between Title III and other requirements. Where a state has deliberately budgeted against known and predicted funding for HAVA, the remaining amount from the total funding assumption is termed unallocated. Where a state have provided a range for a budgeted amount, the mid-value of the range is assumed. It must be noted that all the plans included in the analysis were published as drafts (or in the case of California as a discussion document) for public comment, rather than for final submission. It may therefore be anticipated that the plans will undergo some changes in the months ahead. 10

11 State 1. Requirements payment for title III and other activites. Alaska 10 DREMs for early voting & evaluation. Update voter registration system. Provisional voter s hotline.reproduce election forms. 2. Distribution of payments to local government. 3. Programs of Education and Training. Funds will be retained centrally and audited in compliance with Government Auditing Standards. Unspecified centralised goal management. Outreach to isolated communities. Develop interactive technologies. Program to train poll workers and officials closer to polling day. 4. Adoption of Voting System Guidelines. 5. Establishment of an Election Fund. 6. Budget distribution to meet title III requirements and other activities. 7. Maintainance of Expenditure. 8. Performance goals and measurement. 9. Complaints procedure. 10. Use of title I payment for state plan activities. One DRE machine in each polling place for disabled voters. Update definition of a vote to encompass DRE machines and optical scan devices. To be established within state treasury and administered jointly between the Finance and Election divisions. Title III: $12, 750, 000 (75.8%) Other activities: $4, 075, 000 (24.2%) Maintain state election expenditure at $537, 000. Will utilise missions and measures process. State plan identifies requirements and deadline, but no details regarding how the requirements will be judged. Will comprise a new article in the Election Division s administrative regulation (title VI of the Alaska Administrative Code). Training, education and outreach. Voting system improvements, and improved accessability to polling places. Toll Free reporting number. 11. Plan Management. 12. Changes from Previous FY Plan. 13. Committee makeup. Controlled centrally by the Director of the Division of Elections. State plan incorporated into State s election reform agenda. N/A 16 appointees from relevant interest groups, meeting twice in public. 11

12 State 1. Requirements payment for title III and other activites. Arizona hava.sos.state.az.us/2003/state plan Procure HAVA compliant voting system. Procure voter registration system. Complaints hotline. Expansion of certification program. 2. Distribution of payments to local government. 3. Programs of Education and Training. Distributed according to the priorities of the state plan. Secretary of State will act on counties behalf for procuring state wide uniform voting system. Public broadcast systems in major markets. Extension of certification program for poll workers. Warn voters of dangers of undervoting. 4. Adoption of Voting System Guidelines. Guidelines adopted under Revised Statutes. Appointment of 3 member technical advisory committee. Secretary of State performs final inspection. 5. Establishment of an Election Fund. 6. Budget distribution to meet title III requirements and other activities. 7. Maintainance of Expenditure. 8. Performance goals and measurement. 9. Complaints procedure. 10. Use of title I payment for state plan activities. 11. Plan Management. 12. Changes from Previous FY Plan. 13. Committee makeup. To be established under the sole control of the Secretary of State. Title III: $47, 695, 000 (81.3%) Other activities: $10, 970, 000 (18.7%) Declaration that requirements payments will not be used to fund expenditure previously covered by the state. Detailed description of performance goals, timetables, responsible official and the metric by which success will be judged. Plan includes summary of the complaint process. Similar complaints will be consolidated. Technologies may be tested for hearings. Complaints will be available online. Funding for the Adios Chad voting system replacement programme. Procurement of statewide registration system. Annual meetings between the Secretary of State and County Recorders. N/A 25 appointees from relevant interest groups, holding 6 meetings. A website is available for public comment on the committee s activities. 12

