2012 EAVS - Supporting Statement A

Supporting Statement A:
OMB Control Number: 3265-0006
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
2012 Election Administration and Voting Survey
A. Justification
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The proposed information collection is necessary to meet requirements of the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA) of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301). HAVA §241 requires the U.S. Election Assistance Commission
(EAC) to study and report on election activities, practices, policies, and procedures, including methods
of voter registration, methods of conducting provisional voting, poll worker recruitment and training,
and such other matters as the Commission determines are appropriate. In addition, HAVA §802
transferred to the EAC the Federal Election Commission’s responsibility of biennially administering a
survey on the impact of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-1 et seq.). The
information the States are required to submit to the EAC for purposes of the NVRA report are found
under Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations (11 CFR 8.7).
HAVA §703(a) also amended §102 the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voters Act
(UOCAVA) (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1) by requiring that “not later than 90 days after the date of each
regularly scheduled general election for Federal office, each State and unit of local government which
administered the election shall (through the State, in the case of a unit of local government) submit a
report to the Election Assistance Commission (established under the Help America Vote Act of 2002)
on the combined number of absentee ballots transmitted to absent uniformed services voters and
overseas voters for the election and the combined number of such ballots which were returned by such
voters and cast in the election, and shall make such a report available to the general public.”
In October 2009, the President signed into law the MOVE Act (Military and Overseas Voter
Empowerment) as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2010 (P.L. 111-84). MOVE is
intended to make it easier for absentee military troops and other overseas citizen voters to register and
vote, and to help ensure that their ballots arrive in time to be counted. The MOVE Act requires state
election officials to provide a number of new services, including online access to registration and ballot
request forms, electronic options for blank ballot delivery, downloadable write-in ballots in case of late
ballot arrival and voter status tracking services. Many of these services were to have been implemented
by the November 2010 election.
2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used.
The information collected in the 2012 EAC Administration and Voting Survey will be used by the EAC
to report to Congress on the impact of the NVRA (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-1 et seq.) on the administration of
elections for the period from the day after the November 2, 2010 Federal general elections until Election
Day November 6, 2012 Federal general elections. In addition, the EAC shall make available to the
public the information collected on the combined number of absentee ballots transmitted to absent
uniformed services and overseas citizen voters for the election and the combined number of such ballots
which were returned by such voters and cast in the election as required by UOCAVA §102(c). Congress
also receives this report. Further, this collection standardizes the format for the reports submitted by
States under UOCAVA §102(c) as required by HAVA §703(b).
1

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
The EAC will make a variety of data collection tools and templates available to States to allow
maximum flexibility in collecting and submitting their data to EAC. It will also accommodate states
with varying degrees of access to technology. In particular, the EAC will offer states, as it did in 2008
and 2010, the opportunity to submit their data via an Excel-or Word-based template, which can be
uploaded to the project website or sent via email. States with more sophisticated capabilities will be able
to work with EAC to provide their data in other electronic formats such as DBF or XML. Should some
jurisdictions need paper-and-pencil templates, those can be submitted via email, fax, or postal mail.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
Currently, the U.S Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) provides for a bi-annual
supplement that collects information about the voting characteristics of U.S. households. However, the
EAC’s Election Administration and Voting Survey is a census of election administration practices and
voter participation as reported by the chief election officials for the States, the District of Columbia, and
the U.S. territories; it does not collect information from voters regarding their voting behavior. The
EAC has met with the U.S. Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP)
regarding the 2012 and 2014 survey processes and any proposed plans for changes to future military and
overseas voting surveys. Discussions between EAC and FVAP will continue as both agencies work to
determine the best ways to carry out our respective UOCAVA data collection responsibilities.
For 2012, EAC’s 2012 survey will remain largely unchanged from the 2010 version (except for minor
changes to some question wording for the purpose of clarifying the type of information EAC seeks).
FVAP will delete from its survey the duplicative questions that already appear on EAC’s survey and
EAC will give FVAP the military and overseas voter quantitative data once they are submitted by the
States. EAC and FVAP will work collaboratively on the marketing and messaging related to the
administration of their respective 2012 surveys.
Additionally, EAC and FVAP will use the time between now and 2014 to prepare the States for the
types of changes that will come with respect to military and overseas voting questions in 2014. For
2014, EAC and FVAP anticipate developing a combined survey so that election officials only have to
answer one survey. EAC will administer the survey and provide FVAP with all of the data.
Minor language changes to the 2012 EAVS survey include:
Section A:
Question A4a: Adding “Same Day” in order to clarify that we want information about Same Day
registrations
Total new Same Day registrations
Question A6-A9: Adding an asterisk mark with the following language
*Sub-question “e” should
include all forms handled through the public assistance agency process (i.e., paper, online). This
sentence will be added as a way to clarify for respondents what should be included in A6-9e regarding
public assistance voter registration forms. With more and more states offering online voter registration
we want to ensure that those numbers are included and that public assistance offices are not just
including counts for paper forms.
2

