Request for Application

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1225 New York Ave., NW, Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Federal Agency Name: United States Election Assistance Commission

Funding Opportunity Title: Election Data Collection Grant Program

Announcement Type: Competitive Grant – Initial

Funding Opportunity Number: EAC-08-001

CFDA No.: 90.400

Due Date: Applications are due by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time [Date TBD] (Due date will be approximately 30 days after publication in the Federal Register)

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

The announcement for this grant program is authorized by the Omnibus Appropriation Act for Fiscal year (FY) 2008, Public Law (P.L.) 110-161, Title V. Under the Act, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC or Commission) is sanctioned to award grants to States for improving the collection of precinct-level data for Federal elections. This announcement offers the applicant State the opportunity to provide for the collection of such data in a common electronic format to be determined by the Commission.

Election Data Collection Grant Program

Public Law 110-161 authorizes the EAC to award $10,000,000 in grants to States to implement a data collection program for the Federal elections scheduled to be held in November 2008. Of that sum, $2 million will be provided to each of five eligible applicants.

The EAC is soliciting proposals from States to improve the collection of data at the precinct-level for the November 2008 Federal elections. In general, a precinct is defined as an administrative division of a county or municipality to which voters have been assigned by their residing address for voting.

Grantees will be required to report to the EAC on all data elements as described in Appendix A. States that receive an award are also required to report, at a minimum, precinct level data for questions 1, 2, 18a, 23, 29, and 30.

The purpose of the Election Data Collection Grant Program is to:

• Develop and document a series of administrative and procedural best practices in election data collection that can be replicated by other States;

• Improve data collection processes;

• Enhance the capacity of States and their jurisdictions to collect accurate and complete election data; and

• Document and describe particular administrative and management data collection practices, as well as particular data collection policies and procedures.

State grantees will use the grant funds in part to implement new data collection procedures, systems, and/or methodologies for the November 2008 election. They will have until March 2009 to report the data collected from that election to the EAC. They will also be required to submit to the EAC a semi-annual program report, which is due six months following the inception of the grant, as well as a final program report, which is due June 1, 2009. Additionally, States must submit an SF 269 financial report on January 15, 2009, for the period beginning on the date of award of the contract and ending on December 31, 2008; and on July 31, 2009 for the period beginning January 1, 2008 and ending on the close out of the grant program.

Not later than June 30, 2009, the EAC will submit a report to Congress on the impact of the grant program on States’ ability to effectively collect Federal election data. The EAC will consult with States receiving grants under the program, along with the Election Assistance Commission Board of Advisors, to compile the report. The report will include recommendations to improve the collection of data relating to regularly scheduled general elections for Federal office in all States. This will include recommendations for changes in Federal law or regulations and the EAC’s estimate of the amount of funding necessary to carry out such changes.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

Funding instrument Type: Grant

Anticipated Total Priority Area Funding: $10,000,000

Anticipated Number of Awards: 5

Amount of Award to Each State Awarded: $2,000,000

Project Period for Awards: From the date of award until June 30, 2009.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicants

States, through their Chief State Election Officials, are the sole eligible applicants for this grant.

States are permitted to identify other organizations that may assist them in implementing their data collection efforts on behalf of this grant. However, these organizations will be considered subcontractors, rather than co-participants or sub-grantees, and are not eligible to apply for the grant under this program. Any applications sent by States citing other organizations as co-applicants or sent by non-States will be considered non-responsive and returned without review.

To be eligible for an Election Data Collection Grant, a State must submit an application containing the following information and assurances:

• A plan for the use of the funds provided by the grant which will expand and improve the collection of the election data relating to the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office held in November 2008, and will provide for the collection of such data in a common electronic format (as determined by the Commission). The State must, at a minimum, be able to provide data in Excel or in Excel-compatible software.

• An assurance that the State will comply with all requests made by the Commission for the compilation and submission of the data.

• An assurance that the State will provide the Commission with such information as the Commission may require in order to assist the Commission in preparing and submitting a report to Congress. The Commission, in consultation with the States receiving grants under the program and the Election Assistance Commission Board of Advisors, shall submit a report to Congress on the impact of the program on the collection of the election data not later than June 30, 2009.

• Such other information and assurances as the Commission may require.

For the purposes of this grant, a “State” has the meaning given in Section 901 of HAVA (42 U.S.C. 15541.). The term “State” is defined as each of the 50 States, along with the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the United States Virgin Islands.

States are also required to address the six criteria described in Section V. (“Application Review Information”) in a narrative statement that must not exceed 30 pages.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

None.

