State and Local Perspectives on Election Administration during the COVID-19 Pandemic (GAO-22-104731)
Summary
A GAO report to congressional committees, GAO-22-104731, dated July 2022, on the 2020 elections. It notes that election officials faced unprecedented challenges in conducting the 2020 elections during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the CARES Act provided $400 million in grants for states. GAO surveyed state election offices and local election jurisdictions about steps they took to prepare for and conduct the elections. The surveys covered five areas: absentee and mail voting, in-person voting, election supplies, election worker recruitment and training, and voter education and outreach. The report presents state and local perspectives on election administration during the pandemic.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Committees
July 2022
2020 ELECTIONS
State and Local
Perspectives on
Election
Administration during
the COVID19
Pandemic
Accessible Version
GAO-22-104731
July 2022
GAO Highlights 2020 ELECTIONS
Highlights of GAO-22-104731, a report to State and Local Perspectives on Election
congressional committees
Administration during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found
Election officials faced unprecedented GAO surveyed state election offices and local election jurisdictions about steps
challenges in conducting the 2020 they took to prepare for and conduct the 2020 elections during the pandemic.
elections during the COVID-19 The surveys asked questions on steps and challenges in five areas:
pandemic. The CARES Act provided absentee/mail voting, in-person voting, election supplies, election worker
$400 million in grants for states to use recruitment and training, and voter education and outreach. GAO received
to prevent, prepare for, and respond to survey responses from 43 states and 407 local jurisdictions.
issues related to the pandemic for the
2020 federal election cycle. The EAC Election Administration Areas about which GAO Surveyed States and Local Jurisdictions
was responsible for administering the
grants. In addition, the EAC serves as
a national clearinghouse and resource
for the compilation of information and
review of procedures with respect to
the administration of federal elections.
The CARES Act includes a provision
for GAO to report on its ongoing
monitoring and oversight efforts related
to the COVID-19 pandemic. This report Within the area of in-person voting, for example, nearly all states reported taking
describes (1) the steps states and local steps to coordinate with public health agencies, and most coordinated with
jurisdictions took to prepare for and emergency management agencies, consulted with vendors and experts, and
conduct elections in 2020 during the helped local election offices add new polling locations. Nearly all local
pandemic and the challenges they jurisdictions reported taking steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19, such as by
reported facing, (2) how states and providing protective equipment to election workers. States and local jurisdictions
local jurisdictions reported using most commonly reported that various issues related to in-person voting—such as
CARES Act grant funding, and the funding and understanding guidance—were not challenging. For voter education
challenges they reported facing, and and outreach, all states reported that they provided information on their elections
(3) what EAC resources and guidance
websites about voting policies and procedures. Nearly all local jurisdictions
states and local jurisdictions used and
reported that they answered questions about voting policies and procedures.
their perspectives on such assistance.
Additionally, nearly all states and most local jurisdictions reported that false or
To address all three objectives, GAO misleading information about absentee/mail voting was challenging.
conducted two web-based surveys of
election officials. One survey was Over half of states reported spending CARES Act grants on supplies and
administered to election offices in all equipment, voter education, facilitating absentee/mail voting, and recruiting and
50 states and the District of Columbia, training election workers. Most states reported that issues related to grant
and achieved a response rate of 84 funding and reporting requirements were challenging, such as submitting
percent. The other survey was required progress reports within 20 days of an election. More than half of local
administered to a sample of 829 local jurisdictions reported spending CARES Act grants on various in-person voting
election jurisdictions. The survey activities, including purchasing protective supplies and cleaning voting locations.
achieved a weighted response rate of
47 percent, and the design and Nearly all states and some local jurisdictions reported that they used U.S.
analysis allows GAO to provide Election Assistance Commission (EAC) information resources and guidance
national estimates of the perspectives during the pandemic. Nearly all states used information about CARES Act grants;
of local election officials. fewer used information on other election administration topics. Most states
reported finding EAC’s information helpful during the 2020 elections. Most local
jurisdictions reported that they did not use EAC information on any of the topics
GAO asked about, such as in-person voting. The most common reasons cited
View GAO-22-104731. For more information,
contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777
were that they were not aware of or did not need the information.
or gamblerr@gao.gov.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
GAO Highlights ii
Why GAO Did This Study ii
What GAO Found ii
Letter 1
Background 3
States and Local Jurisdictions Took Steps and Encountered
Challenges in Preparing for and Conducting the 2020 Elections
during the Pandemic 8
States and Local Jurisdictions Spent CARES Grants on Various
Activities; States Found Grant Requirements Challenging and
Local Jurisdictions Did Not 74
Nearly All States Used EAC Information Resources and
Guidance; Local Jurisdictions Commonly Reported They Were
Not Aware of or Did Not Need the Information 82
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 92
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 96
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State Election Office Survey 106
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey 136
Appendix IV: Additional Sources for Images 170
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 172
Tables
Table 1: Steps That State Election Offices Took Related to
Absentee/Mail Voting for the 2020 Elections in Response
to the COVID-19 Pandemic 9
Table 2: Steps That Local Election Jurisdictions Took Related to
Absentee/Mail Voting for the 2020 Elections in Response
to the COVID-19 Pandemic 15
Table 3: Steps That State Election Offices Took Related to In-
Person Voting for the 2020 Elections in Response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic 22
Table 4: Steps That Local Election Jurisdictions Took Related to
In-Person Voting for the 2020 Elections in Response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic 28
Page i GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Table 5: Election Supplies That State Election Offices Assisted
Local Election Offices With Obtaining for the 2020
Elections in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 36
Table 6: Election Supplies That Local Election Jurisdictions
Obtained for the 2020 Elections in Response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic 40
Table 7: Steps That State Election Offices Took Related to
Election Worker Recruitment and Training for the 2020
Elections in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 47
Table 8: Steps That Local Election Jurisdictions Took Related to
Election Worker Recruitment and Training for the 2020
Elections in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 53
Table 9: Steps That State Election Offices Took Related to Voter
Education and Outreach for the 2020 Elections in
Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 62
Table 10: Steps That Local Election Jurisdictions Took Related to
Voter Education and Outreach for the 2020 Elections in
Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 68
Table 11: Activities on Which State Election Offices Reported
Spending CARES Act Grant Funds 74
Table 12: Activities on Which Local Election Jurisdictions
Reported Spending CARES Act Grant Funds 78
Table 13: Reasons State Election Offices Reported for Not Using
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information
Resources or Guidance 86
Table 14: Reasons Local Election Jurisdictions Reported for Not
Using U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Information Resources or Guidance 92
Table 15: Stratification of Local Election Jurisdictions for Sample 99
Table 16: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 1 106
Table 17: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 2 107
Table 18: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 2 Part II 107
Table 19: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 3 108
Table 20: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 4 109
Table 21: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 5 111
Page ii GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Table 22: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 6 112
Table 23: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 7 114
Table 24: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 8 115
Table 25: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 9 116
Table 26: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 10 117
Table 27: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 11 118
Table 28: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 12 119
Table 29: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 13 120
Table 30: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 14 122
Table 31: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 15 123
Table 32: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 16 125
Table 33: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 17 127
Table 34: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 19 128
Table 35: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 20 130
Table 36: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 21 131
Table 37: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 22 131
Table 38: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 23 132
Table 39: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 24 133
Table 40: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 25 133
Table 41: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 26 134
Table 42: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 27 134
Page iii GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Table 43: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey
Question 27 Part II 134
Table 44: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 1 136
Table 45: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 2 137
Table 46: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 3 137
Table 47: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 4 139
Table 48: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 5 141
Table 49: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 6 142
Table 50: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 7 144
Table 51: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 8 146
Table 52: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 9 147
Table 53: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 10 149
Table 54: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 11 150
Table 55: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 12 151
Table 56: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 13 152
Table 57: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 14 153
Table 58: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 15 154
Table 59: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 16 156
Table 60: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 17 157
Table 61: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 18 158
Table 62: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 19 159
Table 63: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 20 161
Page iv GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Table 64: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 22 162
Table 65: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 23 164
Table 66: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 24 165
Table 67: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 25 166
Table 68: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 26 166
Table 69: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 27 167
Table 70: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 28 168
Table 71: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 29 168
Table 72: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey Question 29 Part II 169
Figures
