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. The demographic characteristics of LEOs differ from those of other government officials. LEOs believed that several groups have too great an influence on the acquisition of voting systems, including the federal government, the media, advocates, political parties, and vendors, and that local elected officials have too little influence. Attitudes Toward Voting Systems

			LEOs were highly satisfied with whatever voting system they were using but were less supportive of other kinds of systems. Satisfaction with the voting systems LEOs used declined from 2004 to 2006 but rebounded in 2008. LEOs rated their primary voting systems as very accurate, secure, reliable, and voter- and pollworker-friendly, no matter what voting system they used. For most of those characteristics, LEOs were less happy with the performance of their voting system in 2006 and 2008 than in 2004, especially with respect to optical scan and DRE systems, which they rated lower for cost, size, storage requirements, and machine error in the second and third surveys. Most LEOS who did not use DREs believed that VVPAT should be required, but most DRE users disagreed. Most VVPAT users were satisfied with them. LEOs believed that HAVA is making moderate improvements in the electoral process overall in their jurisdictions. LEOs reported in 2008 that HAVA has improved the accessibility, fairness, and reliability of elections but has made them more complicated to administer. Election Assistance Commission

When HAVA created the Election Assistance Commission, the law gave it several specific responsibilities. Most LEOs found most activities of the EAC moderately important. LEOs supported requiring photo identification for all voters, even though they believed it would negatively affect turnout and did not believe that voter fraud is a serious problem in their jurisdictions. The results appear to suggest an apparent discrepancy between, on the one hand, the overall support of LEOs for photo ID and their average views about its effects on security, and, on the other hand, their views about impacts on turnout and the risk of voter fraud—that is, they tended to support photo ID and believed it would increase security but at the same time they tended to believe that fraud was not a problem and that requiring photo ID would depress turnout. Election Administration Issues

		Election Preparations

			The time that LEOs reported spending preparing for elections increased from 2004 to 2008. Consistent with the perception of LEOs that HAVA has made elections more complex to administer ( Figure 33 ), three-quarters found that they spent more time preparing for the 2006 than the 2004 election, and almost 90% reported spending more time in 2008 than 2006. However, the time spent did not change from 2006 to 2008—it was 24 hours in 2008 as well. The most commonly reported incident in the 2006 and 2008 elections was malfunction of a DRE or optical scan system. The incidence of long lines at the polling place was highest in jurisdictions using DREs. The percentage of jurisdictions offering early voting increased from about half in 2006 to nearly two-thirds in 2008, and most LEOs reported that the number of early voters increased in 2008. All except lever-machine users believed on average that early voting should be a right, and users of all systems believed that absentee voting should be a right. In 2006, most also expressed concern that the increased complexity of elections would have a negative impact on recruitment of pollworkers, and more than a third of respondents were "extremely concerned" ( Figure 54 ). Possible Caveats

As with all surveys, care needs to be taken in drawing inferences from the results. Some survey results suggest areas of potential professional improvement, such as in education and in professional involvement at the national level.
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). Three surveys of LEOs were performed by academic institutions in collaboration with the Congressional Research Service. 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, although those characteristics appear to be changing. 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. Concern about the influence of these groups increased again, slightly, from 2006 to 2008.
LEOs were highly satisfied with whatever voting system they used but were less supportive of other kinds. Their satisfaction declined from 2004 to 2006 for all systems except lever machines, but rebounded in 2008. 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 both the 2006 and 2008 elections 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 from 2004 to 2008, and more VVPAT users were satisfied with them in 2008 than in 2006.
On average, LEOs mildly supported requiring photo identification for all voters and believed it would make elections more secure, even though they strongly believed that it will negatively affect turnout and did not believe that voter fraud is a problem in their jurisdictions.
In all three surveys, LEOs believed that HAVA is making moderate improvements in the electoral process. The level of support declined from 2004 to 2006 but increased to its highest point in 2008. LEOs reported that HAVA has increased the accessibility of voting but has made elections more complicated and has increased their cost, though fewer believed so in 2008 than in 2006. LEOs spent much more time preparing for the election in 2008 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 moderately important, and that its helpfulness improved from 2006 to 2008. Their assessment of the statewide voter-registration database was neutral in 2006 but positive in 2008. They believed that it was more accurate and fair than their previous registration system.