IV. APPLICATION, SUBMISSION, AND RELATED INFORMATION

1. General Guidelines for Application

Your application must include a narrative statement that:

• Outlines a plan of action which describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished (e.g., identify the hours and dates of the program, staff to be used, role of staffers, and systems implemented), given the description and purpose detailed above regarding the Election Data Collection Grant Program;

• Illustrates the methods, work plan, and timetable for the data collection project;

• Describes the State’s approach to collecting data, such as developing systems or methodologies, in order to enhance data collection;

• Describes the State’s ability and resources that will enable it to quickly begin the data collection project based on stated capacity and the readiness of the staff and any partners to implement the project;

• Identifies the results and benefits to be derived from the data collection project;

• Illustrates how the State and any proposed partners have experience in data collection for elections or work related to the data collection program; and

• Presents a budget with reasonable project costs, appropriately allocated across component areas, which are sufficient to accomplish the objectives, such as documentation of the dollar amount requested, as well as a description of the fiscal controls and accounting procedures that will be used to ensure prudent use, proper disbursement, and accurate accounting of funds received under this program announcement.

• Indicates the level at which election data is collected and reported in the State—i.e., at the county, township, independent city, or borough level.

The narrative statement must address each of the six criteria described in Section V. (“Application Review Information”).

2. Federal Assistance Forms

Applicants must provide an Application for Federal Assistance consisting of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) forms SF 424, SF 424A, and Certifications/Assurances. Standard application forms can be requested by mail from Mr. Eduardo Hernandez, EAC Operations Center, 1515 Wilson Blvd., Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22209, by email at [email protected], or by phone at (888)203-6161.

3. Notices of Intent to Apply

Applicants are encouraged to submit a non-binding Notice of Intent to Apply (See the form in Appendix B). However, Notices of Intent to Apply are not required and submission or failure to submit a notice has no bearing on the scoring of proposals received. The receipt of notices enables the EAC to better plan for the application review process. Notices of Intent to Apply are due April 9, 2008.

4. Applicant Question & Answer

States requesting clarity on specific issues of this RFA must submit those questions in writing to the following email address: [email protected]. All questions must be received by 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on April 14, 2008. Questions and answers will be posted on a rolling basis at the following Website address: www.submitgrant.net.

5. Content and Form of Application Submission

The Application

You may view this grant announcement at www.submitgrant.net. Applicants can submit applications electronically or in hard copy. Electronic submissions can be submitted through www.submitgrant.net. Hard copy applications must be sent to EAC Operations Center, 1515 Wilson Blvd., Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22209. For additional information concerning submissions, contact the EAC Support Center by phone at (888)203-6161, or via email at [email protected].

Each application must include only one proposed State project.

Data Universal Number System (DUNS) Number Requirement. All applicants must have a Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. On June 27, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published in the Federal Register a new Federal policy applicable to all Federal grant applicants. The policy requires Federal grant applicants to provide a DUNS number when applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements on or after October 1, 2003. The DUNS number will be required whether an applicant is submitting a paper or electronic application. These numbers are issued by Dun & Bradstreet. Please ensure that your organization has a DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number online at http://www.dnb.com.

Application Requirements

A complete application consists of the following items:

• Narrative Statement (must not exceed 30 pages) that addresses the six criteria described in Section V. (“Application Review Information”);

• Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424, REV 4-92);

  • Budget Information--Non-Construction Programs (SF 424A, REV 4-92);

  • Budget justification for Section B--Budget Categories;

  • Assurances--Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 424B, REV 4-92);

• Statement attesting to non-partisanship of the program; and

• Certification regarding lobbying.

Applicants that are submitting their application in paper format should submit one original and two copies of the complete application. The original and each of the two copies must include all required forms, certifications, assurances, and appendices. The original copy of the application must have the original signature(s) of the authorized representative of the applicant organization.

Do not include extraneous materials as attachments, such as agency promotion brochures, slides, tapes, film clips, minutes of meetings, survey instruments, compact or DVD disks, or entire articles of incorporation.

The applicant must disclose the names of individuals and organizations that assisted it with the proposal preparation.

Format of the Application

Each application must include contents that meet the following specifications:

• Use white paper only.

• Use 8.5 x 11" pages (on one side only) with one-inch margins (top, bottom and sides).

• Paper sizes other than 8.5 x 11" will not be accepted. This is particularly important because it is often not possible to reproduce copies in a size other than 8.5 x 11”.

• Use no less than a 12-point Arial or 12-point Times New Roman font.

• Double-space all narrative pages.

• There is a 30-page limit for the narrative portion, excluding budgetary information, required appendices, assurances, certifications, and standard forms. Please do not repeat information detailing existing State programs.

• Do not include critical details in any appendices not required by the EAC because those appendices will not be included for purposes of the ratings process.

• Do not bind copies. Secure pages with a binder clip, paper clip, or 3-ring binder. Please do not insert dividers or other implements that cannot be put through a copier.

• The use of color in typefaces, graphs or charts is not recommended.

No grant award will be made under this announcement on the basis of an incomplete application.

5. Submission Dates and Times

Deadline: You must submit the application for this grant announcement no later than 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on [Date TBD] (Due date will be approximately 30 days after publication in the Federal Register). The deadline applies to both electronic and paper submissions.