Figure 1: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues
Related to Absentee/Mail Voting in the 2020 General
Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic 10
Accessible Data for Figure 1: How Challenging State Election
Offices Found Issues Related to Absentee/Mail Voting in
the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19
Pandemic (Number of state election offices) 11
Figure 2: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to
Absentee/Mail Voting Issues in the 2020 General Election
and 2020 Primary Elections 13
Accessible Data for Figure 2: Comparison of State Election Office
Responses to Absentee/Mail Voting Issues in the 2020
General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Number of
state election offices) 14
Figure 3: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found
Issues Related to Absentee/Mail Voting in the 2020
General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic 17
Accessible Data for Figure 3: How Challenging Local Election
Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Absentee/Mail
Voting in the 2020 General Election as a Result of the
COVID-19 Pandemic (Estimated percentage of local
election jurisdictions) 18
Page v GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Figure 4: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses to
Absentee/Mail Voting Issues in the 2020 General Election
and 2020 Primary Elections 20
Accessible Data for Figure 4: Comparison of Local Election
Jurisdiction Responses to Absentee/Mail Voting Issues in
the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections
(Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions) 21
Figure 5: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues
Related to In-Person Voting in the 2020 General Election
as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic 24
Accessible Data for Figure 5: How Challenging State Election
Offices Found Issues Related to In-Person Voting in the
2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19
Pandemic (Number of state election offices) 25
Figure 6: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to In-
Person Voting Issues in the 2020 General Election and
2020 Primary Elections 26
Accessible Data for Figure 6: Comparison of State Election Office
Responses to In-Person Voting Issues in the 2020
General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Number of
state election offices) 27
Figure 7: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found
Issues Related to In-Person Voting in the 2020 General
Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic 30
Accessible Data for Figure 7: How Challenging Local Election
Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to In-Person Voting in
the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19
Pandemic (Estimated percentage of local election
jurisdictions) 31
Figure 8: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses to
In-Person Voting Issues in the 2020 General Election and
2020 Primary Elections 33
Accessible Data for Figure 8: Comparison of Local Election
Jurisdiction Responses to In-Person Voting Issues in the
2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections
(Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions) 34
Figure 9: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues
Related to Assisting Local Election Offices With
Obtaining Election Supplies for the 2020 General Election
as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic 37
Accessible Data for Figure 9: How Challenging State Election
Offices Found Issues Related to Assisting Local Election
Page vi GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Offices With Obtaining Election Supplies for the 2020
General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
(Number of state election offices) 38
Figure 10: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to
Issues Related to Assisting Local Election Offices With
Obtaining Election Supplies during the 2020 General
Election and 2020 Primary Elections 39
Accessible Data for Figure 10: Comparison of State Election
Office Responses to Issues Related to Assisting Local
Election Offices With Obtaining Election Supplies during
the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections
(Number of state election offices) 40
Figure 11: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found
Issues Related to Obtaining Election Supplies in the 2020
General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic 42
Accessible Data for Figure 11: How Challenging Local Election
Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Obtaining Election
Supplies in the 2020 General Election as a Result of the
COVID-19 Pandemic (Estimated percentage of local
election jurisdictions) 43
Figure 12: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses
Related to Obtaining Election Supplies in the 2020
General Election and 2020 Primary Elections 45
Accessible Data for Figure 12: Comparison of Local Election
Jurisdiction Responses Related to Obtaining Election
Supplies in the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary
Elections (Estimated percentage of local election
jurisdictions) 46
Figure 13: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues
Related to Election Worker Recruitment and Training for
the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19
Pandemic 49
Accessible Data for Figure 13: How Challenging State Election
Offices Found Issues Related to Election Worker
Recruitment and Training for the 2020 General Election
as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Number of state
election offices) 50
Figure 14: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to
Election Worker Recruitment and Training Issues in the
2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections 51
Accessible Data for Figure 14: Comparison of State Election
Office Responses to Election Worker Recruitment and
Page vii GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Training Issues in the 2020 General Election and 2020
Primary Elections (Number of state election offices) 52
Figure 15: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found
Issues Related to Election Worker Recruitment and
Training in the 2020 General Election as a Result of the
COVID-19 Pandemic 55
Accessible Data for Figure 15: How Challenging Local Election
Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Election Worker
Recruitment and Training in the 2020 General Election as
a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Estimated
percentage of local election jurisdictions) 56
Figure 16: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses
to Election Worker Recruitment and Training Issues in
the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections 59
Accessible Data for Figure 16: Comparison of Local Election
Jurisdiction Responses to Election Worker Recruitment
and Training Issues in the 2020 General Election and
2020 Primary Elections (Estimated percentage of local
election jurisdictions) 60
Figure 17: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues
Related to Voter Education and Outreach in the 2020
General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic 64
Accessible Data for Figure 17: How Challenging State Election
Offices Found Issues Related to Voter Education and
Outreach in the 2020 General Election as a Result of the
COVID-19 Pandemic (Number of state election offices) 65
Figure 18: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to
Voter Education and Outreach Issues in the 2020
General Election and 2020 Primary Elections 66
Accessible Data for Figure 18: Comparison of State Election
Office Responses to Voter Education and Outreach
Issues in the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary
Elections (Number of state election offices) 67
Figure 19: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found
Issues Related to Voter Education and Outreach in the
2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19
Pandemic 69
Accessible Data for Figure 19: How Challenging Local Election
Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Voter Education
and Outreach in the 2020 General Election as a Result of
the COVID-19 Pandemic (Estimated percentage of local
election jurisdictions) 70
Page viii GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Figure 20: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses
to Voter Education and Outreach Issues in the 2020
General Election and 2020 Primary Elections 72
Accessible Data for Figure 20: Comparison of Local Election
Jurisdiction Responses to Voter Education and Outreach
Issues in the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary
Elections (Estimated percentage of local election
jurisdictions) 73
Figure 21: State Election Offices’ Perspectives on CARES Act
Funding and Reporting Requirements 76
Accessible Data for Figure 21: State Election Offices’
Perspectives on CARES Act Funding and Reporting
Requirements (Number of state election offices) 77
Figure 22: Local Election Jurisdictions’ Perspectives on CARES
Act Funding and Reporting Requirements 80
Accessible Data for Figure 22: Local Election Jurisdictions’
Perspectives on CARES Act Funding and Reporting
Requirements (Estimated percentage of local election
jurisdictions) 81
Figure 23: State Election Offices’ Use of U.S. Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) Information Resources and Guidance
by Topic and Number of Resources Used 83
Accessible Data for Figure 23: State Election Offices’ Use of U.S.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information
Resources and Guidance by Topic and Number of
Resources Used 83
Figure 24: Helpfulness of U.S. Election Assistance Commission
(EAC) Information Resources and Guidance During the
2020 Primary and General Elections, According to State
Election Offices 85
Accessible Data for Figure 24: Helpfulness of U.S. Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) Information Resources
and Guidance During the 2020 Primary and General
Elections, According to State Election Offices (Number of
state election offices) 86
Figure 25: Local Election Jurisdictions’ Use of U.S. Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) Information Resources
and Guidance and Use by Topic 88
Accessible Data for Figure 25: Local Election Jurisdictions’ Use of
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information
Resources and Guidance and Use by Topic 88
Page ix GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Figure 26: Helpfulness of U.S. Election Assistance Commission
(EAC) Information Resources and Guidance During the
2020 Primary and General Elections, According to Local
Election Jurisdictions 90
Accessible Data for Figure 26: Helpfulness of U.S. Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) Information Resources
and Guidance During the 2020 Primary and General
Elections, According to Local Election Jurisdictions
(Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions) 91
Abbreviations
EAC U.S. Election Assistance Commission
HAVA Help America Vote Act of 2002
MCD Minor Civil Division
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page x GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
Letter
July 11, 2022
Congressional Committees
Amid increasing COVID-19 case levels across the country, election
officials faced unprecedented challenges in planning for and conducting
elections in 2020 during the pandemic. The CARES Act provided $400
million in grant funds for states to use to prevent, prepare for, and
respond to issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic for the 2020 federal
election cycle.1 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was
responsible for distributing CARES Act grant funds to states and
overseeing their use in accordance with requirements under the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).2
The CARES Act also included a provision for us to monitor and oversee
the use of funds made available to prepare for, respond to, and recover
from the COVID-19 pandemic.3 This report is a part of our body of work
related to the CARES Act and focuses on election officials’ perspectives
on administering the 2020 elections.4 This report addresses the following
three questions.
1. What steps did states and local jurisdictions take to prepare for and
conduct elections in 2020 during the pandemic, and what challenges
did officials report?
2. How did states and local jurisdictions report using CARES Act grant
funding, and what challenges did officials report?
1See Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 530 (2020).
2The CARES Act provided these funds as HAVA grant funds, supplementing the $380
million and $425 million in HAVA grant funds in the Consolidated Appropriation Acts of
2018 and 2020 to help states improve the administration of federal elections, including
enhancing election technology and improving election security. See Pub. L. No. 116-93,
133 Stat. 2317, 2461 (2019); Pub. L. No. 115-141, 132 Stat. 348, 561-62 (2018).
3See Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 19010, 134 Stat. at 579-81.