Question A10: This edit involves changing “removal” to “confirmation” as a way of clarifying for
respondents what EAC means. Both terms had been included previously to accommodate variation in
states’ use of these terms. EAC noticed that some confusion resulted from this and would like to use
“confirmation,” which is the term used in the National Voter Registration Act regulations.

Enter the total number of confirmation removal notices sent to voters in the period between the
close of registration…
Section B:
Question C7: There is no change to the original question. The additional language in red text is to
clarify for respondents the type of post-election audit information EAC is seeking. We noticed in the
2010 responses that states’ answers varied widely; we thought additional guidance might yield better
responses from the states.

Please describe your state’s laws regarding post-election audits, if any. A post-election audit refers to
hand-counting votes on paper records and comparing those counts to the corresponding vote
counts originally reported, as a check on the accuracy of election results, and resolving
discrepancies using accurate hand counts of the paper records as the benchmark. If your state has
post-election auditing, consider including in your response information such as the unit being
audited (e.g., precincts, machines); the sampling method (e.g., fixed percentages); whether there is
a specific trigger for the audit; the location of the random selection (e.g., state, county); and the
races that can be audited.
Question E2: EAC would like to remove this question. It was included in 2010 order to get a sense of
how states were planning to implement the new MOVE Act requirements for the 2010 election. EAC
believes it can be removed because by 2012 all states should have implemented the various provisions of
the MOVE Act. There is no need to ask them how they plan to comply with the Act.
E2. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE) was signed into law on October 22,
2009. The MOVE Act contains, among other things, provisions regarding States’ methods of
communication with UOCAVA voters and UOCAVA ballot transmission.
Please describe your State’s processes and procedures for implementing MOVE (including any changes
in your State’s laws or regulations) as they relate to:
•
•
•

Protecting the security and integrity of the voter registration and ballot application process, the
privacy and personal information of the voter, and absentee ballots. (Sect. 577, 578)
Designating a means of electronic communication for all voting-related materials to UOCAVA
voters. (Sect. 577)
Establishing a ballot tracking mechanism to allow voters to determine whether their ballots were
received by the appropriate election official. (Sect. 580(d))

Also, please describe your State’s plans to capture data related to the number of registration
applications, ballot applications, and blank ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters via mail and
electronic means (Internet, email, fax) and the number of registration applications, ballot applications,
and completed ballots returned by UOCAVA voters via mail and electronic means (Internet, email, fax).

