There are more than 9,000 local election jurisdictions in the United States. The demographic characteristics of LEOs are unusual for a groupof government officials. About one-quarter of LEOs are men, about 5% belong to minority groups,40% are college graduates, and 8% have graduate degrees. Increasingly, jurisdictions have turned to computer-assisted voting systems -- especially optical scanand direct recording electronic (DRE) systems. About half of jurisdictions with optical scan systems use precinctcount. (12) 
LEOs are highly satisfied with whatever voting systems they areusing now. There was little variation in the degree of satisfactionwith different kinds of voting systems, but the differences are illuminating: 
The most highly rated systems were precinct-count optical scan and DREs,which are the most compatible of current systems with the goals and requirements of HAVA. Most jurisdictions acquiring new voting systems choose those thathelp voters avoid errors. While LEOs tend to be very satisfiedwith the systems that they are using, they have more reservations about other kinds. This issue was also examined more specifically for DREs and optical scan users. (16) Most DRE users (70%)do not support the use of VVPAT and most do not plan to add them to their voting systems, whereasabout 70% of LEOs not using DREs do support VVPAT. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA): Impacts and Attitudes

HAVA requirements and funding have been a major factor in the adoption of new votingsystems by LEOs. (18) 
Most LEOs consider themselves familiar with and knowledgeableabout HAVA. LEOs believe that HAVA is making some improvements in theelectoral process. The survey asked LEOs to rate the degree to which HAVA hasresulted in improvements in elections in their jurisdictions -- from no improvement to majorimprovement. A comparison of how LEOs rated HAVA overall with other characteristics of the officials suggeststhat younger officials who are comfortable with technology and familiar with HAVA tended to besupportive of the legislation. The threemost common areas for improvement listed were federal funding, registration and voteridentification, and provisional ballots. They felt equally strongly that the recommendations of those vendors can be trusted. LEOs do not believe that vendors are very influential in decisionsabout acquiring new voting systems. Election Officials. Survey results are consistent with that view. Some surveyresults suggest areas of potential professional improvement, such as in education and in professionalinvolvement at the national level. Thesurvey revealed that LEOs who have experience with DREs are very confident in them and do notgenerally support the addition of a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) to address securityconcerns. The strongly dichotomous results suggest that as Congress considers whetherto require the use of VVPAT or similar security mechanisms, it might be useful to determine whetherDRE users are overconfident in the security of their systems or, alternatively, whether nonusers needto be better educated about the reliability and security of DRE systems.
There are more than 9,000 local election jurisdictions in the United States. Local electionofficials (LEOs) are responsible for administering elections in those jurisdictions. LEOs aretherefore critical to the successful implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252 ) and state election laws, but there has been little objective information on theperceptions and attitudes of those officials about election reform. This report, which will not beupdated, discusses the results of a recent scientific survey of LEOs. The findings may be useful toCongress in considering funding and possible reauthorization of HAVA.
The demographic characteristics of LEOs are unusual for a group of government officials. Almost three-quarters are women, and 5% belong to minority groups. Most do not have a collegedegree, and most were elected to their positions. Some survey results suggest areas of potentialprofessional improvement, such as in education and in professional involvement at the national level.
Over the past 20 years, jurisdictions have turned increasingly to computer-assisted votingsystems -- especially optical scan and direct recording electronic (DRE) systems. The mostimportant factors reported by LEOs in the acquisition of new systems are federal and staterequirements and funding. HAVA encourages but does not require systems that detect voter error,but it does require that voting machines be available that are fully accessible to persons withdisabilities. About half of jurisdictions with optical scan systems use central-count, which cannothelp voters to correct mistakes before casting the ballot. However, most jurisdictions acquiring newvoting systems are choosing either precinct-count optical scan or DREs, both of which can helpvoters avoid errors.
LEOs are generally highly satisfied with whatever voting systems they are using now. Theyhave less confidence in the performance and security of other systems. DRE users generally opposethe use of voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT) for DREs, but users of other systems favor it. This result could mean that users are overconfident in DREs or that nonusers are insufficientlyknowledgeable about them. LEOs also tend to favor new systems that have characteristics similarto what they have been using -- for example, lever machine users tend to favor DREs. LEOs trustthe voting system vendors they work with but do not believe that those vendors are very influentialin decisions about acquiring new voting systems.
LEOs consider themselves knowledgeable about and familiar with HAVA. They supportindividual provisions of the act, most strongly for federal funding and least strongly for provisionalballoting. To some extent, provisions rated more difficult to implement receive less support. MostLEOs believe that HAVA has resulted in some improvement in elections in their jurisdictions. Those rating HAVA higher overall tend to be younger, more comfortable with technology, and morefamiliar with the act. The areas for improvement of HAVA most commonly listed are federalfunding and the requirements for registration, voter identification, and provisional balloting.