4We have issued government-wide reports on the federal response to COVID-19. For the
latest report, see GAO, COVID-19: Current and Future Federal Preparedness Requires
Fixes to Improve Health Data and Address Improper Payments, GAO-22-105397
(Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2022).
Page 1 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
3. What EAC resources and guidance did states and local jurisdictions
use during the pandemic, and what were their perspectives on such
assistance?
To address all three objectives, we conducted two web-based surveys of
election officials: one administered to state election offices and one
administered to local election jurisdictions. For the state election office
survey, we sent our questionnaire to state election offices in all 50 states
and the District of Columbia. Forty-three states responded to our survey
for a response rate of 84 percent.5 For the local election jurisdiction
survey, we used a stratified random sample of 829 local election
jurisdictions nationwide; 407 local jurisdictions responded to our survey
for a weighted response rate of 47 percent.6 We surveyed state and local
election officials about steps they took regarding absentee/mail voting
and in-person voting, obtaining election supplies, recruiting election
workers, training election officials and election workers, and conducting
voter education and outreach efforts. We also asked respondents
whether issues related to each of these various election activities were
challenging to them.7
When presenting survey results regarding how challenging respondents
found these issues, we combined “extremely challenging” and “very
challenging” responses, and “moderately challenging” and “somewhat
challenging” responses. Additionally, when we report that states or local
jurisdictions found selected issues “challenging,” we are referring to the
5In this report, we use the term “states” in reference to the 50 states and the District of
Columbia.
6We conducted our surveys from May 2021 through August 2021. For the local election
jurisdiction survey, we used a weighted response rate because our survey sample
incorporates strata with different probabilities of selection. A weighted response rate more
accurately reflects the statistical effect of differing probabilities of selection. To calculate
our weighted response rate, we used a standard definition, known as RR2, from the
American Association for Public Opinion Research. See American Association for Public
Opinion Research, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome
Rates for Surveys, 9th edition (2016). All survey results presented in the body of this
report are generalizable to the population of local election jurisdictions, except where
otherwise noted. For more information on our sampling methodology for the local election
jurisdiction survey, please see appendix I. Appendix II contains all survey questions and
results of responses to the closed-ended questions from our state election office survey,
and appendix III contains all survey questions and results of responses to the closed-
ended questions from our local election jurisdiction survey.
7We asked survey respondents to answer a set of closed-ended questions in each topic
area. In this report, we present responses to all questions in each topic area, and use the
exact question wording that appeared in the surveys.
Page 2 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
aggregated total of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or
somewhat challenging” responses.
For both surveys, for all the questions on reported challenges, we
compared responses to survey questions about challenges in the 2020
general election to similar questions about the 2020 primary elections.
When reporting results for the state election office survey, we highlight
those issues for which the difference is 5 or greater in the number of
states that found the 2020 general election more challenging than the
2020 primary elections and the number that found the general election
less challenging than the primary elections. When reporting similar results
for the local election jurisdiction survey, we highlight those issues for
which the difference in the estimated percentage of respondents that
found the 2020 general election more challenging than the 2020 primary
elections and the estimated percentage that found the general election
less challenging than the primary elections was statistically significant.
In our surveys, we also asked respondents for their perspectives on
aspects of the 2020 elections that went particularly well, their use of grant
funding provided by the CARES Act, and information and assistance from
the EAC, among other topics.
For more information about our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2020 to July 2022 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
Overview of Election Administration
The administration of federal and state elections involves various roles,
responsibilities, and processes divided between different levels of
government. In the United States, federal, state, and local officials share
authority to regulate elections. At the federal level, Congress may pass
legislation in major areas of the voting process. For example, HAVA
established the EAC, a federal agency that serves as a national
Page 3 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information and review
of procedures with respect to the administration of federal elections.8
Under HAVA, the EAC also administers grant funding for states to
improve election administration.9
Responsibility for administering and overseeing federal and state
elections resides at the state and local levels. State and local election
offices are organized in different ways; in some cases, offices with
primary responsibility for elections may have responsibility for other areas
of government as well. States regulate various election activities, such as
absentee and early voting requirements and Election Day procedures, but
they generally delegate election administration responsibilities to local
jurisdictions.10
Within each state, responsibility for managing, planning, and conducting
elections is largely a local process, residing with about 10,300 local
jurisdictions nationwide. Among other things, local election officials
register eligible voters; design ballots; educate voters on how to use
voting technology; provide information on the candidates and ballot
measures; arrange for polling places; recruit, train, organize, and mobilize
election workers; prepare and test voting equipment for use; and count
8See generally Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (codified as amended at 52 U.S.C. §§
20901-21145).
9See 52 U.S.C. § 20901. The EAC administers grant funding to all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories—American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
10In June 2021, we reported on the steps taken by selected states and local jurisdictions to
make voting prior to Election Day accessible to voters with disabilities and to make voting
information available and accessible, and the challenges in doing so. We also reported on
efforts undertaken by the U.S. Department of Justice and the EAC to assist states and
localities with voting accessibility. With regard to the EAC, we found that the agency does
not have a mechanism for collecting and using feedback from state and local election
officials about the usefulness of its existing accessibility resources or additional resource
needs. We recommended that the EAC develop and implement a mechanism or
mechanisms for collecting and incorporating feedback from election officials on its
accessibility resources. EAC identified ongoing and planned steps to improve the
feedback process, such as establishing an advisory committee of local election officials
whose members will be relevant and comprehensive sources of expert, unbiased analysis
and recommendations to the EAC on local election administration topics, including serving
voters with disabilities. GAO, Voters with Disabilities: State and Local Actions and Federal
Resources to Address Accessibility of Early Voting, GAO-21-352 (Washington, D.C.: Jun.
21, 2021).
Page 4 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
ballots.11 The characteristics of local jurisdictions also vary, including by
population size and population density, among other factors.
The Voting Process
Voting before Election Day
All states have established alternatives for eligible voters to cast a ballot
other than at the polls on Election Day, including absentee/mail voting
and early in-person voting. Absentee/mail voting is a method of voting
that enables registered voters to cast a ballot by mail, by using a ballot
drop box, or by returning a completed absentee/mail ballot to a local
election office before or on Election Day. Absentee/mail voting is
sometimes also called “mail-in voting” or “vote-by-mail.” All states have
provisions allowing voters to cast their ballots in this manner, with
variations on who may vote absentee/mail, whether the voter needs to
provide an excuse for requesting an absentee/mail ballot, and the time
frames for applying for and submitting absentee/mail ballots. Further,
eight states conduct their elections entirely by mail, wherein ballots are
automatically sent to every registered voter.12
In addition to absentee/mail voting, states vary in the extent to which they
allow early in-person voting. In general, early voting allows registered
voters from any precinct in the election jurisdiction to cast their vote in
person before Election Day without providing an excuse, either at one
specific location or at one of several locations.
In-Person Voting on Election Day
For in-person voting on Election Day, election authorities subdivide local
jurisdictions into precincts. Voters generally cast their ballots at the polling
places for the precincts to which election authorities assign them. In
11Jurisdictions call their election workers by different titles, including poll workers, election
judges, inspectors, clerks, wardens, captains, and precinct officers.
12These states are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and
Washington. States that mail ballots to all registered voters may also provide options for
in-person voting, both prior to and on Election Day. Among the states that do not routinely
conduct their federal elections by mail, several conduct statewide elections by mail in
certain circumstances, such as for special elections, or allow counties to decide whether
to conduct elections by mail. Additionally, states that do not routinely conduct their
elections by mail allow at least some registered voters to cast absentee ballots by mail,
but qualification requirements for absentee voting vary.
Page 5 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
addition, various states provide election jurisdictions the discretion to
allow voters to cast their ballots at vote centers, which are polling places
at which any registered voter in the local jurisdiction, regardless of the
precinct in which the voter resides, may vote on Election Day.
Within the polling place, poll workers check in voters and determine their
eligibility to vote by verifying their registration using voter lists or poll
books—a list of individuals registered to vote within the voting precinct or
local jurisdiction. After checking in the voters, poll workers direct them to
a voting booth to mark their electronic or paper ballots. The voters then
submit the ballots for counting.13 The manner in which votes are cast and
counted can vary depending on the voting method and technology
employed by the jurisdiction.
Postelection Activities
After the polls close on Election Day, election officials and poll workers
secure equipment and ballots, transfer paper ballots or electronic records
of vote counts to a central location for counting, and determine the
outcome of the election. Votes counted include those cast on Election
Day, absentee/mail ballots, early votes (where applicable), and valid
provisional ballots.14 Although preliminary results may be available on
election night, typically it takes several days or weeks to finalize election
results and certify a winner.15 Additionally, after an election, many states
conduct postelection audits of voting systems as well as recounts that
may occur in close races.