Applications hand-carried by applicants, applicant couriers, other representatives of the applicant, or by overnight/express mail couriers must be received by 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, [Date TBD] (Due date will be approximately 30 days after publication in the Federal Register) at the following address:

Eduardo Hernandez

EAC Operations Center

1515 Wilson Blvd.

Suite 100

Arlington, VA 22209

Late Applications: Late applications will not be considered. Applications which do not meet the aforementioned criteria are considered late applications, absent extreme circumstances to be determined by the Commission. Each late applicant will be notified that its application will not be considered in the current competition.

Extension of deadlines: The EAC may extend application deadlines where circumstances such as Acts of God (floods, hurricanes, etc.) occur. Determinations to extend or waive deadline requirements rest with the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Notification of any deadline extension will be posted on the Federal Register, as well as on the EAC’s website.

6. Intergovernmental Review

State Single Point of Contact (SPOC)

This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs. As of January 1, 2008, the following jurisdictions have elected to participate in the Executive Order process:

Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, North Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.

Applicants from these jurisdictions should determine the SPOC for that jurisdiction, and contact their SPOC as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective application and receive instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOC as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has up to 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.

Applicants from a jurisdiction that does not participate in the Executive Order process, and which have met the eligibility requirements of this program, are still eligible to apply for a grant even if a State, Territory, Commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC.

A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory can be obtained from the following website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.

7. Funding Restrictions

Grant applicants are to request $2,000,000 in funding. States may request neither more nor less than that amount.

Pre-award costs are not allowable charges to this program. Applications that include pre-award costs with their submission will be considered non-responsive and will not be eligible for funding under this announcement.

Indirect labor costs are not an allowable activity or expenditure under this program. Applications that propose construction projects or expenditures will be considered non-responsive and will not be eligible for funding under this announcement.

The purpose of this program is to focus on election data. Voter registration and Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) efforts are not allowable activities under this program. Applications that propose voter registration or GOTV efforts will be considered non-responsive and will not be eligible for funding under this announcement.

Grant applicants should be aware that, as States, they are subject to the cost principles outlined in the OMB Circular A-87 (found online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/a087/a87_2004.html) along with the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (“Common Rule,” Administrative Requirements, 53 FR 8087, March 11, 1988).

8. Other Application Requirements

2008 Election Day Survey

Please note that grantees are expected to respond to the 2008 Election Day Survey’s request for state- and county-level data.

Review Process

Panels of elections and research experts will conduct an independent review of all applications. The panelists will assess each application based on the criteria specified in this application to determine the merits of the proposal and the extent to which it furthers the purposes of the grant program. The EAC will review the recommendations of the panel. Final award decisions will be made by the EAC after consideration of the comments and recommendations of the review panelists, and the availability of funds. It is anticipated that applicants will be notified of a grant award on or before May 30, 2008.

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

In considering how applicants will carry out the responsibilities addressed under this announcement, competing applications for grants will be reviewed and evaluated against the following criteria:

1. Criteria (Total Possible Points: 100)

Criterion 1: Program Strategy (Maximum 20 Points)

Applicants will be evaluated on the extent to which they describe how the grant funds will be used for the collection of Federal election data.

Applicants will also be evaluated on the extent to which their application:

• Proposes infrastructure development that will improve their State’s ability to collect data for the 2008 Federal elections and future Federal elections at the precinct level.

• Illustrates that they understand the characteristics of the State’s current Federal election data collection system(s) and the strengths and weaknesses of that system(s).

• Describes the major barriers to the collection of Federal election data at the precinct level in their State, as well as the proposed grant project in terms of its approach to barrier elimination and the problems for which this EAC grant will be an answer. Applications must address the question: Is your State currently able to collect and report on data at the precinct level? If the answer is yes, the applicant must describe its database system's ability to collect information at this level and how it's been done in the past (if applicable). If the answer is no, the applicant must describe what systems it will put in place in order to collect these data.

• Defines realistic milestones and work products to be accomplished during the budget period. Examples of work products include, among others, completed system designs or reporting systems. The timetable for accomplishing the major tasks to be undertaken should include key dates relevant to the proposed project (e.g., the November election cycle).

• Describes their State’s method for collecting election data. Does the State allow for centralized or decentralized authority? That is, does the State determine how data is collected or are the counties (townships, independent cities, and boroughs) allowed to collect data as they wish?

• Briefly describes the impact, if any, of their State’s political structure in terms of its centralized or decentralized authority and decision-making on their ability to collect precinct level data.

• Describes whether their State uses a top-down or bottom-up approach to collect data that feeds into the voter registration database. (Note: top-down means the data are hosted on a single, central platform (e.g., mainframe and/or client servers) and connected to terminals housed at the local level; bottom-up means the data are gathered or uploaded from local voter registration databases to form the statewide voter registration list).

• Indicates whether their State uses just one vendor or more than one vendor for its voter registration database(s).

