[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44593-44598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15336]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Voluntary Guidance on Implementation of Statewide Voter 
Registration Lists

AGENCY: United States Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice; publication of final Voluntary Guidance on the 
Implementation of Statewide Voter Registration Lists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is publishing 
its final voluntary guidance on Section 303(a) of the Help America Vote 
Act of 2002 (HAVA). HAVA was enacted to set standards for the 
administration of Federal elections. Included in these standards is a 
requirement that each State develop and maintain a single, statewide 
list of registered voters. The voluntary guidance published here by the 
EAC will assist the States in understanding, interpreting and 
implementing HAVA's standards regarding statewide voter registration 
lists.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gavin S. Gilmour, Associate General 
Counsel, Washington, DC, (202) 566-3100, Fax: (202) 566-1392.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background. HAVA mandates that the EAC draft 
and publish voluntary guidance to assist States in implementing the 
HAVA requirements for computerized statewide voter registration lists. 
(42 U.S.C. 15501(b)). To meet its obligation, the EAC gathered 
information and sought input from experts and stakeholders. 
Specifically, the EAC held public meetings, receiving testimony from 
State election officials whose States had implemented statewide voter 
registration lists. Additionally, the EAC, assisted by the National 
Academies, convened a two-day working group of State and local election 
officials. The working group received technical assistance from 
technology experts invited by the academies and representatives of the 
country's motor vehicle administrators.
    Following this research and information gathering, the EAC drafted 
its Proposed Voluntary Guidance on Implementation of Statewide Voter 
Registration Lists. This proposed voluntary guidance was published with 
a request for public comment on April 18, 2005. (70 FR 20114). The 
public comment period was open until 5 p.m. e.d.t. on May 25, 2005. All 
comments received were considered in the drafting of this final 
guidance.
    Discussion of Comments. The EAC received 310 comments from the 
public. The overwhelming majority of these comments came from public 
interest groups or their members (221 comments in all). The EAC 
received 14 comments from State and local officials. Finally, 75 of the 
comments the EAC received were either not relevant to the subject 
matter, broad in nature or otherwise provided no specific 
recommendation.
    The comments received from public interest groups were generally 
consistent in content, focusing primarily on what they perceived were 
missing from the guidelines. These groups focused on the need to 
provide additional information and guidance to States. They recommended 
that the guidance be expanded to provide States direction on (1) list 
verification and maintenance processes and protocols, (2) 
implementation of policies to protect registrants against removal from 
registration lists in error, (3) coordination with voter registration 
agencies, (4) security procedures to both prevent unauthorized access 
and protect database information and (5) database features such as 
public access portals and election management. The comments from State 
and local officials were more diverse. Most of the comments focused 
upon the types of databases that meet HAVA requirements. While the 
comments differed and often conflicted in their conclusions, as a whole 
they made it clear that further guidance on database structure and 
operation was desired. A number of comments from State and local 
officials also expressed concern over definitions with the guidance, 
fearing that they were absent, overly broad or might otherwise conflict 
with definitions under State law. Finally, a few State and local 
officials shared the concerns articulated by the public interest groups 
regarding security (specifically, limiting database access).
    The EAC reviewed and considered each of the comments presented. In 
doing so, it also gathered additional information and performed 
research regarding the suggestions. The EAC's commitment to public 
participation is evident in the final version of the voluntary 
guidelines. The guidelines have been enhanced in a number of areas in 
response to conscientious public comment. The document has been 
reorganized to improve readability. Definitions for ``statewide voter 
registration list'' and ``chief State election official'' have been 
added. Similarly, the definition of ``local election official'' has 
been clarified. Additional guidance was added regarding (1) the 
creation of stricter standards by States; (2) election officials' 
responsibility to track voter history; (3) security requirements

[[Page 44594]]

(including provisions on technological security; access protocols; 
transactional record keeping and system backup, recovery and 
restoration); (4) records retention and (5) public access portals. 
Similarly, many existing guidelines were enhanced in response to public 
comment. Previous guidance on coordinating statewide voter registration 
lists with other State, local and Federal databases was expanded. 
Further guidance was added on (1) voter registration coordination, (2) 
registration verification coordination; and (3) registration list 
maintenance. Finally, guidance on the types of databases that meet HAVA 
requirements has been amended to provide clearer direction to States.