CARES Act and EAC Pandemic Assistance
The CARES Act provided $400 million in grant funds to states.16 These
funds were to be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to issues
related to the COVID-19 pandemic for the 2020 federal election cycle. As
previously stated, the EAC was responsible for distributing the CARES
13Electronic ballots are submitted in the voting booth and stored on a memory device
using a form of electronic voting equipment.
14Provisional ballots are those cast at the polls by voters whose eligibility to vote is unclear
and to be determined later.
15According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in many states, election
officials may not begin counting mail and absentee ballots until Election Day by state law,
even if those ballots are received prior to Election Day.
16See Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. at 530.
Page 6 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Act grant funds to states and overseeing their use in accordance with
requirements under HAVA. The CARES Act also included requirements
for states on how to spend and report on grant funding. For example,
states were required to submit a report to the EAC within 20 days of each
election in the 2020 election cycle, including each state’s primary
elections with a full accounting of the state’s uses of the funding and an
explanation of how such uses allowed the state to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to coronavirus. Examples of other CARES Act grant funding
requirements for states included submitting an annual progress report to
the EAC and meeting a 20 percent match of federal grant funds. States
could provide CARES Act grant funds as subgrants to local jurisdictions
to use during the 2020 elections, and/or use CARES Act grant funds to
reimburse local election jurisdictions for certain eligible expenses incurred
during the 2020 elections.17
As we reported in November 2021, the EAC provided various information
resources and guidance to state and local election officials to assist with
planning and conducting elections in 2020 during the COVID-19
pandemic.18 For example, the EAC provided information on its website in
the form of documents, recorded videos, and webpages. This information
covered topics such as in-person voting, absentee/mail voting, poll worker
recruitment and training, and contingency planning.19 EAC officials were
also available to respond individually to questions they received from
state and local election officials.
17A subgrant is a grant made under an agency grant by the original award recipient to a
subrecipient. A reimbursement is a payment received after an agreed upon expense has
already been incurred.
18GAO, Election Assistance Commission: Assessment of Lessons Learned Could Improve
Grants Administration, GAO-22-104313 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 8, 2021).
19The EAC developed some of the information on its website in response to the pandemic
and also collaborated with other entities to create and share pertinent information on its
website. Specifically, the EAC served as the chair of the Joint COVID Working Group,
which included members from the election infrastructure subsector’s Government
Coordinating Council–consisting of federal, state, and local government partners, such as
the EAC and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency–and its Sector Coordinating Council–consisting of private sector
companies, such as voting equipment vendors. The working group developed, for
example, information on in-person voting, absentee/mail voting, and poll worker
recruitment and training.
Page 7 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
States and Local Jurisdictions Took Steps and
Encountered Challenges in Preparing for and
Conducting the 2020 Elections during the
Pandemic
Absentee/Mail Voting
Steps and Challenges Identified by States
Nearly all states that responded to our survey20 reported that they
coordinated with the United States Postal Service and developed and
distributed guidance on absentee/mail voting to local election offices in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.21 Most states set up systems for
voters to track the status of their ballots and consulted vendors and
experts regarding absentee/mail voting. Some states distributed guidance
on absentee/mail voting developed by outside organizations to local
jurisdictions. See Table 1.
20For the state election office survey, we sent our questionnaire to state election offices in
all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Forty-three states responded to our survey for a
response rate of 84 percent. For the purpose of reporting results of the state election
office survey, “nearly all” refers to responses given by 35 to 43 states, “most” to responses
given by 26 to 34 states, “many” to responses given by 18 to 25 states, “some” to
responses given by 9 to 17 states, and “few” to responses given by 1 to 8 states.
21In our surveys, we defined absentee/mail voting as “a method of voting that enables
registered voters to cast a ballot by mail, by using a ballot drop box, or by returning a
completed absentee/mail ballot to a local election office before or on Election Day.
Absentee/mail voting is sometimes called “mail-in voting” or “vote-by-mail.” In some
states, voters are required to provide an excuse to cast an absentee/mail ballot, and, in
some others, all registered or active registered voters automatically receive an absentee
mail/ballot.” We also apply this definition throughout this report.
Page 8 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Table 1: Steps That State Election Offices Took Related to Absentee/Mail Voting for the 2020 Elections in Response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic
Steps taken Number of state
election offices
Coordinated with the United States Postal Service 39
Developed and distributed guidance on absentee/mail voting to local election offices 39
Set up a system to allow voters to track the status of their absentee/mail ballots 33
Consulted with vendors regarding absentee/mail voting 33
Consulted with experts—such as academics, nonprofits, election administration associations, or other 28
states—regarding absentee/mail voting
Worked with the Governor’s office or other executives to make changes to absentee/mail voting 25
requirements
Worked with state legislators to make changes to absentee/mail voting requirements 20
Distributed guidance on absentee/mail voting developed by other organizations or agencies to local 16
elections offices
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The table is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about steps taken related to absentee/mail voting.
Examples of Absentee/Mail Voting Successes Cited by State Election Offices
One state election official reported that the mailing of ballots to all active registered
voters for the 2020 general election was very successful. The state saw a record
turnout.
Another state election official reported that the state was able to conduct its first ever
all-absentee/mail primary election during the pandemic. This election had very high
turnout. Absentee/mail voting was also common during the general election.
Source: 2021 state election office survey responses. | GAO-22-104731
Nearly all states reported that concerns about the United States Postal
Service’s ability to deliver absentee/mail ballot applications or ballots in a
timely manner were challenging during the 2020 general election.22 Most
states reported that an increased volume of absentee/mail voting and
voters’ limited experience with absentee/mail voting during the general
22In our surveys, we defined the 2020 general election as “encompassing in-person voting,
early in-person voting, and absentee/mail voting (in those states that offer early in-person
and/or absentee/mail voting) in the period leading up to and on Election Day on November
3, 2020. The 2020 general election process included tabulating votes cast before and on
Election Day in accordance with the applicable state laws.” We also apply this definition
throughout this report. Additionally, for the purposes of this report, we aggregated survey
responses of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” to
note when states found issues “challenging.”
Page 9 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
election were also challenging. By contrast, few states reported that
understanding guidance on voting from federal agencies other than the
EAC was challenging in the general election. See figure 1.
Figure 1: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues Related to Absentee/Mail Voting in the 2020 General Election
as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Page 10 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 1: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues Related to Absentee/Mail Voting in the
2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Number of state election offices)
Issues Extremely or very Moderately or Not at all challenging
challenging somewhat challenging
Concerns about the United States Postal Service’s 21 15 4
ability to deliver absentee/mail ballot applications and/or
absentee/mail ballots in a timely manner
Increased volume of absentee/mail voting 18 14 6
Limited voter experience with absentee/mail voting 9 20 10
Limited state or local election official experience with 4 21 12
absentee/mail voting
Responding to litigation related to absentee/mail voting 10 12 5
Changes made to state absentee/mail voting process 11 10 6
as a result of legislation or court orders
State requirements regarding when localities may begin 5 10 19
counting absentee/mail ballots
Insufficient funding for absentee/mail voting 5 10 17
Lack of clear guidance from the Election Assistance 3 6 18
Commission on absentee/mail voting
Lack of clear guidance from other federal agencies on 2 6 22
absentee/mail voting
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to absentee/mail voting. The figure does not include
the number of state election offices that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not respond to
these survey questions.
We compared state responses to survey questions about the 2020
general election to those about the 2020 primary elections.23 For each
issue, for the largest number of states, there was no difference in their
responses to questions about how challenging, if at all, absentee/mail
voting issues were during the general election and during the primary
23In our surveys, we defined the 2020 primary election as “any election held prior to the
general election for the purpose of selecting candidates to run for federal office during the
general election. For the purposes of this survey, we are only asking about primaries that
occurred on or after March 13, 2020—the day the President issued a national emergency
declaration regarding the pandemic. The 2020 primary election process included
tabulating all votes cast before and on the date of the 2020 primary elections in
accordance with the applicable state laws.” We also apply this definition throughout this
report.
Page 11 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
elections. However, five states reported that concerns about the United
States Postal Service’s ability to deliver absentee/mail ballot applications
and/or absentee/mail ballots in a timely manner were more challenging
during the 2020 general election than during the 2020 primary elections.
No states reported that this issue was less challenging during the general
election than during the primary elections. See figure 2.