Furthermore, applicants will be evaluated on the extent to which their proposal is written clearly, is logically presented, and demonstrates an understanding of the grant program’s objectives.

Criterion 2: Feasibility of the Plan (Maximum 15 Points)

Applicants will be evaluated on the extent to which they illustrate that the methods, work plan, and timetable they provide inspire confidence that the goals of their proposal will be met. For example, States can include the extent to which:

• Outcomes and methods are clearly and effectively delineated;

• External partners are needed to successfully complete the project;

• The data collection infrastructure created complements and is coordinated with the State’s current system; and

• Technical assistance is needed to further the project and can provide a budget that reflects the true costs of these services.

Criterion 3: Innovation (Maximum 20 Points)

Applicants will be evaluated on the extent to which they provide a unique approach to collecting data. This can include the development of systems or methodologies to enhance data collection. Grantees will be expected to electronically report the Federal data contained in Appendix A. Applicants will be evaluated on the extent to which they explain the status of current election data systems and describe the modifications that will be required to track Federal election results in November 2008. Applicants must be able to collect precinct level data for the following questions in Appendix A: 1, 2, 18a, 23, 29, and 30. Applicants should also discuss the feasibility and value of collecting precinct level data related to the other questions that appear in Appendix A. Describe the processes your state would use to collect these additional data. Applicants must address the following question: How would your State use the grant money to enhance its ability to collect precinct level election data? Be sure to discuss any innovative strategies your State has implemented (or will implement) to improve data collection efforts.

Applicants must also describe how their State has been collecting at the State, county (township, independent city, borough), and precinct levels data related to:

• UOCAVA voters (e.g., ballot transmittals and receipt of those ballots, reasons for ballot rejection);

• newly registered voters (e.g., tracking the sources of voter registration applications from various State agencies);

• absentees (e.g., sources of absentee ballots); and

• provisional ballots

Applicants must discuss improvements they would make to the collection of these four data elements if they were to receive an award. Additionally, applicants that are already doing well in the area of data collection must go beyond describing the successes they have had; they should discuss how they will improve their data collection in an innovative way, and how those methods could possibly be replicated by other States.

Criterion 4: Readiness to Proceed (Maximum 15 Points)

Applicants will be evaluated on the extent to which they describe their ability to quickly begin the data collection project based on existing capacity. Applicants will be evaluated on the extent to which they describe the readiness of the staff and any partners to implement the project. This includes the extent to which the application describes a qualified and sufficient staffing pattern to accomplish the outcomes for the demonstration, and techniques to ensure that well-qualified staff will be enlisted in a timely manner.

• Evidence that key project staff, by virtue of their personal and/or first-hand professional experiences with data collection, have the requisite knowledge to implement project goals;

• Proposed management structure and how key project staff will relate to the proposed project director, the EAC, and any interagency or community working groups;

• Description of the sub-contractors or partners to be involved in the grant program and receiving funds, their management structure and organization, an outline of the specific tasks to be executed by the sub-contractor or partner and the reporting mechanisms that the State will require of each sub-contractor or partner;

• Brief biographical sketches of the project director and key project personnel indicating their qualifications, and prior experience for the project. Resumes for the key project personnel should be provided as an attachment;

• Description of your State’s capacity (i.e. staffing, organizational, management) to implement this grant program; and

• Description of how your State’s plan for precinct-level data collection can be implemented within the established timeframe for this grant.

Criterion 5: Outcomes (Maximum 20 Points)

Applicants will be evaluated on the extent to which they describe processes to measure progress toward completing the assigned tasks. This includes the State’s plans for evaluating the program’s success over time, including establishing a baseline estimate for monitoring the completeness and accuracy of the Federal election data elements contained in Appendix A.

Criterion 6: Budget and Budget Justification (Maximum 10 Points)

Applicants will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant presents (1) a budget with reasonable project costs, appropriately allocated across component areas, and sufficient to accomplish the objectives; and (2) demonstrates an understanding of accounting procedures necessary for Federal grant receipt.

Note: All necessary salary rates must appear on the application for the EAC.

1. Applications will be evaluated based on the extent to which they discuss and justify the costs of the proposed project as being reasonable and programmatically justified in view of the activities to be conducted and the anticipated results and benefits including:

• A line item allocation for all proposed costs (salaries, materials, transportation, etc.). (5 points)

• A narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived and a discussion of the reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed costs. (2.5 points)

2. Applicants will be evaluated based on the extent to which they detail the procedures used to ensure successful management of Federal grant funds including:

• A description of the fiscal control and accounting procedures that will be used to ensure prudent use, proper disbursement, and accurate accounting of funds received under this program announcement. (2.5 points)

VI. OTHER EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS

In addition to the aforementioned selection criteria, the EAC will consider other factors when making its final award selection. The EAC is interested in having a wide range of States represented in the group of States that are awarded grants. This includes a selection of States with the following characteristics:

• State Size. This is based on a State’s citizen voting-age population and on its number of electoral votes. States are broken into categories of large, medium, and small.