Voluntary Guidance on the Implementation of Statewide Voter 
Registration Lists

I. Introduction

    The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requires the Chief 
Election Official in each State to implement a ``single, uniform, 
official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter 
registration list.'' That list is to be ``defined, maintained, and 
administered at the State level'' and must contain the ``name and 
registration information of every legally registered voter in the 
State.''
    Congress mandated that the United States Election Assistance 
Commission (EAC) issue voluntary guidance to assist the States in 
implementing the provisions of HAVA relating to statewide voter 
registration list requirements. While it is the responsibility of the 
EAC to interpret and issue guidance on HAVA, civil enforcement of the 
statute is expressly assigned to the United States Department of 
Justice (DOJ).
    The following interpretative guidance clarifies the meaning of 
certain portions of Section 303(a) of HAVA (42 U.S.C. 15483(a)). 
Specifically, this guidance serves to assist States in their efforts to 
develop and implement a single, uniform, official, centralized, 
interactive computerized statewide voter registration list. Moreover, 
the guidance also serves to encourage State and local election 
officials to work together to define and assume their appropriate 
responsibilities for meeting this HAVA requirement, and engage other 
relevant stakeholders in this process.

II. Scope and Definitions

A. Is this guidance regarding statewide voter registration lists or 
section 303(a) of HAVA mandatory?

    No. The guidance issued here by the EAC is voluntary. This means 
that States can choose to adopt this guidance to assist in the 
implementation of HAVA's requirements for a statewide voter 
registration list or create their own policies. However, to the extent 
the policies below reiterate HAVA mandates, such requirements are not 
voluntary but are statutorily required.

B. What is a computerized statewide voter registration list?

    A computerized statewide voter registration list is a single, 
uniform, centralized, interactive computerized voter registration list 
that is technically and functionally able to perform tasks described in 
Sections 303(a)(1)(A)(i) through 303(a)(1)(A)(viii) of HAVA. In 
essence, it is the one official list of lawfully registered voters 
within a State for all elections for Federal office and the only lawful 
source of Federal registration information for poll books or precinct 
registers on Election Day. The list must be centrally managed at the 
State level in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner. The list must 
be computerized and technically capable of providing immediate 
electronic access to appropriate State and local election officials; 
assigning unique identifiers; affording local officials expedited entry 
of voter registration information; allowing voter registration 
information to be verified with other State, local and Federal 
agencies; providing a means for list maintenance; tracking appropriate 
voting history; and ensuring appropriate system security.

C. Who would benefit from this guidance?

    This guidance is targeted to assist the States and local 
governments in fulfilling their requirements under Section 303(a) of 
HAVA. This guidance may help election officials understand HAVA's 
establishment of a single, uniform statewide voter registration list 
and the responsibilities that HAVA places on all election officials to 
assure that the names and information contained in the statewide voter 
registration list are accurate, secure and complete.

D. To whom is section 303(a) of HAVA applicable?

    The provisions of Section 303(a) apply to all States, the District 
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and 
the United States Virgin Islands except those that on or after date of 
enactment of HAVA had no requirement for registration of voters with 
respect to elections for Federal office. Currently, only North Dakota 
has no voter registration requirement.

E. Does this guidance in any way alter, interpret, or affect the 
requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993?

    No. Nothing in this guidance should be construed to alter, 
interpret or effect, in any way whatsoever, the requirements of the 
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), including requirements 
and timeframes with respect to the administration of voter registration 
and/or the process States must follow in removing names of registrants 
from the voting rolls.

F. Who is a local election official?

    For the purposes of this guidance, a local election official is a 
public employee who has, as a primary duty, the responsibility for 
collecting and processing voter registration information for Federal 
elections or otherwise maintaining voter registration information 
pursuant to State mandates and the requirements of HAVA.

G. Who is the chief state election official?

    The chief State election official is the highest ranking State 
official who has, as a primary duty, the responsibility to ensure the 
lawful administration of voter registration in Federal elections. 
Ultimately, it is the State's responsibility to determine the identity 
of this official. Each State should have previously identified their 
chief State election official as required by the NVRA (42 U.S.C. Sec.  
1973gg-8).

