These officials are therefore critical not only to the successful administration of federal elections, but also to the implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252 ). Who Are Local Election Officials? They differ from those of other local government employees. Voting Systems

		Current Voting System

			The kinds of voting systems used in the United States changed significantly between 2004 and 2006, with a substantial increase in the use of precinct-count optical scan (PCOS) and direct-recording electronic systems (DREs)

Respondents reported that the percentage of jurisdictions using lever machines, punchcards, hand-counted paper ballots, and central-count optical scan (CCOS) as their primary voting system decreased substantially, while the percentage using PCOS and DREs increased (see Figure 7 ). LEOs believed that the federal government has too great an influence on the acquisition of voting systems and local elected officials have too little

The results are presented in Figure 9 . LEOs have become more concerned about the influence of the media, political parties, advocacy groups, and vendors

Some of the differences between the 2004 and 2006 results are notable. LEOs rated their primary voting systems as very accurate, secure, reliable, and voter- and pollworker-friendly, no matter what voting system they used

To further assess voting system preferences, both surveys asked LEOs to assess their primary voting systems on fifteen specific characteristics ( Figure 13 ). Most DRE users did not believe that VVPAT should be required, but nonusers believed they should be

In the 2006 survey, only DRE users were asked if VVPAT should be required. Most VVPAT users in 2006 were satisfied with them

About three-quarters of LEOs who used a VVPAT were somewhat to very satisfied with it. LEOs believed that HAVA is making moderate improvements in the electoral process overall in their jurisdictions

However, more LEOs believed that the law resulted in no improvements than in major improvements, and the level of support was lower in 2006 than in 2004 ( Figure 21 ). LEOS reported that HAVA has increased the accessibility of voting but has made elections more complicated to administer

LEOs were also asked in 2006 to respond to a set of statements about the impacts of HAVA ( Figure 25 ). Most LEOs found the activities of the EAC only moderately beneficial to them

The results are presented in Figure 26 . LEOs supported requiring photo identification for all voters, even though they believed it will negatively affect turnout and did not believe that voter fraud is a serious problem in their jurisdictions

One of the principal policy arguments for tightening voter-identification requirements is concern about the risk of significant levels of voting by ineligible voters. On average, LEOs mildly supported a requirement for photo identification. Election Administration Issues

		2006 Election

			LEOs spent much more time preparing for the election in 2006 than the one in 2004

The 2006 election was the first under which all HAVA requirements were in effect. On average, there were 5-6 pollworkers per polling place. Some survey results suggest areas of potential professional improvement, such as in education and in professional involvement at the national level. The topics for the two surveys were developed collaboratively by the CRS and Texas A&M participants.
Local election officials (LEOs) are critical to the administration of federal elections and the implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252). Two surveys of LEOs were performed, in 2004 and 2006, by Texas A&M University; the surveys were sponsored and coordinated by CRS. Although care needs to be taken in interpreting the results, they may have implications for several policy issues, such as how election officials are chosen and trained, the best ways to ensure that voting systems and election procedures are sufficiently effective, secure, and voter-friendly, and whether adjustments should be made to HAVA requirements. Major results include the following:
The demographic characteristics of LEOs differ from those of other government officials. Almost three-quarters are women, and 5% are minorities. Most do not have a college degree, and most were elected. Some results suggest areas of potential improvement such as in training and participation in professional associations.
LEOs believed that the federal government has too great an influence on the acquisition of voting systems, and that local elected officials have too little. Their concerns increased from 2004 to 2006 about the influence of the media, political parties, advocacy groups, and vendors.
LEOs were highly satisfied with whatever voting system they used but were less supportive of other kinds. However, their satisfaction declined from 2004 to 2006 for all systems except lever machines. They also rated their primary voting systems as very accurate, secure, reliable, and voter- and pollworker-friendly, no matter what system they used. However, the most common incident reported by respondents in the 2006 election was malfunction of a direct recording (DRE) or optical scan (OS) electronic voting system. The incidence of long lines at polling places was highest in jurisdictions using DREs. Most DRE users did not believe that voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT) should be required, but nonusers believed they should be. However, the percentage of DRE users who supported VVPAT increased in 2006, and most VVPAT users were satisfied with them.
On average, LEOs mildly supported requiring photo identification for all voters, even though they strongly believed that it will negatively affect turnout and did not believe that voter fraud is a problem in their jurisdictions.
LEOs believed that HAVA is making moderate improvements in the electoral process, but the level of support declined from 2004 to 2006. They reported that HAVA has increased the accessibility of voting but has made elections more complicated and has increased their cost. LEOs spent much more time preparing for the election in 2006 than in 2004. They also believed that the increased complexity of elections is hindering recruitment of pollworkers. Most found the activities of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) that HAVA created only moderately beneficial to them. They were neutral on average about the impacts of the requirement for a statewide voter-registration database.