• Region of the Country. To achieve regional diversity, State applicants may be chosen from the North, South, East, and West.

• Voter Registration Database. Whether a State’s voter registration database

system is top-down (hosted on a single, central platform (e.g., mainframe and/or

client servers) and connected to terminals housed at the local level), or bottom-up

(gathers or uploads its information from local voter registration databases to form

the statewide voter registration list).

Multiple vendors versus single vendor. Consideration will be given to

States that employ a contract with a single vendor and those that may use

multiple vendors to operate their voter registration databases.

• Political Structure. This refers to States with centralized versus decentralized authority and decision-making.

• Unit of government. Data collection and reporting at the county, township, independent city, and borough levels.

• Election Day Registration States. Such States include Idaho, Maine, Montana, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming

VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

1. Award Notices

Successful applicants will receive a grant agreement award document from the authorized EAC official. Three copies of the agreement will be sent via surface mail. The recipient should have an authorized official at the organization sign and return two copies of the agreement to the address listed in the award document. The agreement will also include the standard terms and conditions, general terms and conditions (if any) and special award conditions (if any), that are applicable.

Organizations whose applications will not be funded will be notified in writing by the EAC.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

The EAC has not promulgated any such requirements at this time. It is expected that general administrative and national policy requirements will be followed, and the EAC will seek guidance on these requirements from other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

3. Reporting

Semi-Annual Program Reports: States awarded grants will be required to submit a semi-annual report, which is due six months following the inception of the grant. They will also be required to submit a final report, which is due June 1, 2009. Specific details regarding timeframes for submitting, and topics/subjects to be addressed, will be described in detail in the grant recipients’ award letter.

Financial Reports: A SF 269 must be submitted on January 15, 2009, for the period beginning on the date of award of the contract and ending on December 31, 2008, and on July 31, 2009 for the period beginning January 1, 2008 and ending on the close out of the grant program. Specific details regarding timeframes for submitting, and line item expenditures to be reported on, will be described in detail in the grant recipients’ award letter.

Other Reports: To obtain grant funds, grantees will be required to submit SF 270 forms (Request for Advance or Reimbursement) on a quarterly basis.

All reports will be submitted to the attention of Karen Lynn-Dyson at EAC Operations Center, 1515 Wilson Blvd., Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22209, or by email at [email protected]. If you have any questions regarding report submission, please call (888)203-6161.

The required standard forms 269 and 270 are located on the Internet at:

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/grants_forms.html.

4. OMB Number

The project described in this announcement is approved under OMB (Office of Management and Budget) control number [TBD], which expires [TBD].

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

For further information contact: Karen Lynn-Dyson at EAC Operations Center, 1515 Wilson Blvd., Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22209, by email at [email protected], or by phone at (888)203-6161.

IX. OTHER INFORMATION

Meetings

All States receiving awards must plan to participate in periodic teleconferences or online meetings throughout the grant period.

Civil Rights

All grantees receiving awards under this grant program must meet the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Hill-Burton Community Service nondiscrimination provisions; and Title II, Subtitle A, of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Additional Information about the EAC

Addition information about the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and its purpose can be found at the following Internet address: http://www.eac.gov.

Dated: March 28, 2008

Thomas Wilkey

Executive Director

United States Election Assistance Commission

APPENDIX A

U .S. ELECTION

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

2008 ELECTION DATA

COLLECTION GRANT PROGRAM

Note: These questions refer to the period from the Federal general election day +1, 2006 through Federal election day, 2008.

• All information requested in this survey should pertain to the November 2008 Federal general election.

• Data is to be collected at the precinct-level.

• Bolded questions must be answered at the precinct-level

• Where an asterisk appears (*), please refer to the “Definitions” page for further explanation.

SECTION I: VOTER REGISTRATION

1. What was the total number of registered voters for the 2008 Federal general election? _________

2. What was the total number of active and inactive registered voters for the 2008 Federal general election?

*Active __________________ *Inactive ___________________

3. If your state has Election Day/Same Day Registration, how many forms received on election day were:

Type of Form	Number
* New registrations
Changes to existing registrations (e.g., name, address, etc.)
*Duplicate of existing registration
Other
Total number of registration forms received Note: The total is the sum of the four previous categories noted above.

Note: This question applies only to states with Election Day/Same Day Registration –

Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

 Not applicable. My state is not an Election Day/Same Day Registration state.

4a. Does your state allow online registration by individual voters?  Yes  No (If no, proceed to question #5)

4b. If your state has online registration, what was the total number of individuals who used it? __________

5. How many registration application forms were received from the following sources over the previous two-year period?

Source	Number
Mail
Motor vehicle offices
Public assistance offices
State funded agencies serving disabled persons
Armed forces recruitment offices
Other agencies designated by the state
Other means (e.g., advocacy groups, including political parties)
Not categorized
Total number of registration forms received Note: The total is the sum of the previous eight categories noted above

6. Of the total number of registration application forms received as noted in the previous question, how many were:

Type of Application	Number
*Duplicates of another valid voter registration
Invalid or rejected (other than duplicates)
*New, valid registration – no other record was found
Changes to name, address, or party
Moved into jurisdiction but was registered elsewhere in the state
Not categorized
Total number of applications received Note: The total is the sum of the previous six categories noted above.