H. Who is responsible for implementing the provisions of section 303(a) 
of HAVA?

    The State, through the State's Chief Election Official, is 
responsible for ensuring that the State has a single, uniform, 
official, centralized, interactive computerized Statewide voter 
registration list. This official is also responsible for defining, 
maintaining and administering this list. However, local election 
officials also have certain responsibilities outlined in Section 303(a) 
of HAVA, particularly with regard to entering voter registration 
information into the statewide voter registration list on an expedited 
basis. Local election officials may also be required to perform list 
maintenance activities pursuant to State mandates.

[[Page 44595]]

I. Will the EAC provide additional guidance on computerized statewide 
voter registration lists?

    Yes. The EAC and a working group of State and local election 
officials will continue to explore technical issues related to the 
maintenance and upgrade of these database systems, with assistance from 
the National Academies. The EAC also plans to work with public interest 
groups to help ensure these guidelines serve all Americans. Additional 
guidance and/or best practices regarding statewide voter registration 
lists will be developed.

III. Guidance on Statewide Voter Registration Lists

A. May a State create policies for Statewide Voter Registration lists 
that go beyond HAVA's requirements?

    Yes. Under Sections 304 and 305 of HAVA, the details of 
implementing Statewide Voter Registration Lists have been left to the 
States. HAVA requirements are minimum requirements. States are free to 
establish policies that provide stricter standards as long as such 
standards are not inconsistent with HAVA or other Federal Laws. States 
must ensure that their additional policies are indeed stricter than 
HAVA and do not create impermissible standards that fall below the 
statute's minimum requirements. In this way, a stricter standard, in 
terms of a provision that protects voter access, would be a standard 
that further enhances or expands such access. Similarly, a stricter 
standard, in terms of a provision that protects the integrity and 
security of the voting process, would be a standard that furthers that 
goal.

B. What types of databases meet the requirements of HAVA to generate a 
single, uniform voter registration list?

    HAVA requires a State to define, maintain and administer one 
official and uniform statewide voter registration list. This 
computerized list must be accessible by local election officials for 
purposes of conducting voter registration and voting in an election for 
Federal office. Generally, in order to meet HAVA's computerized list 
requirement, the State must define and have immediate, real-time access 
to all the data that serves as the State's official voter registration 
list. Moreover, the State must be able to control access to this data 
and perform HAVA mandated action on the information (such as 
coordinating with other databases for the purpose of performing voter 
registration verification and list maintenance). Finally, local 
election officials must have immediate access to this official list. 
While HAVA requires that both State and local election officials have 
immediate access to the voter registration list, ultimately the State 
must direct the degree of access and control any one official or class 
of officials have over the list's data.
    A State database hosted on a single, central platform (e.g., 
mainframe and/or client servers) and connected to terminals housed at 
the local level (often referred to as a ``top down'' system) is most 
closely akin to the requirements of HAVA. However, other database 
systems may also meet the single, uniform list requirement as long as 
they function consistent with the general rule stated, above.
    For example, a State database that gathers or uploads its 
information from local voter registration databases to form the 
statewide voter registration list (often referred to as a ``bottom up'' 
system) may serve to meet the single, uniform list requirement. This is 
a true as long as the State database, the data and the data flow are 
defined, maintained, and administered by the State. Thus, the State 
database must house the only official list of registered voters; 
establish interactive and compatible software and user protocols that 
allow each local jurisdiction to seamlessly transfer data to and from 
the State; require local databases to routinely upload or 
electronically send registration information to the State; and ensure 
that the data that forms the official voter registration list is 
regularly downloaded or otherwise sent electronically to local 
officials so that they may have immediate access to the entire official 
list. It is important to understand that in a ``bottom up'' system the 
official statewide voter registration list is that list hosted on the 
State's database and downloaded to local jurisdictions. The list 
remains static until the State electronically provides the next, 
updated version. Registration information held solely in a local 
database is not a part of the official registration list until it is 
electronically sent to the State and added to the official list. States 
must require local information to be uploaded and the official 
statewide voter registration list to be downloaded on a regular basis. 
In this way, both State and local election officials will have 
immediate, real time access to the statewide voter registration list.