Page 12 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 2: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to Absentee/Mail Voting Issues in the 2020 General Election and
2020 Primary Elections
Page 13 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 2: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to Absentee/Mail Voting Issues in the 2020
General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Number of state election offices)
Issues General General less challenging No difference in response
more than primary between general and
challenging primary
than
primary
Concerns about the United States Postal Service’s ability 5 0 30
to deliver absentee/mail ballot applications and/or
absentee/mail ballots in a timely manner
Limited voter experience with absentee/mail voting 4 4 26
Limited state or local election official experience with 4 1 25
absentee/mail voting
State requirements regarding when localities may begin 3 1 25
counting absentee/mail ballots
Insufficient funding for absentee/mail voting 2 2 24
Increased volume of absentee/mail voting 5 5 22
Lack of clear guidance from other federal agencies on 2 2 22
absentee/mail voting
Lack of clear guidance from the Election Assistance 1 1 22
Commission on absentee/mail voting
Responding to litigation related to absentee/mail voting 4 2 16
Changes made to state absentee/mail voting process as a 2 3 16
result of legislation or court orders
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to absentee/mail voting. The figure does not include
responses from states that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not respond to these
survey questions.
Page 14 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Steps and Challenges Identified by Local Jurisdictions
We estimate24 that most local jurisdictions reconfigured space or arranged
for additional space to facilitate social distancing while processing
absentee/mail ballots in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.25 Further,
many local jurisdictions used United States Postal Service election mail
guidance or resources, assigned staff to review voter registration rolls,
and installed ballot drop boxes. By comparison, a small percentage of
local jurisdictions worked with experts to revise their absentee/mail ballot
or envelope designs. See table 2.26
Table 2: Steps That Local Election Jurisdictions Took Related to Absentee/Mail Voting for the 2020 Elections in Response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic
Steps taken Estimated percentage of local election
jurisdictions that took this step
Reconfigured space or arranged for additional space to facilitate social distancing while 72
processing absentee/mail ballots (66, 77)
Used United States Postal Service election mail guidance or resources 57
(51, 63)
Installed ballot drop boxes 50
(44, 56)
Assigned staff to review voter registration rolls prior to sending absentee/mail ballots 46
(40, 52)
24For the local election jurisdiction survey, we used a stratified random sample of 829 local
election jurisdictions nationwide; 407 local jurisdictions responded to our survey for a
weighted response rate of 47 percent. Because we followed a probability procedure based
on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might
have drawn. As each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our
confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence
interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of
the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of
the confidence intervals based on our web-based survey includes the true values in the
sample population. The local jurisdiction estimates we report are national-level estimates
representing the experiences, views, and opinions of all local election jurisdictions
nationwide.
25For the purpose of reporting results of the local election jurisdiction survey, “nearly all”
refers to responses given by an estimated 81 to 100 percent of local jurisdictions, “most”
to responses given by 61 to 80 percent of local jurisdictions, “many” to responses given 41
to 60 percent of local jurisdictions, “some” to responses given by 21 to 40 percent of local
jurisdictions, and “a small percentage” to responses given by 1 to 20 percent of local
jurisdictions.
26Appendix III contains all survey questions and results of responses to the closed-ended
questions from our local election jurisdiction survey.
Page 15 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Steps taken Estimated percentage of local election
jurisdictions that took this step
Purchased prepaid postage for voters to return completed absentee/mail ballots 39
(33, 45)
Assigned staff to review voter registration rolls prior to sending absentee/mail ballot request 37
forms (32, 43)
Consulted with experts about absentee/mail voting processes, procedures, strategies, and 34
policies (28, 39)
Set up a system to allow voters to track the status of their absentee/mail ballots 33
(27, 38)
Purchased equipment to process or tabulate absentee/mail ballots, such as automatic 26
letter openers (21, 32)
Installed cameras or other security mechanisms to protect ballot drop boxes 23
(19, 28)
Consulted with vendors regarding absentee/mail voting 21
(17, 26)
Worked with experts—such as academics, nonprofits, election administration associations, 17
or other election jurisdictions—to revise absentee/mail ballot or envelope designs (13, 22)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Parentheses contain both the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence interval.
The table is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about steps taken related to absentee/mail voting.
Examples of Absentee/Mail Voting Successes Cited by Local Election
Jurisdictions
One local election official reported that during the 2020 elections, the return rate on
absentee/mail ballots was the highest it had ever been. They attributed this success to
the provision of prepaid postage for voters to return ballots and the installation of
additional drop boxes.
Another local election official noted that increased rates of absentee/mail voting
substantially reduced the number of voters that cast their ballots in person, which
allowed the jurisdiction to more quickly and easily tally votes on Election Day.
Source: 2021 local election jurisdiction survey responses. | GAO-22-104731
Most local jurisdictions found that an increased volume of absentee/mail
voting was challenging during the general election, and many found that
changes made to state absentee/mail voting processes were challenging.
By contrast, a small percentage of local jurisdictions reported that a lack
of access to vendors was challenging in the general election. See figure
3.
Page 16 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 3: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Absentee/Mail Voting in the 2020 General
Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Page 17 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 3: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Absentee/Mail Voting in
the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions)
Issues Extremely 95% 95% Moderately 95% 95% Not at all 95% 95%
or very confidence confidence or confidence confidence challenging confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— somewhat interval— interval— interval— interval—
lower upper challenging lower upper lower upper
bound bound bound bound bound bound
Increased volume of 49 43 55 30 25 36 11 8 16
absentee/mail voting
Changes made to state 26 21 31 33 27 39 21 16 25
absentee/mail voting
process as a result of
legislation or court
orders
Lack of experienced 18 14 23 35 29 40 34 28 40
election workers
Lack of a sufficient 18 14 23 33 27 39 36 30 42
number of election
workers
Printing more 25 19 30 24 19 29 25 20 30
absentee/mail ballots
than usual
Insufficient funding for 14 10 19 30 25 36 35 29 40
absentee/mail voting
Lack of clear guidance 13 9 18 27 22 32 42 36 48
from state election
officials on
absentee/mail voting
Insufficient storage 15 11 20 20 16 25 48 42 54
space for
absentee/mail ballots
Insufficient space for 14 10 18 21 16 25 50 44 56
absentee/mail ballot
processing
Lack of access to 3 2 5 13 9 17 47 41 53
reliable vendors or
suppliers
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about challenges related to absentee/mail voting. The figure does not include the percentage
of local election jurisdictions that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not respond.
Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
Page 18 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
We compared local jurisdiction responses to survey questions about the
2020 general election to those about the 2020 primary elections. For each
issue, for the largest percentage of local jurisdictions, there was no
difference in their responses to questions about how challenging, if at all,
absentee/mail voting issues were during the general election and during
the primary elections. See figure 4.
Page 19 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 4: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses to Absentee/Mail Voting Issues in the 2020 General Election
and 2020 Primary Elections
Page 20 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 4: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses to Absentee/Mail Voting Issues in the
2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions)
Issues General more 95% 95% General less 95% 95% No difference 95% 95%
challenging than confidence confidence challenging than confidence confidence in response confidence confidence
primary interval— interval— primary interval— interval— between interval— interval—
lower upper lower upper general and lower upper
bound bound bound bound primary bound bound
Lack of access to reliable 5 3 10 8 4 13 87 81 92
vendors or suppliers
Insufficient storage space for 11 7 16 7 4 11 83 76 88
absentee/mail ballots
Lack of experienced election 11 7 16 10 6 14 79 74 85
workers
Insufficient space for 14 9 20 8 5 13 78 71 84
absentee/mail ballot
processing
Lack of a sufficient number 9 5 13 16 11 22 75 69 81
of election workers
Lack of clear guidance from 10 6 15 16 11 22 74 68 81
state election officials on
absentee/mail voting
Insufficient funding for 14 9 21 12 7 18 74 67 81
absentee/mail voting
Changes made to state 14 9 20 22 16 29 65 57 72
absentee/mail voting
process as a result of
legislation or court orders
Printing more absentee/mail 18 12 26 21 15 28 60 53 68
ballots than usual
Increased volume of 16 11 22 24 18 29 60 53 67
absentee/mail voting
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
The differences between (1) the estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions reporting that the 2020
general election was more challenging than the 2020 primary elections and (2) the estimated percentage of
local election jurisdictions reporting that the 2020 general election was less challenging than the 2020
primary elections were not statistically significant for any of the issues in the figure.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction survey
about challenges related to absentee/mail voting. The figure does not include responses from local election
jurisdictions that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not respond to these survey questions.
Page 21 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
InPerson Voting
Steps and Challenges Identified by States
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly all states coordinated with
public health agencies about in-person voting, and most states
coordinated with emergency management agencies, consulted with
vendors and experts about in-person voting, and helped local election
offices to add new polling locations.27 See table 3.