7. Of the total number of *duplicate registration forms received as noted in the previous question, how many came from the following sources:

Source	Number
Mail
Motor vehicle offices
Public assistance offices
State funded agencies serving disabled persons
Armed forces recruitment offices
Other agencies designated by the state
Other means (e.g., advocacy groups, including political parties)
Not categorized
Total number of duplicate registration forms received

Removal/Confirmation Notices

8. Of the total number of removal/confirmation notices mailed to voters, how many were:

Response	Number
Received back from voters
Returned as undeliverable
Status unknown
Not categorized
Total number of removal/confirmation notices mailed to voters

9. Of the total number of voters removed from the registration list as noted in the previous question, how many were due to:

Reason for Removal	Number
Change of address (moved outside jurisdiction)
Death
Disqualifying felony conviction
Failure to vote in two consecutive Federal general elections
Voter requested to be removed
Not categorized
Total number of voters removed from the voter registration list (or moved to the inactive voter registration list) as a result of the removal/confirmation notices

SECTION II: UNIFORMED & OVERSEAS CITIZENS ABSENTEE VOTING ACT (UOCAVA)

10. How many of your state’s UOCAVA absentee ballots were transmitted, returned, and cast? (Do not include Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB))

a. Total number of absentee ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters. Break the total into the following groups, when possible: (Do not include FWABs)
Number
Absent uniformed services voters – domestic or foreign
Absent non-military/civilian overseas voters
Status of the voter is not recorded or unavailable
Total number transmitted (Note: this total includes the three categories listed above)
Number
b. Total number of ballots returned by UOCAVA voters. Break the total into the following groups, when possible: (Do not include FWABs)
Absent uniformed services voters – domestic or foreign
Absent non-military/civilian overseas voters
Status of the voter is not recorded or unavailable
Total number returned (Note: this total includes the three categories listed above)
Number
c. Total number of ballots *cast by UOCAVA voters. Break the total into the following groups, when possible: (Do not include FWABs)
Absent uniformed services voters – domestic or foreign
Absent non-military/civilian overseas voters
Status of the voter is not recorded or unavailable
Total number cast (Note: this total includes the three categories listed above)
Number
d. Total number of ballots *counted by UOCAVA voters. Break the total into the following groups, when possible: (Do not include FWABs)
Absent uniformed services voters – domestic or foreign
Absent non-military/civilian overseas voters
Status of the voter is not recorded or unavailable
Total number cast (Note: this total includes the three categories listed above)

11a.

Total number of UOCAVA ballots not *counted: (Do not include FWABs)
Number
Absent uniformed services voters – domestic or foreign
Absent non-military/civilian overseas voters
Status of the voter is not recorded or unavailable
Total number not counted (Note: This total is the difference between the total listed in question #11c and the total listed in #11d).

11b. Of the number of UOCAVA ballots that were not counted as indicated in question #11a, how many were not counted for the following reasons? (Do not include FWABs)

Reason	Number
Ballot was returned undeliverable
Ballot was returned by voter but was rejected for failure to meet requirements

Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB)

12. How many FWAB absentee ballots were returned and cast?

Total number of FWAB ballots returned by UOCAVA voters. Break the total into the following groups, when possible:
Number
Absent uniformed services voters – domestic or foreign
Absent non-military/civilian overseas voters
Status of the voter is not recorded or unavailable
Total number returned (Note: this total includes the three categories listed above)
Total number of FWAB ballots *cast by UOCAVA voters. Break the total into the following groups, when possible:
Number
Absent uniformed services voters – domestic or foreign
Absent non-military/civilian overseas voters
Status of the voter is not recorded or unavailable
Total number cast (Note: this total includes the three categories listed above)

Automatic Transmittal of UOCAVA Ballots

13.

How many UOCAVA ballots were transmitted:
Number
As part of the two-election cycle of automatic requests
In response to a specific request by the voter
Of the total number of ballots automatically transmitted as part of the two-election cycle of automatic requests:
Number
How many were returned as undeliverable
How many were submitted for *counting (cast)

SECTION III: ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

14. What was the total number of precincts in your state/jurisdiction? __________

15. What was the total number of polling places available in your state for voting in the November 2008 Federal general election?_________

16. What was the total number of poll workers used for election day (from beginning of any early voting through the end of election night balloting)? __________

Note: Question #16 should include the number of persons who served in all polling places in the state as poll workers, election judges, wardens, commissioners, or other similar term that refers to the person or persons who verify the identity of a voter; assist the voter with signing the register, affidavits or other documents required to case a ballot; assist the voter by providing the voter with a ballot or setting up the voting machine for the voter; and serving other functions as dictated by state law. Question #16 should not include observers stationed at the polling place or regular office staff who handled the early voting/absentee voting process.