C. How frequently must the statewide voter registration list be 
synchronized with any local databases to assure that the statewide 
voter registration list is the single source for the names and 
registration information of all legally registered voters in the State?

    If a statewide voter registration list is not hosted on a single, 
centralized platform, States must ensure that all information contained 
on local, satellite databases is uploaded (synchronized) into the 
statewide voter registration database routinely, such that the State 
database can be viewed as the sole, official list of registered voters. 
Similarly, States must assure that the data comprising the official 
list (maintained by the State database) is downloaded or sent 
electronically to local systems on a regular basis so that local 
officials may have immediate access to the official list. At a minimum, 
the statewide voter registration list should be synchronized with local 
voter registration databases at least once every 24 hours to assure 
that the statewide voter registration list contains the names and 
registration information for all legally registered voters in the 
State. In the same way, the State must electronically send or download 
the appropriate information in its database to local election officials 
at least every 24 hours, so that they have immediate electronic access 
to the official voter registration list.

D. How should the statewide voter registration list be coordinated with 
other agencies?

    In order to ensure the completeness and accuracy of statewide voter 
registration lists, HAVA requires timely coordination between various 
Federal, State and local agencies. Generally, there are three forms of 
coordination required under HAVA: Coordination with voter registration 
agencies, coordination to verify voter registration information (e.g., 
motor vehicle authorities and Social Security Administration), and 
coordination necessary to perform list maintenance (e.g., death and 
felony records).
    1. Voter registration agencies. HAVA makes accurate and complete 
voter registration lists a priority. States must coordinate the 
statewide voter registration list with other State agency databases 
that collect, correct or update voter registration information. These 
agencies must include State motor vehicle agencies and voter 
registration agencies as defined by NVRA (i.e., State public assistance 
and disability agencies). Proper coordination with these databases is 
essential for ensuring

[[Page 44596]]