13 State 1. Requirements payment for title III and other activites. Ohio Procure HAVA compliant voting system. Procure voter registration system. Provisional voter s hotline. 2. Distribution of payments to local government. 3. Programs of Education and Training. 4. Adoption of Voting System Guidelines. 5. Establishment of an Election Fund. 6. Budget distribution to meet title III requirements and other activities. 7. Maintainance of Expenditure. 8. Performance goals and measurement. Secretary of state will provide counties with a list of approved voting machine vendor s. Counties must select a vendor by 1st Sept 2003, or have a vendor imposed. Recruit and train college and high school students as poll workers. Demand of vendors to supply training and educational material with their system. Establishment of technical committee to recommend vendors w.r.t HAVA. Recommendations reviewed by the Board of Voting Machine examiners. Fund account established by the Secretary of State. Quarterly reports issued for this fund. Title III: $148, 500, 000 (92.2%) Other activities: $12, 500, 000 (7.8%) Certification by Secretary of State that funding will not fall below FY 00. Timetable enforced by the Secretary of State where possible. Introduce voter surveys in order to obtain a consumer s perspective. 9. Complaints procedure. 10. Use of title I payment for state plan activities. 11. Plan Management. 12. Changes from Previous FY Plan. 13. Committee makeup. Plan includes summary of the complaint process. Will comprise a new chapter of title 35 of the Ohio Revised Code. Replacement of punch card voting systems in 88 counties. Procurement of state-wide registration system. Counties expected to use annual budgeting process to assess progress. Secretary of State will publish these reports. N/A 13 appointees from relevant interest groups, with a 2 day hearings session, public comments via a website and then a finalisation session of the plan. The 13

14 State 1. Requirements payment for title III and other activites. 2. Distribution of payments to local government. Idaho Preliminary Plan.doc Provide one disabilities compliant voting device for every polling place. Procure of a voter registration database. Establish a grant program to allocate monies from the Democracy Fund, with some matching funds from counties. No confirmed statewide voting system. 3. Programs of Education and Training. Uniform voter ID card. Recruit bilingual poll workers. Best practice training program for poll workers. 4. Adoption of Voting System Guidelines. Supply one disabilities compliant DRE machine in each polling place Allow for all-absentee or mail-in precincts. Update election day information for HAVA. 5. Establishment of an Election Fund. 6. Budget distribution to meet title III requirements and other activities. 7. Maintainance of Expenditure. 8. Performance goals and measurement. Previously established Democracy fund will be used for HAVA compliance. The fund is supervised by the Controller Office and the Secretary of State. (only title I monies included.) Title III: $4, 300, 000 (86%) Other activities: $700, 000 (14%) Plan certifies that state funding will continue at or above the level of FY 00. Survey voters & non voters; obtain comment from parties and the public. Poll worker, election official, waiting time, grievances and participation levels. 9. Complaints procedure. 10. Use of title I payment for state plan activities. 11. Plan Management. 12. Changes from Previous FY Plan. 13. Committee makeup. Plan includes a short summary of the complaint process. The process will comprise administrative rules developed by the Secretary of State & Attorney General. Title I monies will fund Idaho s state wide schemes. The committee will meet semi-annually to receive the report of the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for plan management. N/A 19 appointees from relevant interest groups, meeting bi-annually. 14

15 State 1. Requirements payment for title III and other activites. Oregon Disabilities compliant DREMs for each county office and also mobile. Procure voter registration database. Provisional ballot and complaint hotline. 2. Distribution of payments to local government. 3. Programs of Education and Training. 4. Adoption of Voting System Guidelines. 5. Establishment of an Election Fund. 6. Budget distribution to meet title III requirements and other activities. 7. Maintainance of Expenditure. 8. Performance goals and measurement. Most monies managed centrally from Election Fund for most projects. Remaining Money made available to counties via discretionary grants. Information websites for each election office, toll free information line. Specifically train election officials on the needs of voters with disabilities. Disabilities compliant DREMs for each county office and also mobile. Include HAVA compliant information with all-mail in election packets. Election Fund legislation will be introduced in the 2003 session. Title III: $13, 950, 000 (83.5%) Other activities: $2, 750, 000 (16.5%) Plan certifies that state funding for title III requirements will be maintained at the level of FY 00. Plan assumes maintained funding at state and county level. Deadlines specified for requirements. Officials to develop metrics for criteria when assessing projects scope, schedule, resources, quality and risk. 9. Complaints procedure. 10. Use of title I payment for state plan activities. 11. Plan Management. Plan includes a complaints procedure focused on informal resolution and flexible handling. Requires adoption of administrative rules by Secretary of State. Initially used to fund requirements activities to ensure immediate start. Reimbursed title I monies will then be used for other activities. Plan monitored by a Steering Committee, overall implementation by the Secretary of State and Division of Elections. Annual review process defined. 12. Changes from Previous FY Plan. 13. Committee makeup. N/A 15 appointees from relevant interest groups. Separate voter registration system committee also established. Comments accepted on draft at public meetings. 15