17. The EAC is interested in the extent to which jurisdictions had a sufficient number of poll workers available for the November 2008 Federal general election. Did your jurisdictions find the number of poll workers available for election day to be sufficient? If not, how many more poll workers would have been needed to run a successful election? Please explain.

SECTION IV: ELECTION DAY ACTIVITIES

Voter Participation

18a. What was the total number of persons who voted in the November 2008 Federal general election? __________

Note: This total includes absentee and provisional voters

18b. What is the source of the number indicated in question #18a? (Please provide numbers for only one category.)

 Number of voters checked off or signed in the poll books at precincts, plus absentee/early votes ______________

 Number of ballots counted, both at precincts and centrally counted (i.e. absentees, etc.) ______________

 Number of voters generated after vote history has been added to their registration records _____________

Voter ID

19. What was the total number of first-time voters who registered by mail, were not verified, and per HAVA (sect. 303(2a)), were required to provide identification at the polls in order to vote? _____________

Absentee Ballots

20. How many voters appeared on the permanent absentee voter registration list? ___________

21. How many absentee ballots were:

Absentee ballot status	Number
Requested
Received
Counted
Not counted

22. Of the number of absentee ballots not counted or rejected, how many were not counted or rejected for the following reasons?

Reason for Rejection	Number
Ballot missing from envelope
Ballot not received on time/missed deadline
Ballot returned as undeliverable
Ballot replaced
Ballot returned in an unofficial envelope
Voter deceased
Voter already voted in-person
Envelope not sealed
First-time voter without proper identification
Ineligible to vote
Multiple ballots returned in one envelope
No ballot application on record
No election official’s signature on ballot
No resident address on envelope
No voter signature
No witness signature
Non-matching signature
*Spoiled ballot
Other
Total number of absentee ballots not counted/rejected Note: this total and the total “not counted” in the previous question should be the same.

Provisional Ballots

23. In the general election, how many provisional ballots were:

*cast (or issued)? __________ *counted? __________ rejected? ____________

24. Of the number of provisional ballots that were rejected, how many were due to:

Reason for Rejection	Number
Voter already voted
Deceased
Elector challenged
Incomplete ballot form
Ineligible to vote
Missing ballot
Multiple ballots in one envelope
No identification provided
No signature
Non-matching signature
Voter not registered/registration purged
Wrong jurisdiction/precinct
Other
Total number of provisional ballots rejected Note: this total and the total “rejected” in the previous question should be the same.

Poll Books

25a. Were electronic poll books used for the Federal general election?  Yes  No

25b. If electronic poll books were used, what was the total number of machines used by your jurisdictions? ____________

 Not applicable. No electronic poll books were used.

25c. If electronic poll books were used, how were they used? (Check all that apply)

 Look up polling places

 Sign voters in

 Track voter history

 Not applicable. No electronic poll books were used.

25d. If printed poll books were used, did they have bar codes?  Yes  No

25e. If printed poll books were used, did the state print them and ship them to the counties/townships, etc. or did the counties/townships, etc. print them?

 The state printed them and shipped them to the counties/townships, etc.

 The counties/townships, etc. printed them

 Combination of printing at the state- and county-levels

Voting Equipment

26. Identify the type of voting equipment used for the November 2008 Federal general election as well as the number of machines used.

Type of Equipment	Make	Model	Version	Vendor	Number of Machines Used
Electronic  N/A. This type of equipment was not used
Optical Scan  N/A. This type of equipment was not used
Lever  N/A. This type of equipment was not used
Punch Card  N/A. This type of equipment was not used
 Hand counted paper ballots

27. If electronic voting machines (DREs) were used, were they equipped with VVPAT (Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail)?  Yes  No

 Not applicable. No electronic voting machines (DREs) were used.

28. For each type of voting equipment (including paper ballots), please identify the voting process in which it was used and note whether the ballots were tallied at a central location or at the precinct or polling place.

Type of Equipment	Process	Location of Vote Tally
Electronic  N/A. This type of equipment was not used	 In Precinct  Absentee  Early Vote Sites  Special Device *Accessible to disabled voters  Provisional Voting	 a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  early vote site  a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  precinct/polling place
Optical Scan  N/A. This type of equipment was not used	 In Precinct  Absentee  Early Vote Sites  Special Device *Accessible to disabled voters  Provisional Voting	 a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  early vote site  a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  precinct/polling place
Lever  N/A. This type of equipment was not used	 In Precinct  Absentee  Early Vote Sites  Special Device *Accessible to disabled voters  Provisional Voting	 a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  early vote site  a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  precinct/polling place
Punch Card  N/A. This type of equipment was not used	 In Precinct  Absentee  Early Vote Sites  Special Device *Accessible to disabled voters  Provisional Voting	 a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  early vote site  a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  precinct/polling place
 Hand counted paper ballots	 In Precinct  Absentee  Early Vote Sites  Special Device *Accessible to disabled voters  Provisional Voting	 a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  early vote site  a central location  precinct/polling place  a central location  precinct/polling place