that statewide voter registration lists are complete. As such, the 
chief State election official shall:
    a. Establish policies and provide adequate support to local 
election officials to ensure that registration applications or other 
registration information is entered into the State voter registration 
list on an expedited basis. (See HAVA Section 303(a)(1)(A)(vii)). This 
responsibility includes the obligation to create requirements that 
ensure election officials will receive registration information from 
voter registration agencies promptly; and
    b. Establish policies that ensure information will be coordinated 
accurately, securely and efficiently. The EAC recommends that voter 
registration information be transmitted electronically. Further, to the 
greatest extent allowed by State law and available technologies, this 
electronic transfer between statewide voter registration lists State 
motor vehicle agencies and voter registration agencies should be 
accomplished through direct, secure, interactive and integrated 
connections.
    2. Verification of voter registration. Generally, Section 303(a) of 
HAVA requires that registration applications include either a valid 
driver's license number or, if none, the last four digits of a social 
security number.\1\ States are prohibited from accepting or processing 
registration applications that do not have this information (with the 
exception of individuals who do not possess either identification). 
Moreover, HAVA requires States to match information received on voter 
registration forms against driver's license and social security 
databases for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the information 
received from all new voter registrants. Under Section 303(b), such 
validation provides an exemption to the voter identification 
requirement for first-time registrants by mail if the information 
matches. States must take steps to ensure that this matching or 
verification process is accomplished promptly and performed in a 
uniform and non-discriminatory manner. Ultimately, States are required 
to determine if the information provided in a registration application 
meets the above verification requirements pursuant to State law. States 
must take great care in formulating these policies, taking into 
consideration the different ways databases may record information and 
the possibility of errors within the database. Consistent with this 
task, States should:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Some States may require use of a registration applicant's 
full Social Security Number pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 15483(A)(5)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Create matching or verification protocols to ensure that 
properly filed registration applications from eligible voters are not 
rejected due to a database error or inflexible database coordination or 
matching rules. States must have a documented plan that specifies how 
election officials will identify and deal with a variety of outcomes 
that may result from the matching process (such as a mismatch, partial 
match, multiple match or failed match). States should avoid proffering 
protocols that automatically reject all registration applications that 
do not result in a perfect match with a verification database, as such 
procedures may be impractical, unrealistic and result in the rejection 
of a large number of eligible voters.
    b. Use additional databases (beyond drivers' license and social 
security databases) to assist in the verification process, when such 
use would be effective and efficient. When the outcome of the 
verification process is unclear or suspect, use of other databases may 
help identify data errors and allow for appropriate corrections to be 
made to a database.
    c. Make every effort to ensure that a voter registration 
application is not rejected as unverifiable until the State has given 
the individual an opportunity to correct the information at issue and 
attempted to validate the accuracy of the government information 
contained in its databases. This does not mean that States should 
accept or add unverified registration applications to the statewide 
list. Rather, it means only that election officials should make certain 
efforts before an application is determined to be unverifiable and 
finally rejected. The EAC recommends that in the event a State 
determines that the information provided in a registration application 
does not match the information contained in an verification databases, 
States contact the individual in order to: (1) Inform him or her of the 
disparity; (2) provide a meaningful opportunity for the applicant to 
respond or provide the correct information and (3) explain the 
consequences of failing to reply. In the event the voter registration 
applicant informs election officials that the information provided to 
the application was correct, steps should be taken to ensure that the 
information contained in the verification databases was accurate.
    d. Ensure that the coordination of information in the verification 
process is accurate and efficient. Verification of voter registration 
information shall be accomplished through electronic transmission. 
Further, in the greatest extent allowed by State law and available 
technologies, this electronic transfer between stateside voter 
registration lists and coordinating, verification databases should be 
accomplished through direct, secure, interactive and integrated 
connections.
    e. When the verification process indicates the possible commission 
of an election crime (such as the submission of false registration 
information), such matters should be timely forwarded to local, State 
and Federal law enforcement authorities for investigation.
    3. List maintenance: HAVA requires that election officials perform 
computerized list maintenance in order to remove duplicate names and 
the names of ineligible voters. HAVA specifically requires coordination 
with State death and felony record databases to meet this requirement. 
States should also coordinate with relevant federal databases, such as 
the U.S. Postal Service National Change of Address and Social Security 
Death Index databases, as well as criminal conviction records from U.S. 
Attorneys and the U.S. District Courts. It is essential that States 
regularly coordinate with these databases to ensure their statewide 
voter registration lists are current and accurate. In meeting this 
goal, chief State election officials shall:
    a. Ensure State procedures for removing names from the statewide 
voter registration list are consistent with the provisions of the NVRA 
(42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6). The NVRA contains certain requirements regarding 
the removal of names from official voter rolls. It requires States to 
conduct a program that removes individuals from voting registration 
lists who have died or changed residence (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(4)). 
These requirements include the notification of individuals (in certain 
circumstances such as a change of residence) prior to their removal 
from the list (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d) & (e)). It also requires the 
removal of individuals who have moved outside of a given registration 
jurisdiction, have been sent proper notice, have failed to respond to 
such notice and have not voted in two consecutive general elections for 
Federal office (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)(1)(B)). The statute additional 
requires election officials to complete any systematic programs to 
remove ineligible voters not later than 90 days before a Federal 
election (42 U.S.C. Sec.  1973gg-6(c)(2)).
    b. Create ``provisions'' that include ``[s]afeguards to ensure that 
eligible voters are not removed in error from the official list of 
eligible voters.'' (HAVA

[[Page 44597]]