16 State 1. Requirements payment for title III and other activites. Utah elections.utah.gov/state.planpdf.pdf Procure HAVA compliant voting system. In house voter registration system. Provisional voter s hotline by county. 2. Distribution of payments to local government. Counties develop individual plans. State plan committee reviews funding. State funding of counties conditional on compliance with HAVA 3. Programs of Education and Training. Train college students as poll workers. Uniform pay & training of judges. Certification of election officials. Public demonstrations of voting system. 4. Adoption of Voting System Guidelines. 5. Establishment of an Election Fund. 6. Budget distribution to meet title III requirements and other activities. 7. Maintainance of Expenditure. 8. Performance goals and measurement. 9. Complaints procedure. 10. Use of title I payment for state plan activities. 11. Plan Management. Replacement of punch card system with DRE machines. State plan committee will ensure chosen DRE system is HAVA compliant. Election fund established by the Lt. Governor s Office, under the control of the Lt Governor, the Director of Elections and the Office of Planning and Budget. Title III: $22, 500, 000 (80.4%) Other activities: $5, 500, 000 (19.6%) State provides breakdown of current expenditure at total of $336, 033. Detailed description of performance goals, timetables, responsible official and the metric by which success will be judged. Complaints conducted under Utah Code Title 63, 46b, Administrative Procedures Act. Bi-partisan review committee will refer to mediation or court as appropriate. Support of punch card buyouts. State plan committee to meet twice yearly and on request of Lt. Governor. Committee will review the plan, budget & progress and make necessary changes. 12. Changes from Previous FY Plan. 13. Committee makeup. N/A 16 appointees from relevant interest groups, meeting 4 times to develop state plan. Minutes of meetings available. 16

17 State 1. Requirements payment for title III and other activites. 2. Distribution of payments to local government. 3. Programs of Education and Training. Texas Funds will be transferred to counties for state approved projects that facilitate the county s compliance with HAVA. Counties apply to state for funding of a state authorised project. Elections inspector s will monitor county compliance with title III. Enhance existing (substantial) training & educational programmes. Develop state outreach program. Internet Online Voter Tutorial. 4. Adoption of Voting System Guidelines. 5. Establishment of an Election Fund. 6. Budget distribution to meet title III requirements and other activities. 7. Maintainance of Expenditure. 8. Performance goals and measurement. Proposed legislation will complete HAVA compliance. Supplement pre-sept 99 voting systems with one DRE for disability compliance. Election Improvement Fund will be created by the Secretary of State and the State Legislature. Management recommended by State Auditor and State Comptroller. Title III: $32, 389, 000 (40.6%) Other activities: $2, 500, 000 (3.1%) County to allocate: $45, 000, 000 (56.3%) No statement in current draft. The state and counties will monitor performance and publish results. Criteria considered are over votes, voter registration, trained poll workers. 9. Complaints procedure. Complaint procedure already specified in the Administrative Procedure Act. Complaints will be consolidated for efficiency if possible. 10. Use of title I payment for state plan activities. 11. Plan Management. No statement in current draft. Developed by the Comptroller, Auditor and Secretary of State s offices. Periodic reports on compliance and progress. - annual report. 12. Changes from Previous FY Plan. 13. Committee makeup. N/A 27 appointees from relevant interest groups, one meeting so far. 17