SECTION V: ELECTION RESULTS

29. For the November 2008 Federal general election, how many votes were cast:

	Number
At polling places (i.e., with normal precinct voting device, disabled accessible device)
Via absentee ballot (i.e., mailed in, cast in-person in election office, mail ballot precinct)
At early vote centers
Via provisional ballots
Total number of ballots cast Note: this total is the sum of the previous four categories above)

Over-votes and Under-votes

30. What was the total number of votes cast for all Federal offices in the November 2008 general election?

Office	Total Votes
President
Candidate 1
Candidate 2, etc.
Write-in votes
Over-votes
Congress – U.S. Senate
Candidate 1
Candidate 2, etc.
Write-in votes
Over-votes
Congress – U.S. House of Representatives
Candidate 1
Candidate 2, etc.
Write-in votes
Over-votes

Note: Under-votes will be calculated as the difference between total number of persons who voted in the election (question #18a) and the sum of the data above.

31. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission welcomes any general comments the state may wish to share regarding its election day experiences (e.g., problems with machines, recounts, staffing, challenges to eligibility, long lines, etc.), or noteworthy successes in administering the November 2008 Federal general election.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission thanks you for

completing this survey.

Definitions:

Absentee Ballot: Ballot cast by a voter unable to vote in person at his or her polling place on election day.

Accessibility: Measurable characteristics that indicate the degree to which a system is available to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities. The most common disabilities include those associated with vision, hearing and mobility, as well as cognitive disabilities.

Active voters: Refers to all registered voters except those who have been sent but have not responded to a confirmation mailing sent in accordance with NVRA (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)) and have not since offered to vote.

Cast: Ballot that has been deposited by the voter in the ballot box or electronically submitted for tabulation. The ballot may or may not be counted.

Counted: Ballot that has been processed and whose vote is included in the candidates’ vote totals.

Duplicate registration application: Refers to an application to register by a person already registered to vote at the same address, under the same name and personal information (i.e. date of birth, social security number, driver’s license, etc.), and the same political party (where applicable).

Early vote: Ballot cast in person by a voter at a designated polling site prior to election day. Also referred to as “early in-person voting” or “on-site absentee voting.”

Inactive voters: refers to registrants who have been sent but have not responded to a confirmation mailing sent in accordance with NVRA (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)) and have not since offered to vote. A voter whose name or residence address is no longer current and who has not attempted to reregister, has not voted, or appeared to vote at the address of record.

List maintenance: refers to the specific process and procedures by which state and/or local election officials update and preserve information contained on the official list of registered voters.

New Registration: No previous or duplicate registration exists.

Over-vote: Votes for more choices than are permitted in a contest.

Polling place: The physical structure where residents of a precinct go to cast their votes on election day. A polling place includes any structure that houses one or more precincts. A facility staffed by poll workers and equipped with voting equipment at which persons residing in a precinct cast ballots in person on election day.

Precinct: The geographic area to which voters are assigned. An administrative division of a county or municipality consisting of a geographic area defined by a map to which voters have been assigned by their residence addresses for voting at an election.

Provisional ballot: Ballot provided to individuals who claim they are registered and eligible to vote, but whose eligibility or registration status cannot be confirmed when they present themselves to vote. Once voted, such ballots must be kept separate from other ballots and are not included in the tabulation until after the voter’s eligibility is confirmed. Also referred to as a challenged ballot.

Spoiled ballot: Ballots that are incorrectly marked or impaired in some way by the voter, turned in by the voter at the polling place, and then a replacement ballot issued so that the voter can correctly mark the ballot. Also referred to as a voided ballot.

Under-vote: Votes for fewer choices than are permitted in a contest, including the choice to not vote for any candidate in a contest or any response to a ballot question.

APPENDIX B

Notice of Intent to Apply

PLEASE PRINT

Please return this form by April 9, 2008, via fax to 703-528-0716, or by email to [email protected], to the attention of Eduardo Hernandez.

1. State Name:________________________________________________________

2. State Agency likely to serve as lead: _____________________________________

3. Contact Name and Title: ______________________________________________

4. Address: ___________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

5. Phone: ___________________

6. Fax: _____________________

7. E-mail: ____________________________________________________________

Applicants are encouraged to submit a non-binding Notice of Intent to Apply. However, Notices of Intent to Apply are not required and submission or failure to submit a notice has no bearing on the scoring of proposals received. The receipt of notices enables the EAC to better plan for the application review process. Notices of Intent to Apply are due April 9, 2008.

30

U.S. Election Assistance Commission