Section 303(a)(4)). HAVA requires States to create procedures that 
recognize the fallibility of databases and ensure that only ineligible 
voters are removed from a statewide voter registration list. States 
shall create procedures and requirements to ensure that:
    (i.) The removal process and list maintenance program is 
transparent, non-discriminatory and uniform. To this end, the EAC 
recommends that States perform list maintenance regularly and over the 
list as a whole. In any event, States should avoid the appearance of 
impropriety associated with performing maintenance on limited 
geographical jurisdictions unless a specific need has been identified 
in a particular jurisdiction.
    (ii.) All databases used to determine an individual's voting 
eligibility (e.g., agency records on felony and death) or otherwise 
maintain that statewide voter registration list are accurate, up-to-
date and secure. Moreover, States may rely conclusively on such 
databases only to the extent they provide all the information necessary 
to determine voter eligibility. To the extent coordination with a given 
database is not dispositive of a voter's eligibility, States must 
consult additional sources or databases before taking action. For 
example, if a State maintains felony records and records on the 
restoration of voting rights in different databases, both must be 
consulted during the maintenance process.
    (iii.) Adequate safeguards are created to ensure that properly 
registered and otherwise eligible voters are not removed from the 
statewide voter registration list in error. As such, the EAC recommends 
that when information on a coordinating database matches only in part 
with data contained on a statewide voter registration list or there are 
otherwise indications that some data may be unclear, incomplete or 
untrustworthy; election officials should coordinate with other State 
databases. This should be done in order to verify data and ensure the 
information contained on the statewide voter registration list and the 
coordinating database are accurate and refer to the same individual. 
States should make efforts to correct databases when necessary.
    The EAC further recommends that States contact individuals prior to 
removing their names from the statewide voter registration list. This 
will allow the public to serve as a further check in the maintenance 
process. In the event a State has identified a name on the voter list 
that it believes is either a duplicate name or an ineligible voter, 
election officials should contact the individual. Such contact should 
inform the individual (1) That the official intends to remove them from 
the registration list, (2) the basis for their removal (i.e., 
ineligibility factor or duplicate name), (3) how and to whom they may 
respond if they believe the basis for the removal is unfounded and (4) 
the timeframe they have to respond. While contacting the registrant 
often provides him or her added protection against being mistakenly 
removed from the registration list, in some circumstances it may be 
unnecessary. Where contacting the registrant is not required by the 
NVRA, election officials may consider foregoing the step if it is clear 
that no further information is required to correctly determine a 
registrant's voting eligibility. In such cases, election officials are 
obligated to assess the accuracy and completeness of any information 
that will serve as the basis for removal of a name from the voter 
registration list. Officials must be confident that no additional 
safeguards are needed to protect the registrant. For example, if 
election officials identify duplicate voter registration entries and 
all information contained in the entries is complete and identical, the 
State may reasonably determine that contacting the registrant is 
unnecessary.
    c. Establish policies that ensure information will be coordinated 
accurately and efficiently. The EAC recommends that the coordination 
necessary to perform list maintenance be accomplished through 
electronic transmission. Further, to the greatest extent allowed by 
State law and available technologies, this electronic transfer between 
statewide voter registration lists and coordinating maintenance 
databases should be accomplished through direct, secure, interactive 
and integrated connections.

E. Must states track a registrant's voting and registration history?

    Yes. While a registrant's voting and registration history are not 
specifically mandated to be a part of the statewide voter registration 
list, the tracking of this information is required in order to meet 
NVRA and HAVA requirements regarding the removal of names from voter 
rolls and voter identification requirements. This voter-specific 
information must be accessible and available to the appropriate 
election officials so these provisions may be timely met. The most 
efficient and effective means to track voter and registration history 
information is through a State's statewide voter registration list. As 
such, the EAC recommends that databases housing statewide voter 
registration lists should be capable of tracking the following 
information in order to comply with NVRA and HAVA:
    1. Registration by mail. States must track whether an individual 
registered to vote by mail, as registering in this way triggers Federal 
identification requirements. 42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(1).
    2. Voting history. States must also track an individual's voting 
history. This is necessary to:
    a. Meet NVRA requirements regarding the removal of names from voter 
rolls. Under the NVRA, if a registrant has moved from a registration 
jurisdiction, failed to respond to required NVRA notice, and failed to 
vote in two consecutive Federal general elections, the person's name 
may be removed from the list of eligible voters. (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6)
    b. Meet HAVA identification requirements. Under HAVA, individuals 
who register by mail and have not previously voted in an election for 
Federal office are subject to Federal identification requirements. (42 
U.S.C. 15483(b)(1)(B))
    3. Identification and verification information for first time 
voters who register by mail. States must track whether first-time 
voters who registered by mail provided appropriate identification 
(i.e., a copy of a valid photo identification or current utility bill) 
or verification information (i.e., verified driver's license number or 
last four digits of a social security number \2\) in their registration 
applications under 42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(3)(A) & (B), sufficient to exempt 
him or her from HAVA's voter identification requirements (42 U.S.C. 
15483(b)(2)). If such registrants failed to provide this identification 
or verification information during the registration process, they will 
be required to present it in person, at the polls. This should also be 
tracked by election officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Some States may require use of a registration applicant's 
full Social Security Number pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec.  
15483(a)(5)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Individuals entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the 
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). (42 
U.S.C. 1973ff-1 et seq). States must identify registrants who are 
entitled to cast an absentee ballot under UOCAVA as they are exempt 
from HAVA's 42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(2) identification requirements. 
Furthermore, UOCAVA, as amended by HAVA, requires States to report to 
the EAC the individual and combined numbers of absentee ballots 
transmitted to uniformed services voters and

