In 2002, the  Federal Election Commission adopted a new version of the federal  standards. Local Election Jurisdictions Primarily Used Two Types of Voting Equipment, Monitored Such Equipment, and Were Generally Satisfied with Equipment Performance

		Local Election Jurisdictions Primarily Used Optical/Digital Scan and Direct Recording Electronic Equipment during the 2016 General Election

According to our analysis of the predominant type of equipment used to  process the largest number of ballots during the 2016 general election,  jurisdictions using optical/digital scan equipment represented the largest  estimated share of the population nationwide, followed by jurisdictions  using direct recording electronic (DRE) equipment. Specifically, on the  basis of our local election jurisdiction survey, we estimate that  jurisdictions with about 63 percent of the population nationwide used  optical/digital scan equipment as their predominant voting equipment  during the election, while jurisdictions with an estimated 32 percent of the  population nationwide used DREs. We estimate that  jurisdictions with 93 percent of the population did not experience  equipment errors or malfunctions on a “somewhat” or “very” common  basis during the election. The four key factors we identified are: (1)  the need for voting equipment to meet federal, state, and local voting  system standards and requirements; (2) the cost to acquire new  equipment and availability of funding; (3) the ability to maintain equipment  and receive timely vendor support; and (4) the overall performance and  features of voting equipment. These jurisdictions illustrate varying approaches that localities have used  or are using to replace their voting equipment based on their specific  needs, circumstances, and resources. The county has a large and diverse  electorate and is in the process of self-designing its own voting  system, which is expected to consist of ballot marking devices that  produce paper ballots to be tallied on central count digital scanners. According to officials, the county has taken a user-centered approach  to the design of the new voting equipment that prioritizes the specific  needs and expectations of the voters. Stakeholders Have Varying Views on How the Voting System Guidelines Affect Equipment Replacement and Development, and the EAC is Updating the Guidelines with Stakeholder Input

		Stakeholders Provided Varying Perspectives on How the Current Voluntary Guidelines and Testing and Certification Processes Affect Replacing and Developing Voting Equipment

On the basis of our survey of state election officials and interviews with  officials from selected voting system vendors and subject matter  experts—representatives from nongovernmental research and other  organizations involved in the field of election administration—we found  that these stakeholders have varying perspectives on how the current  Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG 1.0 and VVSG 1.1) and their  associated testing and certification processes facilitated or posed  challenges to the replacement and development of voting equipment. Generally, stakeholders indicated that the guidelines and processes  provide assurance that new equipment meets certain requirements,  provide guidance for equipment developers, provide a model for state  standards, and provide cost savings for states that do not have to  duplicate federal testing. The EAC, two jurisdictions, and two  states provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the report  as appropriate. What are selected stakeholders’ perspectives on how federal voting  system guidelines affect the replacement and development of voting  equipment, and what actions has the Election Assistance Commission  (EAC) taken to update the guidelines? In addition, we interviewed election officials from five local jurisdictions— Los Angeles County, California; Travis County, Texas; Anne Arundel  County, Maryland; Lafayette County, Florida; and Beaver County, Utah— that replaced their voting equipment between 2012 and 2016 or plan to  replace their equipment in time for the 2020 general election to learn  about the approaches and practices they used and obtain their  perspectives on the replacement process. We selected the  seven voting system vendors based on the prevalence of jurisdictions’  use of their equipment, and to obtain variation in the type of voting system  manufactured, such as optical scanners and direct recording electronic  voting equipment, and whether systems were federally certified, under  test to be certified, or not certified. Appendix III: Results of GAO’s Survey of Local Election Jurisdictions on Voting Equipment

To determine the types of voting equipment local election jurisdictions  used for the 2016 general election, jurisdiction perspectives on equipment  use and performance, and the factors jurisdictions consider when  deciding whether to replace voting equipment, we conducted a web- based survey of officials from a stratified random sample of 800 local  election jurisdictions nationwide. Appendix IV: Results of GAO’s Survey of States on Voting Equipment