18 State 1. Requirements payment for title III and other activites. 2. Distribution of payments to local government. South Dakota Provide one disabilities compliant DRE machine for every polling place. Modify voter registration system. Established state appropriation system. Compare plan recommendations with accomplishments. Revolving loan fund for further DREMs. 3. Programs of Education and Training. Presentations to schools and communities. Additional day training for officials. Provide county auditors with training material for poll workers. 4. Adoption of Voting System Guidelines. Education of voters to comply 301,a,1,B. Modification of state statute and administrative rules. Disabilities compliant DREMs. 5. Establishment of an Election Fund. 6. Budget distribution to meet title III requirements and other activities. 7. Maintainance of Expenditure. 8. Performance goals and measurement. 9. Complaints procedure. 10. Use of title I payment for state plan activities. Established with state government s accounting system, managed by the Secretary of State, subject to state budgeting procedures. Title III: $7, 916, 000 (99.1%) Other activities: $70, 000 (0.09%) State will continue to fund elections department at $55,024, since most election funding is at county level. Detailed description of performance goals, timetables, responsible official and the metric by which success will be judged. Provided in SB13 sec Alternative complaint procedure describes appointment of an arbitrator where initial resolution by Board of Elections fails. Support punch card system buyouts. Loan fund for future voting equipment purchases. Supplement requirements payments. 11. Plan Management. 12. Changes from Previous FY Plan. 13. Committee makeup. Secretary of State to monitor activities under plan, with changes made by Board of Elections through an open hearing process. N/A 17 appointees from relevant interest groups. 18

19 State California Requirements payment for title III and other activites. 2. Distribution of payments to local government. Procure a voter registration system. Provisional voter s hotline. Application procedure to be established. Public inspection of applications. Establish criteria for receiving funds with corresponding performance measures. 3. Programs of Education and Training. Establish Election Academy Online interactive training resources. Grants for community and organisation s training programmers. 4. Adoption of Voting System Guidelines. 5. Establishment of an Election Fund. 6. Budget distribution to meet title III requirements and other activities. 7. Maintainance of Expenditure. 8. Performance goals and measurement. 9. Complaints procedure. 10. Use of title I payment for state plan activities. 11. Plan Management. 12. Changes from Previous FY Plan. 13. Committee makeup. Compliance through modification to Election Code by the Secretary of State. 3 separate funds established within Federal Trust Fund, for Title I sec101 and sec102 money and Title II money. No statement in current draft. Certification by Secretary of State that funding will not fall below FY 00. Performance measures to be developed. Secretary of state will monitor performance. Modifications to existing complaints facility in order to ensure compliance with HAVA. Toll free complaint number already available. No statement in current draft. Secretary of State will monitor progress via mandated reports from grant recipients. Funds provided for each phase of a project at a time. N/A No statement in current draft. 19

20 State 1. Requirements payment for title III and other activites. 2. Distribution of payments to local government. 3. Programs of Education and Training. 4. Adoption of Voting System Guidelines. 5. Establishment of an Election Fund. 6. Budget distribution to meet title III requirements and other activities. 7. Maintainance of Expenditure. 8. Performance goals and measurement. 9. Complaints procedure. 10. Use of title I payment for state plan activities. 11. Plan Management. 12. Changes from Previous FY Plan. 13. Committee makeup. Maryland md preliminary plan.pdf Continue programme of replacing existing voting system. Procure a voter registration system. Most monies managed centrally from Election Fund for most projects. Remaining Money made available for special local initiatives. Establish a training and outreach unit with the State Board of Election. Maintain outreach program for educating voters. Compliance through adopted Legislation. State has established procedures for system certification and recounts. Maryland Election Modernization Fund established through legislation (HB1061, 2003). Title III: $36, 550, 000 (71.4%) Other activities: $5, 700, 000 (11.1%) Unallocated: $8, 940, 000 (17.5%) 2 State will maintain expenditures at or greater than $1, 994, 914. Addtionally notes that counties should also maintain expenditure. Deadlines specified for requirements. Officials to develop metrics for criteria when assessing projects scope, schedule, resources, quality and risk. Informal complaints procedures via web or telephone supplemented by formal procedure specified in Code of Maryland Regulations. Supplement requirements payments activities. Local jurisdictions may receive some of payment under state law. Establish central Election Reform Program Management Office. Office will monitor standards, recommend changes and implement plan. N/A 9 appointee s from relevant interest groups, assisted by Accenture as project management vendor. 20