Since the act’s  passage, a number of voting jurisdictions have replaced their older  voting equipment with direct recording electronic systems. These standards define minimum functional and performance  requirements, as well as minimum life-cycle management processes  for voting equipment developers to follow, such as quality  assurance. The Help America Vote Act Was Enacted to Strengthen the Overall Election Process

Enacted by the Congress in October 2002, the Help America Vote  Act of 2002 addressed a range of election issues, including the lack  of explicit federal (statutory) responsibility for developing and  maintaining standards for electronic voting systems and for testing  voting systems against standards. In particular, the act established a program  to provide funds to states to replace punch card and lever machine  voting equipment, established the EAC to assist in the  administration of federal elections and provide assistance with the  administration of certain federal election laws and programs, and  established minimum election administration standards for the  states and units of local government that are responsible for the  administration of federal elections. Other examples of EAC responsibilities  include  ●  developing and adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and  maintaining information on the experiences of states in  implementing the guidelines and operating voting systems;  ●  testing, certifying, decertifying, and recertifying voting system  hardware and software through accredited laboratories;  ●  making payments to states to help them improve elections in the  areas of voting systems standards, provisional voting and voting  information requirements, and computerized statewide voter  registration lists; and   ●  making grants for research on voting technology improvements. In the 2000 election, about 12  percent of voters used this type of technology. ●  A “review” feature. ●  Accommodations for voters with disabilities. Expanded Use of Electronic Voting Systems Has Raised Concerns

As older voting equipment has been replaced with newer electronic  voting systems over the last 2 years, the debate has shifted from  hanging chads and butterfly ballots to vulnerabilities associated  with DREs. Electronic Voting Systems’ Performance Can Be Judged on Several Attributes

Although the current debate concerning electronic voting systems  primarily relates to security, other factors affecting election  administration are also relevant in evaluating these systems. Ensuring the security of elections is essential to public confidence  and election integrity, but officials choosing a voting system must  also consider other performance factors, such as accuracy, ease of  use, and efficiency, as well as cost. ●  Audit trails. Accessibility to diverse types of voters, including those with  disabilities, is a further aspect of ease of use. Among other things, these differences can be attributed to  differences in what is included in the unit cost as well as differences  in the characteristics of the equipment. In fact, one large jurisdiction that used  optical scan equipment reported that its operating costs were  $545,000. Electronic Voting System Performance Depends on System Design and Implementation

The performance of any information technology system, including  electronic voting systems, is heavily influenced by a number of  factors, not the least of which is the quality of the system’s design  and the effectiveness with which the system is implemented in an  operational setting. As described already, DRE equipment is  designed to minimize voter error (by preventing overvotes, for  example), but problems can also occur with this voting method. Jurisdictions Face Immediate and Longer Term Challenges in Leveraging Voting Technologies

In 2001, we identified four key challenges confronting local  jurisdictions in effectively using and replacing voting technologies.
Why GAO Did This Study

The technology used to cast and count votes is one aspect of the multifaceted U.S. election process. GAO examined voting technology, among other things, in a series of reports that it issued in 2001 following the problems encountered in the 2000 election. In October 2002, the Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act, which, among other things, established the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to assist in the administration of federal elections. The act also established a program to provide funds to states to replace older punch card and lever machine voting equipment. As this older voting equipment has been replaced with newer electronic voting systems over the last 2 years, concerns have been raised about the vulnerabilities associated with certain electronic voting systems. Among other things, GAO's testimony focuses on attributes on which electronic voting systems can be assessed, as well as design and implementation factors affecting their performance. GAO also describes the immediate and longer term challenges confronting local jurisdictions in using any type of voting equipment, particularly electronic voting systems.

What GAO Found

An electronic voting system, like other automated information systems, can be judged on several bases, including how well its design provides for security, accuracy, ease of use, and efficiency, as well as its cost. For example, direct recording electronic systems offer advantages in ease of use because they can have features that accommodate voters with various disabilities, and they protect against common voter errors, such as overvoting (voting for more candidates than is permissible); a disadvantage of such systems is their capital cost and frequent lack of an independent paper audit trail. Advantages of optical scan voting equipment (another type of electronic voting system) include capital cost and the enhanced security associated with having a paper audit trail; disadvantages include lower ease of use, such as their limited ability to accommodate voters with disabilities. One important determinant of voting system performance is how it is designed and developed, including the testing that determines whether the developed system performs as designed. In the design and development process, a critical factor is the quality of the specified system requirements as embodied in applicable standards or guidance. For voting technology, these voluntary standards have historically been problematic; the EAC has now been given responsibility for voting system guidelines, and it intends to update them. The EAC also intends to strengthen the process for testing voting system hardware and software. A second determinant of performance is how the system is implemented. In implementing a system, it is critical to have people with the requisite knowledge and skills to operate it according to well-defined and understood processes. The EAC also intends to focus on these people and process factors in its role of assisting in the administration of elections. In the upcoming 2004 national election and beyond, the challenges confronting local jurisdictions in using electronic voting systems are similar to those facing any technology user. These challenges include both immediate and more long term challenges.