3

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any
methods used to minimize burden.
This information collection does not have a significant impact on small businesses or other small
entities. The chief election officials for the States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories may
have to request information from their local election jurisdictions, but most of this information is already
routinely collected from the local election officials to certify election results and report voter turnout.
The EAC has made efforts to limit the information requested and burden on all participants. The
information sought is limited to that information necessary to meet the requirements listed in response to
Question 1 above.
6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted
or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
If the EAC does not collect this information it may be unable to comply with its statutory requirements
under HAVA (42 U.S.C. 15301), NVRA (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-1 et seq.), and UOCAVA (42 U.S.C.
1973ff-1). This collection of information must be carried out every two years after each Federal general
election as stipulated by NVRA and UOCAVA. The EAC has reduced the burden of responding to the
information collection by using the 2010 version of the survey with very minor edits introduced for
2012. For example, with the Statutory Overview (qualitative) Chief State Election Officials are being
asked only to update the information submitted in 2010 if there have been changes in their election laws
and regulations. There was one new question on the Statutory Overview added as a result of the MOVE
Act; however, EAC would like to remove that question for 2012 since the MOVE Act requirements
were to have been in place for the 2010 election. There is no need to ask this question in 2012. As was
the case in 2008 and 2010, States will be provided with the Statutory Overview prior to the election so
that they can complete it and submit it before starting on the more involved quantitative section, which
is due after the election. Since States are already familiar with the survey as a result of having
experienced the 2008 and 2010 versions, EAC expects States to have an easier time responding.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner
inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
There are no special circumstances applicable to this information collection.
8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal
Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5CFR 320.8(d), soliciting comments on the
information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in
response to that notice and describe actions taken in response to the comments. Specifically
address comments received on cost and hour burden. Describe efforts to consult with persons
outside DOE.
Since EAC is requesting approval for non-substantive changes, EAC did not publish a notice in the
Federal Registrar for the 2012 survey. EAC’s interest is in reducing respondent burden and maintaining
as much consistency as possible in the questions asked between 2010 and 2012. The survey is largely
unchanged from the 2010 version and will be placed on EAC’s website along with a list of the minor
edits made. EAC did consult with its statutory boards and trade association members (comprised of State
4

and local election officials) regarding the intent to make no substantive changes to the 2012 survey. That
decision was overwhelmingly supported by these stakeholders.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of
contractors or grantees.
The EAC does not provide any payment or gift to respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance
in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
There is no assurance of confidentiality.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior
and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
There are no questions of a sensitive nature.
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should
indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an
explanation of how the burden was estimated.
Section A-Quantitative section; Section B-Statutory Overview
a. Number of respondents = 55
b. Number of responses per each respondent = 1
c. Total annual responses = 1
d. Hours per response = 147.00 hours
i. Reviewing instructions: 2.00 hours (1.5 hours for Section A; .5 hours for Section B)
ii. Adjusting to comply with any previously applicable requirements: 10.00 hours (Section
A)
iii. Training personnel to respond to a collection of information: 20.00 hours (19 hours for
Section A; 1 hour for Section B)
iv. Searching data sources: 50.00 hours (25 hours for Section A; 25 hours for Section B)
v. Completing and reviewing the collection of information: 60.00 hours (30 hours for
Section A; 30 hours for Section B)
vi. Transmitting or otherwise disclosing the information: 5.00 (2.5 hours for Section A; 2.5
hours for Section B)
e. Total annual reporting burden = 8,085 hours (# of respondents x frequency of response x hours of
response)
f. Estimated total annual cost burden = $188,946.45 (# of total annual reporting hours (8,085) x
estimated hourly cost for responding to this information collection ($23.37)
5

i. The hourly cost factor was derived from dividing the estimated annual cost factor per
respondent ($3,435.39) by the estimated hours per response (147) = $23.37

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting
from the collection of information.
There are no capital or start-up costs associated with this information collection.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The estimated annual cost to the Federal Government is $590,000. This estimate includes: $495,500 for
a contractor to develop and manage a database system to house the State’s data; the contractor’s
personnel cost associated with survey instrument development, database development, technical
assistance to the States, data analysis and production of various reports; $45,000 for two (2) EAC
personnel to manage the entire project (includes salary and benefits), and $49,550 for overhead.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 (or 14) of OMB
Form 83-I.
Not applicable.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication.
The EAC is required by NVRA (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7) no later than June 30th of each odd-numbered
year submit to Congress a report assessing the impact of this Act on the administration of elections for
Federal office during the preceding 2-year period, including recommendations or improvements in
Federal and State procedures, forms, and other matters affected by this Act. This report will be released
before June 30, 2013.
In addition, the EAC will make available to the public the information collected on the combined
number of absentee ballots transmitted to uniformed and non-uniformed citizen voters and the combined
number of such ballots which were returned by such voters and cast in the election as required by
UOCAVA §102(c). The EAC expects to release its UOCAVA findings in October 2013. The Statutory
Overview is tentatively scheduled to be released in April 2013. All of the data collected through this
project will be made publicly available via EAC’s website and Data.gov.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information
collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
Not applicable to this collection.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of OMB Form 83-I.
The EAC does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.

6