Table 3: Steps That State Election Offices Took Related to In-Person Voting for the 2020 Elections in Response to the COVID-
19 Pandemic
Steps taken Number of states
Coordinated with state, regional, or local public health agencies about in-person voting 35
Coordinated with state, regional, or local emergency management agencies about in-person voting 34
Consulted with vendors regarding in-person voting 26
Consulted with experts—such as academics, nonprofits, election administration associations, or other 26
states—regarding in-person voting
Assisted local election offices in adding new polling locations or voting centers, such as at sports 26
arenas or other large venues
Worked with the Governor’s office or other executives to make changes to in-person voting 24
requirements during the pandemic
Worked with state legislators to make changes to in-person voting requirements during the pandemic 16
Used National Guard personnel to assist with in-person voting 8
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The table is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about steps taken related to in-person voting.
27In our surveys, we defined in-person voting as “a method of voting that includes any type
of voting in which a registered voter casts a ballot while physically present at a voting
location. In-person voting also includes instances where voters cast their ballots in person
before Election Day. Your state may refer to voting that occurs in person before Election
Day as early voting, in-person absentee voting, advanced voting, or another similar term.”
We also apply this definition throughout this report.
Page 22 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Examples of In-Person Voting Successes Cited by State Election Offices
One state election official stated that in-person voting went well in their state because
all polling locations were kept open and people were able to social distance.
Another state election official stated that everyone worked hard to ensure the safety of
voters, poll workers, and staff. This official noted that there were no reported cases of
COVID-19 attributed to either the 2020 primary or 2020 general elections in their state.
Source: 2021 state election office survey responses. | GAO-22-104731
The most common response from states to almost all of our survey
questions about in-person voting issues during the 2020 general election
was that these issues were not challenging. However, for each in-person
voting issue asked about in our survey—for example, understanding
guidance from state health authorities—some states identified the issue
as challenging. See figure 5.
Page 23 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 5: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues Related to In-Person Voting in the 2020 General Election as a
Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Page 24 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 5: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues Related to In-Person Voting in the 2020
General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Number of state election offices)
Issues Extremely or Moderately or Not at all
very somewhat challenging
challenging challenging
Lack of clear guidance from state health authorities regarding in-person 6 11 20
voting
Changes made to in-person voting processes as a result of legislation or 8 9 8
court orders
Insufficient funding for in-person voting 4 12 18
Responding to litigation related to in-person voting 7 9 11
Lack of clear guidance from other federal agencies regarding in-person 6 9 17
voting
Lack of clear guidance from the Election Assistance Commission regarding 3 11 19
in-person voting
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to in-person voting. The figure does not include the
number of state election offices that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or that did not respond
to these survey questions.
We compared state responses to survey questions about the 2020
general election to those about the 2020 primary elections. For each
issue, for the largest number of states, there was no difference in their
responses to questions about how challenging, if at all, in-person voting
issues were during the general election and during the primary elections.
However, six states reported that understanding guidance from state
health authorities regarding in-person voting was less challenging during
the 2020 general election than during the 2020 primary elections. One
state reported that this issue was more challenging during the general
election than during the primary elections. See figure 6.
Page 25 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 6: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to In-Person Voting Issues in the 2020 General Election and 2020
Primary Elections
Page 26 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 6: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to In-Person Voting Issues in the 2020 General
Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Number of state election offices)
Issues General more General less No difference in
challenging than challenging response
primary than primary between
general and
primary
Insufficient funding for in-person voting 1 1 27
Lack of clear guidance from state health authorities regarding in-person 1 6 25
voting
Lack of clear guidance from the Election Assistance Commission 0 3 25
regarding in-person voting
Lack of clear guidance from other federal agencies regarding in-person 0 3 24
voting
Responding to litigation related to in-person voting 3 1 15
Changes made to in-person voting processes as a result of legislation or 3 1 13
court orders
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to in-person voting. The figure does not include
responses from states that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not respond to these
survey questions.
Steps and Challenges Identified by Local Jurisdictions
Nearly all local jurisdictions took steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19
when preparing for and conducting in-person voting during the pandemic,
for example, by providing personal protective equipment to voters and/or
election workers or modifying voting locations to facilitate social
distancing.28 By contrast, a small percentage of local jurisdictions held in-
person voting at sports arenas or other large venues or used a ticketing
system to manage lines at voting locations. See table 4.
28In our surveys, we defined a voting location as “any location where a voter appears in
person to cast a ballot. Voting locations include staffed polling precinct/polling places, vote
centers, election officials’ offices, or other locations sanctioned by the state, county, or
local office responsible for conducting elections.” Additionally, we defined election workers
as “any temporary employee or volunteer working on election-related tasks before or
during the election, including, for example, setting up voting locations, closing polling
locations, helping voters cast their ballots, tabulating ballots, processing absentee/mail
ballots, and/or supervising other election workers. Your state might refer to election
workers as election judges, election clerks, election officers, poll workers, or Election Day
workers.” We also apply these definitions throughout this report.
Page 27 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Table 4: Steps That Local Election Jurisdictions Took Related to In-Person Voting for the 2020 Elections in Response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic
Estimated percentage of local election
Steps taken jurisdictions that took this step
Provided personal protective equipment, such as masks or face shields, for voters 94
and/or election workers (90, 97)
Cleaned and disinfected voting locations following the primary election(s) or general 94
election (90, 96)
Installed signs or other reminders for voters and election workers to socially distance 92
(88, 95)
Modified or reconfigured voting locations to facilitate social distancing 88
(83, 91)
Installed physical barriers between voters and/or election workers 79
(74, 84)
Restricted the number of people allowed inside voting locations at any one time 71
(66, 77)
Coordinated with state, regional, or local public health agencies about in-person voting 56
(50, 62)
Coordinated with state, regional, or local emergency management agencies about in- 55
person voting (49, 61)
Prepared alternative in-person voting options for voters with COVID-19 or COVID-19 52
symptoms (46, 58)
Provided voters with more opportunities for curbside or drive-thru voting 49
(43, 56)
Estimated the number of voting machines needed for in-person voting 46
(40, 52)
Gave voters more opportunities for early in-person voting 38
(33, 44)
Consulted with experts—such as academics, nonprofits, election administration 37
associations, or other election jurisdictions—about in-person voting (31, 43)
Improved ventilation or air quality at voting locations 28
(22, 33)
Consulted with vendors regarding in-person voting 18
(14, 23)
Added new polling locations or vote centers 14
(11, 18)
Held in-person voting at sports arenas or other large venues 8
(5, 11)
Used a ticketing or reservation system to manage lines at voting locations 2
(1, 5)
Page 28 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Parentheses contain both the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence interval.
The table is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about steps taken related to in-person voting.
Examples of In-Person Voting Successes Cited by Local Election Jurisdictions
One local election official stated that the jurisdiction’s commitment to having safety
measures in place at polling places, to ensure election judges and voters were safe,
was a success for the locality. There was an increase in the number of people voting in-
person, and the official felt that the jurisdiction was successful in accurately processing
the high volume of in-person ballots.
Another local election official stated that the jurisdiction utilized an old bank building as
an early vote center for the general election. The official reported that it made social
distancing and people management so much better.
Source: 2021 local election jurisdiction survey responses. | GAO-22-104731
The most common response from local jurisdictions to almost all of our
survey questions about in-person voting issues during the 2020 general
election was that these issues were not challenging. However, many local
jurisdictions identified the following issues we asked about as challenging:
a lack of experienced election workers, a lack of a sufficient number of
election workers, and changes made to states’ in-person voting
processes. See figure 7.
Page 29 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 7: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to In-Person Voting in the 2020 General Election
as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Page 30 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 7: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to In-Person Voting in the
2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions)
Issues Extremely or 95% 95% Moderately 95% 95% Not at all 95% 95%
very confidence confidence or somewhat confidence confidence challenging confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— challenging interval— interval— interval— interval—
lower upper lower upper lower upper
bound bound bound bound bound bound
Lack of experienced election 12 9 16 41 35 47 40 33 46
workers
Lack of a sufficient number of 14 10 19 38 31 44 41 34 47
election workers
Changes made to state in- 17 13 23 31 25 37 35 29 41
person voting processes as a
result of legislation or court
orders
Insufficient funding for in- 10 7 14 25 20 31 53 47 59
person voting
Lack of clear guidance from 10 6 15 24 19 30 54 47 60
state election officials
regarding in-person voting
Voters did not take 5 3 9 26 21 32 57 50 63
precautions to reduce COVID-
19 transmission at voting
locations
In-person voting locations 6 4 10 24 18 29 53 47 60
were not large enough to
facilitate social distancing
Long wait times and/or lines 6 3 9 24 18 29 56 50 63
at in-person voting locations
Lack of access to reliable 2 1 3 19 14 24 60 54 66
vendors or suppliers
Lack or loss of in-person 3 2 5 8 5 11 58 52 65
voting locations
Election workers did not take 2 1 4 6 4 9 76 71 81
precautions to reduce COVID-
19 transmission at voting
locations
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about challenges related to in-person voting. The figure does not include the percentage of
local election jurisdictions that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not respond to these
survey questions.
Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
Page 31 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
We compared local jurisdiction responses to survey questions about the
2020 general election to those about the 2020 primary elections. For each
issue, for the largest percentage of local jurisdictions, there was no
difference in their responses to questions about how challenging, if at all,
in-person voting issues were during the general election and during the
primary elections. However, 14 percent of local jurisdictions reported that
understanding guidance from state election officials was less challenging
during the 2020 general election than during the 2020 primary elections.
Three percent of local jurisdictions reported that this issue was more
challenging during the general election than during the primary
elections.29 See figure 8.
29The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (9, 20) and (2, 7)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
Page 32 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 8: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses to In-Person Voting Issues in the 2020 General Election and
2020 Primary Elections
Page 33 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 8: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses to In-Person Voting Issues in the 2020
General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions)
Issues General 95% 95% General less 95% 95% No difference 95% 95%
more confidence confidence challenging than confidence confidence in response confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— primary interval— interval— between interval— interval—
than lower upper lower upper general and lower upper
primary bound bound bound bound primary bound bound
Lack of access to 2 1 5 7 3 12 91 86 95
reliable vendors or
suppliers
Election workers 3 1 6 6 3 11 91 86 95
did not take
precautions to
reduce COVID-19
transmission at
voting locations
Lack or loss of in- 4 2 8 10 6 15 86 80 91
person voting
locations
Lack of 8 5 14 7 4 12 85 78 90
experienced
election workers
Lack of a sufficient 9 5 15 7 4 12 84 77 89
number of election
workers
Voters did not take 5 2 9 12 8 18 83 76 88
precautions to
reduce COVID-19
transmission at
voting locations
In-person voting 7 4 12 11 7 17 81 75 87
locations were not
large enough to
facilitate social
distancing
Lack of clear 3 2 7 14 9 20 82 76 87
guidance from state
election officials
regarding in-person
voting
Insufficient funding 5 3 9 14 8 20 81 74 87
for in-person voting
Changes made to 9 5 14 16 11 23 75 68 82
state in-person
voting processes
as a result of
legislation or court
orders
Page 34 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Issues General 95% 95% General less 95% 95% No difference 95% 95%
more confidence confidence challenging than confidence confidence in response confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— primary interval— interval— between interval— interval—
than lower upper lower upper general and lower upper
primary bound bound bound bound primary bound bound
Long wait times 10 6 15 13 9 19 77 70 83
and/or lines at in-
person voting
locations
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
With the exception of “lack of clear guidance from state election officials regarding in-person voting,”
the differences between (1) the estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions reporting that an
issue was more challenging in the 2020 general election than in the primary elections and (2) the
estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions reporting that an issue was less challenging in the
2020 general election than in the primary elections were not statistically significant for any of the
issues in the figure.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about challenges related to in-person voting. The figure does not include responses from local
election jurisdictions that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not respond to these survey
questions.
Election Supplies
Steps and Challenges Identified by States
More than half of the 43 states that responded to our survey assisted
local election offices with obtaining all of the types of election supplies we
asked about in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including hand
sanitizer, personal protective equipment such as face shields or non-
medical-grade masks, and disinfectant wipes or other cleaning supplies.
See table 5.
Page 35 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Table 5: Election Supplies That State Election Offices Assisted Local Election Offices With Obtaining for the 2020 Elections in
Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Number of state
Steps taken election offices
Hand sanitizer 39
Personal protective equipment, such as face shields or non-medical-grade masks 36
Disinfectant wipes or other cleaning supplies 35
Signage or other reminders to encourage social distancing among voters and election workers 31
Disposable shared objects, such as pens or sample ballots 29
Physical barriers, such as plexiglass 26
Medical-grade protective equipment, such as N95 masks 24
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The table is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about steps taken related to obtaining election supplies.
Examples of Election Supplies Successes Cited by State Election Offices
One state election official reported that by the general election, the state had planned
and coordinated with other state and federal agencies to ensure each local office had
the supplies needed to conduct a safe election with increased vote by mail. Though
there were challenges, this state was able to provide the citizens with safe options for
voting in person early or on Election Day, or by mail.
Another state election official said that the state was able to obtain and supply personal
protective equipment and cleaning supplies to all of its municipalities for the general
election.
Source: 2021 state election office survey responses. | GAO-22-104731
Most states found four issues we asked about related to determining the
types of supplies, the quantities of supplies needed, addressing high
demand, and identifying reliable suppliers challenging. Meanwhile, many
states found issues related to funding for supplies and understanding
guidance from the EAC and other federal agencies not challenging. See
figure 9.
Page 36 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 9: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues Related to Assisting Local Election Offices With Obtaining
Election Supplies for the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Page 37 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 9: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues Related to Assisting Local Election
Offices With Obtaining Election Supplies for the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Number of
state election offices)
Issues Extremely or Moderately or Not at all
very somewhat challenging
challenging challenging
Determining the quantities of supplies needed 5 29 7
High demand or competition for supplies 17 15 7
Determining the types of supplies needed 4 27 9
Identifying reliable vendors or suppliers 9 21 10
Insufficient funding 6 10 23
Lack of clear guidance from other federal agencies about supplies 4 11 20
Lack of clear guidance from the Election Assistance Commission about 6 9 20
supplies
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to obtaining election supplies. The figure does not
include the number of state election offices that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not
respond to these survey questions.
We compared states’ responses to survey questions about the 2020
general election to those about the 2020 primary elections. (See figure
10.) For each issue, for the largest number of states, there was no
difference in their responses to questions about how challenging, if at all,
issues related to obtaining election supplies were during the general
election and during the primary elections. However:
· Nine states reported that determining the quantity of supplies needed
was less challenging during the 2020 general election than during the
2020 primary elections. One state reported that this issue was more
challenging during the 2020 general election than during the primary
elections.
· Nine states reported that determining the types of supplies needed
was less challenging during the 2020 general election than during the
2020 primary elections. One state reported that this issue was more
challenging during the 2020 general election than during the primary
elections.
· Eleven states reported that identifying reliable suppliers was less
challenging during the 2020 general election than during the 2020
Page 38 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
primary elections. One state reported that this issue was more
challenging during the general election than during the primary
elections.
· Eleven states reported that addressing high demand or competition
for supplies was less challenging during the 2020 general election
than during the 2020 primary elections. No states reported that this
issue was more challenging during the general election than during
the primary elections.
Figure 10: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to Issues Related to Assisting Local Election Offices With
Obtaining Election Supplies during the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections
Page 39 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 10: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to Issues Related to Assisting Local Election
Offices With Obtaining Election Supplies during the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Number of state
election offices)
Issues General more General less No difference in
challenging than primary challenging response
than primary between general
and primary
Insufficient funding 0 1 33
Lack of clear guidance from other federal agencies about supplies 3 4 25
Lack of clear guidance from the Election Assistance Commission 2 5 25
about supplies
Determining the quantities of supplies needed 1 9 25
Determining the types of supplies needed 1 9 25
Identifying reliable vendors or suppliers 1 11 23
High demand or competition for supplies 0 11 23
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to obtaining election supplies. The figure does not
include responses from states that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not respond to
these survey questions.
Steps and Challenges Identified by Local Jurisdictions
Nearly all local jurisdictions obtained a variety of supplies, for example,
cleaning supplies and disposable shared objects, to prevent transmission
of COVID-19 in response to the pandemic. Meanwhile, less than half of
local jurisdictions obtained medical-grade protective equipment, such as
N95 masks, for election workers. See table 6.
Table 6: Election Supplies That Local Election Jurisdictions Obtained for the 2020 Elections in Response to the COVID-19
Pandemic
Estimated percentage of local
election jurisdictions that
Steps taken obtained specified supplies
Disinfectant wipes or other cleaning supplies 96
(93, 98)
Hand sanitizer 94
(90, 96)
Personal protective equipment, such as face shields or non-medical-grade masks, for election 92
workers (88, 95)
Signage or other reminders to encourage social distancing among voters and election workers 92
(88, 95)
Page 40 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Estimated percentage of local
election jurisdictions that
Steps taken obtained specified supplies
Disposable shared objects, such as pens or sample ballots 82
(77, 86)
Physical barriers, such as plexiglass 78
(73, 83)
Medical-grade protective equipment, such as N95 masks, for election workers 43
(37, 48)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Parentheses contain both the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence interval.
The table is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about steps taken related to obtaining election supplies.
Examples of Election Supplies Successes Cited by Local Election Jurisdictions
One local election official stated that the county government provided the local
jurisdiction with all of the personal protective equipment it needed at no cost.