[[Page 44598]]

overseas citizens, as well as the individual and combined number of 
such ballots returned and cast by such voters. (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1(c))
    5. Individuals entitled to vote otherwise than in person under the 
Voter Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 
1973ee-1(b)(2)(B)(ii)) or any other Federal law. States must identify 
registrants who are entitled to cast an absentee ballot under such 
statutes as they are exempt from HAVA's 42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(2) 
identification requirements.

F. What obligations do election officials have concerning the security 
of the statewide voter registration list?

    HAVA makes election officials responsible for ensuring that 
statewide voter registration lists are accurate, complete and 
technologically secure.
    1. Technological Security. HAVA requires election officials to 
provide adequate, technological database security for statewide voter 
registration lists that prevent unauthorized access. Such computerized 
security must be designed to prevent unauthorized users from altering 
the list or accessing private or otherwise protected information 
contained on the list. Access may be controlled through a variety of 
tools including network or system-level utilities and database 
applications (such as passwords and ``masked'' data elements). Special 
care must be taken to ensure that voter registration databases are 
protected when linked to outside systems for the purposes of 
coordination.
    2. Access Protocols. Election officials must also create clear 
policies and protocols to make statewide voter registration lists 
secure. These protocols must identify appropriate classes of authorized 
users and clearly delineate the members of each class, when they have 
access, what data they have access to and what level of access each 
class holds. It is essential to security that the authority to remove a 
name from the voter registration list be properly limited and 
documented. Access protocols should also provide physical security 
requirements to further limit unauthorized access to a system.
    3. Transactional Recordkeeping. The EAC recommends that systems 
housing statewide voter registration lists have the capability to track 
and record transactions which add or remove names or otherwise alter 
information contained in the voter registration list. This includes 
documenting the identity of the individuals who initiate such 
transactions. This capacity will allow the system to be audited, 
providing a means to hold authorized users accountable for their 
actions. Such accountability can serve as an important security measure 
by deterring unlawful or inappropriate use of the statewide voter 
registration list.
    4. Backup, Recovery and Restoration Capabilities. Due to the 
important nature of the information stored on the statewide voter 
registration list, State election officials must ensure that the 
systems storing the list have adequate backup, recovery and restoration 
capabilities. These capabilities must be routinely tested. Officials 
must be confident that the system is properly backed up and that the 
data may be timely and accurately recovered and restored when needed. 
Further, the EAC recommends that statewide voter registration list 
backups occur regularly on an automated basis and that the backup 
system be housed in a physical location separate from the primary 
database. Moreover, backup systems should be protected by technological 
security to the same degree as primary systems.

G. Do record retention requirementsaapply to statewide voter 
registration databases?

    Yes. States must adhere to all State and Federal law (e.g. 42 
U.S.C. 1974 and 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(i)) applicable to voter registration 
document retention. Such requirements must be applied to all records 
contained in or produced by statewide voter registration databases.

H. Should the public be granted access to their information on the 
computerized statewide voter registration list?

    While not required by HAVA, the EAC encourages States to set-up 
accessible, secure means by which members of the public may verify 
their registration status and records. This type of public access could 
provide many benefits, it would serve to (1) enhance openness and voter 
confidence in the registration system, (2) encourage self-
identification of database errors and duplication and (3) decrease 
instances of multiple registration as a result of an individual's 
inability to recall registration status.
    Further, States could use public access portals to provide other 
information to voters, such as the location of their proper polling 
place, important election dates and contact information for 
registration queries and updates. However, any public access portal 
must be protected with strong security measures to prevent unauthorized 
access.

Thomas R. Wilkey,
Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-15336 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M