To obtain information on the types of voting equipment used in the 2016  general election and the factors states consider when deciding whether to  replace voting equipment, we conducted a web-based survey of state- level election offices in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Why GAO Did This Study

Much of the voting equipment acquired with federal funds after the enactment of the Help America Vote Act in 2002 may now be reaching the end of its life span, and some states and local election jurisdictions—which number about 10,300 and generally have responsibility for conducting federal elections—have or are considering whether to replace their equipment. GAO was asked to examine voting equipment use and replacement.
This report addresses (1) the types of voting equipment jurisdictions used for the 2016 general election and their perspectives on the equipment; (2) factors considered when deciding whether to replace equipment and replacement approaches in selected jurisdictions; and (3) stakeholder perspectives on how federal voting system guidelines affect replacing and developing equipment.
GAO surveyed officials from a nationwide generalizable sample of 800 local jurisdictions (68 percent weighted response rate) and all 50 states and the District of Columbia (46 responded) to obtain information on voting equipment use and replacement. GAO also interviewed officials from (1) five jurisdictions, selected based on population size and type of voting equipment used, among other things, to illustrate equipment replacement approaches; and (2) seven voting system vendors, selected based on prevalence of jurisdictions' use of equipment, type of equipment manufactured, and systems certified, to obtain views on federal voting system guidelines. These interviews are not generalizable, but provide insights into jurisdictions' and vendors' experiences.

What GAO Found

Local election jurisdictions primarily used optical scan and direct recording electronic (DRE), also known as touch screen, equipment during the 2016 general election and were generally satisfied with voting equipment performance. Specifically, on the basis of GAO's nationwide generalizable survey of local election jurisdictions, GAO estimated that jurisdictions with 63 percent (from 54 to 72 percent) of the population nationwide used optical or digital scan equipment as their predominant voting equipment during the election, while jurisdictions with 32 percent (from 23 to 41 percent) of the population nationwide used DREs. In addition, the survey results indicated that accurate vote counting and efficiency of operation were top benefits experienced by jurisdictions for both types of equipment, and storage and transportation costs were a top challenge. Further, GAO estimated that jurisdictions with 93 percent (from 88 to 96 percent) of the population nationwide did not experience equipment errors or malfunctions on a very or somewhat common basis and jurisdictions with 96 percent (from 94 to 98 percent) of the population were very or generally satisfied with the performance of their equipment during the 2016 general election.
GAO identified four key factors that jurisdictions and states consider when deciding whether to replace voting equipment—(1) need for equipment to meet federal, state, and local voting system standards and requirements; (2) cost to acquire new equipment and availability of funding; (3) ability to maintain equipment and receive timely vendor support; and (4) overall performance and features of equipment. When replacing equipment, the five jurisdictions GAO selected for interviews used varying approaches based on their specific needs and resources. For example, Los Angeles County, California, which has a large and diverse electorate, is self-designing its own voting equipment and, according to officials, has incorporated a user-centered approach that prioritizes the needs and expectations of its voters. Lafayette County, Florida, which has a small population, joined a consortium of other small counties to help obtain funding and pool purchasing power to replace its equipment.
The state election officials we surveyed and the seven selected voting system vendors we interviewed, among other stakeholders, had varying perspectives on how the current voluntary federal voting system guidelines affected the replacement and development of voting equipment. These guidelines can be used to test and certify equipment to verify that it meets baseline functionality, accessibility, and security requirements. The stakeholders we surveyed or interviewed generally indicated that the guidelines and their associated testing processes provide helpful guidance for equipment developers, cost savings for states that do not have to duplicate federal testing, and assurance that certified equipment meets certain requirements. However, some of these stakeholders stated that aspects of the guidelines could discourage the development of innovative equipment and limit the choices of voting equipment on the market. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which is responsible for developing the federal guidelines, is updating them with stakeholder input and plans to issue a new version in late summer 2018.
GAO incorporated technical comments provided by the EAC and election officials from the selected local jurisdictions and their respective states as appropriate.