Most recently, HAVA was enacted in 2002, and among other things,  mandated that each state establish a computerized statewide voter  registration list to serve as the official voter registration list for conducting  elections for federal office in each state. Voter registration information is to be matched  with motor vehicle agency (MVA) records or Social Security  Administration (SSA) records, depending on the information provided by  the applicant. Eight States Reported Taking Actions to Establish Computerized Statewide Voter Registration Lists, and the Ninth Reported Having Such a List Prior to HAVA

Officials from eight of the nine states reported taking a variety of actions  in order to implement the HAVA computerized voter registration list  requirement; an official from one state, Kentucky, reported no actions  were taken because the state had such a system in place prior to the  enactment of HAVA. Officials from Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii, South  Carolina, and South Dakota reported modifying their existing  computerized statewide voter registration systems; officials from  Minnesota said the existing computerized voter registration system was  replaced; and officials from Arizona and West Virginia said their states  created computerized statewide voter registration systems for the first  time. However, the systems  were not interconnected to create statewide databases of legally  registered voters. States Reported Taking Steps to Verify Information on Registration Applications and Maintain Lists, Improving the Accuracy of Some Lists

State election officials reported taking required steps to verify information  provided on voter registration applications and to maintain accurate  computerized voter lists. All nine states conducted  regular voter list maintenance activities to purge duplicates and remove  names of persons ineligible to vote, such as deceased registrants, as  required by HAVA, officials also reported. Officials from all five of these states subject to this HAVA provision  reported their systems collected or assigned the required unique  identifying numbers for registered voters, as indicated in table 1. HAVA requires  states to coordinate the voter list with their state agencies’ records on  felony status to verify voters’ eligibility. Most states obtained a waiver  from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to postpone  implementation of this HAVA requirement until January 1, 2006. However,  these nine states did not obtain a waiver and, therefore, were to implement  these HAVA requirements by the original deadline, January 1, 2004. Among other things, we asked election officials in the nine states  to describe when their computerized systems had been developed; the  capabilities of their systems; what actions, if any, their states took to  implement the HAVA requirements for a computerized list; what level of  effort was required to make any HAVA-related modifications; what effect  implementing these changes, if any, might have had on the accuracy of  their statewide voter lists; and what challenges they faced and lessons they  learned while implementing these HAVA requirements. Appendix IX: Reported Experiences of South Carolina Election Officials Implementing HAVA Voter Registration List Provisions

This appendix describes steps South Carolina election officials reported  taking to implement selected provisions of the Help America Vote Act of  2002 (HAVA) and manage the election process with regard to establishing  computerized statewide voter registration lists, verifying the accuracy of  information provided on voter applications, and maintaining accurate  statewide voter lists. Challenges and Lessons Learned

implementation of the new system.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was enacted in part to help ensure that only eligible persons are registered to vote. Under HAVA, as of January 1, 2004, states were to create computerized statewide voter registration lists to serve as official rosters of legally registered voters for elections for federal office. States, however, were given the option to seek a waiver to postpone implementation of HAVA provisions until 2006. All but nine states did so. This report discusses the experiences of the nine states that were subject to the original HAVA deadline--Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Minnesota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. The report describes actions election officials in these states reported taking to meet specific HAVA requirements--as applicable to their states--for (1) establishing computerized statewide voter registration lists and (2) verifying the accuracy of information on voter registration applications and maintaining accurate computerized voter lists. GAO is also reporting what states said about challenges they faced and lessons learned implementing the requirements. Draft sections of this report were reviewed by the nine states; the Election Assistance Commission, which was responsible for coordinating HAVA waivers; and the Department of Justice. GAO incorporated technical comments, as appropriate.

What GAO Found

To establish the HAVA-required registration lists, five states modified existing computerized statewide voter registration systems; one state replaced an older system with a new one; and two states created statewide voter registration systems for the first time, according to election officials. Officials from the ninth state reported no actions were taken because the state had such a registration list in place prior to HAVA. State election officials reported they took steps to verify information provided on voter registration applications and maintain their voter lists as required by HAVA. States either completed or were in the process of completing the required matches of voter registration information with state motor vehicle agency (MVA) or Social Security Administration (SSA) records. Officials from all nine states reported conducting the list maintenance activities required by HAVA: eliminating duplicate registrations and coordinating the voter list with state agency records on felons and the deceased to identify and remove the names of ineligible registrants. According to officials from four states, implementing HAVA improved the accuracy of the voter lists, for example, by correcting errors in voter information before they were entered into the statewide list. Officials from the other five states reported little to no improvements to the accuracy of their lists in part, some said, because they had established systems similar to those required by HAVA prior to the enactment of the law. State election officials reported they faced challenges and learned lessons while implementing the HAVA requirements. For example, officials from seven states reported their experiences taught them that collaborating with local officials to develop the computerized statewide systems later helped them successfully implement the systems.