2012 EAVS - Supporting Statement B

Supporting Statement B:
OMB Control Number: 3265-0006
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
2012 Election Administration and Voting Survey

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
1. Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any
sampling or other respondent selection method to be used. Data on the number of entities
(e.g. establishments, State and local governmental units, households, or persons) in the
universe and the corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular form. Indicate
expected response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection had been conducted
previously, include the actual response rate achieved during the last collection.
This information collection does not use sampling. The respondent universe for the 2012
Election Administration and Voting Survey includes all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
the four U.S. territories; the total universe is 55 respondents. The EAC seeks and expects all of
the identified respondents to provide responses to the collection as a whole. In 2008, EAC
received responses from all 55 State and territory respondents. In 2010, EAC received responses
from 53 States and territories (Puerto Rico did not hold federal elections and U.S. Virgin Islands
submitted its data after the deadline). It is important to note that some of the respondents are
exempt from the NVRA and as such are not required to provide certain data (though most of
them did in 2010). In addition, since the manner in which elections are administered may vary
by jurisdiction, there are some questions that may not apply to all respondents.
2. Describe the procedures for the collection, including: the statistical methodology for
stratification and sample selection; the estimation procedure; the degree of accuracy
needed for the purpose described in the justification; any unusual problems requiring
specialized sampling procedures; and any use of periodic (less frequent than annual) data
collection cycles to reduce burden.
Not applicable to this collection.
3. Describe the methods used to maximize response rates and to deal with non-response.
The accuracy and reliability of the information collected must be shown to be adequate for
the intended uses.
The EAC has worked closely with State respondents to clarify survey questions and terms, and
encourage full participation. Since 2005, EAC has actively solicited State and local election
officials’ feedback regarding any challenges they may have faced with the survey, including their
experiences with data collection and submission. In addition to election officials, EAC also
consults with social science and elections researchers, voter interest groups, and other
stakeholders to discuss ways to improve the new information collection based on their expertise.
EAC also presents each new information collection to its Advisory and Standards Boards, which
are comprised of 110 state and election officials and another 37 are drawn from various national
associations and government agencies that play a role in the implementation of the Help America
Vote Act and science and technology-related professionals appointed by Congressional
1

members. Since 2006 the information collection has also been presented to members of trade
associations such as the National Association of Secretaries of States (NASS) and the National
Association of State Election Directors (NASED) during their annual meetings and their
feedback is encouraged.
For both the 2008 and 2010 information collections, these same series of discussions occurred
with these stakeholders. In January 2008, the EAC held conference calls with the states to
discuss issues related to the 2006 survey to solicit feedback on the format for the 2008 survey.
That is how we determined that it would be best to split the information collection into two parts
– the Statutory Overview (qualitative) and the Election Administration and Voting Survey
(quantitative). That format worked well in 2008, which is why EAC maintained that same format
for 2010. EAC also sought public comment on the survey and incorporated many of the more
feasible suggestions regarding specific questions. For 2012, EAC seeks approval for a survey
with non-substantive changes. Thus, the 2012 survey will mirror the 2010 survey with only
minor language changes for clarification purposes.
In terms of the data collection, as always, EAC carefully reviews the information submitted by
State respondents to ensure completeness and accuracy of their submissions. In 2010, EAC
implemented an automated error checking function for the data collection template (along with
manual review), which greatly aided in the submission of more quality data. We anticipate using
that same approach for 2012. Respondents will be contacted by phone and e-mail to request
information regarding missing and/or erroneous data during the data review phase of the project.
Moreover, in an effort to increase response rates, each State and territory will be assigned to a
team leader based on shared characteristics of their election databases, just as they were in 2008
and 2010. This team leader will be responsible for communicating with the State point of
contact, supplying supporting material and answering questions, and tracking responses. Team
leaders will monitor the progress of their assigned States, assisted by the contractor’s database
management team. Email reminders will be sent and telephone calls placed on an as-needed
basis as the data collection progresses. We anticipate all communication will be via email and
telephone. We do not plan to use any interviewer scripts.
The combination of improved questionnaires and data collection/submission templates, as well
as enhanced technical assistance to the States is what led to better response rates in 2008 and
even better response rates in 2010. For example, in 2008, 4,527 local jurisdictions were included
in the survey; in 2010, that number increased to 4,678 jurisdictions. We believe the
aforementioned enhancements (along with States’ increased familiarity with the survey) will lead
to similar, if not better, response rates in 2012.
4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Tests are encouraged as
effective means to refine collections, but if ten or more test respondents are involved OMB
must give prior approval.
Not applicable to this collection.
5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on the statistical
aspects of the design, and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or other
person(s) who will actually collect and/or analyze the information for the agency.

2

The EAC staff members responsible for conducting this information collection are:
1. Karen Lynn-Dyson
Director, Research, Policy and Programs Division
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
1201 New York Avenue, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 566-3100
2. Shelly Anderson, Ph.D.
Deputy Research Director
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
1201 New York Avenue, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 566-3100

3