Another local election official stated that all personal protective equipment supplies
were visible and accessible at the jurisdiction’s polling locations, helping voters to feel
safe.
Source: 2021 local election jurisdiction survey responses. | GAO-22-104731
Over half of local jurisdictions reported that all issues we asked about
related to obtaining election supplies were not challenging during the
2020 general election. See figure 11.
Page 41 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 11: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Obtaining Election Supplies in the 2020
General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Page 42 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 11: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Obtaining Election
Supplies in the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Estimated percentage of local election
jurisdictions)
Issues Extremely 95% 95% Moderately 95% 95% Not at all 95% 95%
or very confidence confidence or confidence confidence challenging confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— somewhat interval— interval— interval— interval—
lower upper challenging lower upper lower upper
bound bound bound bound bound bound
Supplies were 9 6 13 25 20 30 51 45 57
out of stock or
otherwise
unavailable
Insufficient 8 5 12 26 20 31 56 50 62
funding for
supplies
Difficulty 6 3 9 28 23 33 57 51 63
determining
what supplies
were needed
Delays in the 10 7 14 21 16 26 57 51 63
delivery of
supplies
Lack of clear 6 4 10 23 18 28 60 54 66
guidance from
your state
government
about supplies
Lack of access 3 1 5 21 16 26 58 52 64
to reliable
vendors or
suppliers
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about challenges related to obtaining election supplies. The figure does not include the
percentage of local election jurisdictions that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not
respond to these survey questions.
We compared local jurisdictions’ responses to survey questions about the
2020 general election to those about the 2020 primary elections. (See
figure 12.) For each issue, for the largest percentage of local jurisdictions,
there was no difference in their responses to questions about how
challenging, if at all, issues related to obtaining election supplies were
during the general election and during the primary elections. However:
Page 43 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
· Twelve percent of local jurisdictions reported that lack of access to
reliable vendors or suppliers was less challenging during the 2020
general election than during the 2020 primary elections. Two percent
of local jurisdictions reported that the issue was more challenging
during the general election than during the primary elections.30
· Fifteen percent of local jurisdictions reported that the issue of delays
in the delivery of supplies was less challenging during the 2020
general election than during the 2020 primary elections. Five percent
of local jurisdictions reported that the issue was more challenging
during the general election than during the primary elections.31
· Seventeen percent of local jurisdictions reported that difficulty in
determining what supplies were needed was less challenging during
the 2020 general election than during the 2020 primary elections. Five
percent of local jurisdictions reported that the issue was more
challenging during the general election than during the primary
elections.32
· Twenty-one percent of local jurisdictions reported that the issue of out
of stock supplies was less challenging during the 2020 general
election than during the 2020 primary elections. Four percent of local
jurisdictions reported that the issue was more challenging during the
general election than during the primary elections.33
30The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (7, 18) and (1, 4)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
31The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (10, 22) and (2, 8)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
32The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (12, 24) and (2, 8)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
33The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (15, 29) and (2, 7)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
Page 44 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 12: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses Related to Obtaining Election Supplies in the 2020 General
Election and 2020 Primary Elections
Page 45 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 12: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses Related to Obtaining Election Supplies
in the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions)
Issues General 95% 95% General 95% 95% No 95% 95%
more confidence confidence less confidence confidence difference confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— challenging interval— interval— in interval— interval—
than lower upper than lower upper response lower upper
primary bound bound primary bound bound between bound bound
general
and
primary
Insufficient 5 3 10 7 4 12 88 82 92
funding for
supplies
Lack of access 2 1 4 12 7 18 86 80 91
to reliable
vendors or
suppliers
Lack of clear 5 2 10 12 7 17 83 77 89
guidance from
your state
government
about supplies
Delays in the 5 2 8 15 10 22 80 73 86
delivery of
supplies
Difficulty 5 2 8 17 12 24 78 72 84
determining
what supplies
were needed
Supplies were 4 2 7 21 15 29 75 68 82
out of stock or
otherwise
unavailable
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
With the exceptions of “insufficient funding” and “lack of clear guidance from your state government
about supplies,” the differences between (1) the estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
reporting the 2020 general election was more challenging than the 2020 primary elections and (2) the
estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions reporting the 2020 general election was less
challenging than the 2020 primary election were all statistically significant.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about challenges related to obtaining election supplies. The figure does not include responses
from local election jurisdictions that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not respond to
these survey questions.
Page 46 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Election Worker Recruitment and Training
Steps and Challenges Identified by States
Nearly all states conducted an outreach campaign in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic to encourage people to serve as election workers,
and provided guidance to help local officials train them. More than half of
states took other steps to recruit workers and to train election officials.
See table 7.
Table 7: Steps That State Election Offices Took Related to Election Worker Recruitment and Training for the 2020 Elections in
Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Categories Steps taken Number of state
election offices
Recruitment Conducted an outreach campaign to encourage people to serve as election 36
workers
Recruitment Coordinated with schools, businesses, charitable organizations, or 32
advocacy groups to recruit election workers
Recruitment Encouraged state government employees to serve as election workers 24
Training Provided guidance or materials to help local election officials train election 37
workers
Training Trained local election officials 28
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The table is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about steps taken related to election worker recruitment and training.
Page 47 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Examples of Election Worker Recruitment and Training Successes Cited by State
Election Offices
One state election official reported that the state worked with the governor’s office to
create a program where state employees could receive paid civic duty leave to serve as
poll workers. Through this program, the state was able to supply backup poll workers
even with only last-minute notice.
Another state election official reported that election officials were able to use remote
meeting and training options to ensure continuity of operations despite COVID-19
challenges.
Source: 2021 state election office survey responses. | GAO-22-104731
Nearly all states that responded to our survey found recruiting election
workers challenging, due to potential election workers’ concerns about
contracting COVID-19, and most states found recruiting a sufficient
number of election workers challenging. Additionally, many states found
providing remote training and determining training needs for election
workers and local election officials challenging. See figure 13.
Page 48 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 13: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues Related to Election Worker Recruitment and Training for the
2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Page 49 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 13: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues Related to Election Worker Recruitment
and Training for the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Number of state election offices)
Issue categories Issues Extremely or very Moderately or Not at all
challenging somewhat challenging
challenging
Recruitment Potential election workers were concerned 19 16 7
about contracting COVID-19
Recruitment Insufficient number of election workers 11 18 4
Recruitment Difficulty determining how many workers to 6 18 5
recruit
Recruitment Insufficient funding for election worker 2 8 18
recruitment
Training Providing training remotely 7 17 7
Training Determining training needs for election 6 15 11
workers
Training Determining training needs of local election 5 15 11
officials
Training Securing a large enough space to offer in- 6 7 6
person training with appropriate social
distancing
Training Insufficient funding for election worker 1 9 18
training
Guidance Lack of clear guidance from the Election 2 8 20
Assistance Commission about election
worker recruitment and training
Guidance Lack of clear guidance from other federal 2 7 19
agencies about election worker recruitment
and training
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to election worker recruitment and training. The figure
does not include the number of state election offices that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or
did not respond to these survey questions.
We compared states’ responses to survey questions about the 2020
general election to those about the 2020 primary elections. For each
issue, for the largest number of states, there was no difference in their
responses to questions about how challenging, if at all, recruitment and
training issues were during the general election and during the primary
elections. However, seven states reported that the issue of an insufficient
number of election workers was less challenging during the 2020 general
election than during the 2020 primary elections. One state reported that
Page 50 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
this issue was more challenging during the general election than during
the primary elections. See figure 14.
Figure 14: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to Election Worker Recruitment and Training Issues in the 2020
General Election and 2020 Primary Elections
Page 51 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 14: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to Election Worker Recruitment and Training
Issues in the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Number of state election offices)
Issue categories Issues General more General less No difference in
challenging than challenging than response between
primary primary general and
primary
Recruitment Insufficient funding for 0 2 24
election worker recruitment
Recruitment Potential election workers 1 5 22
were concerned about
contracting COVID-19
Recruitment Insufficient number of 1 7 19
election workers
Recruitment Difficulty determining how 4 5 16
many workers to recruit
Training Insufficient funding for 0 1 23
election worker training
Training Determining training needs 2 4 21
of local election officials
Training Providing training remotely 2 6 19
Training Determining training needs 2 5 19
for election workers
Training Securing a large enough 1 1 13
space to offer in-person
training with appropriate
social distancing
Guidance Lack of clear guidance from 1 3 24
the Election Assistance
Commission about election
worker recruitment and
training
Guidance Lack of clear guidance from 1 3 22
other federal agencies about
election worker recruitment
and training
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to election worker recruitment and training. The figure
does not include responses from states that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not
respond to these survey questions.
Steps and Challenges Identified by Local Jurisdictions
Local jurisdictions took a range of steps in relation to election worker
recruitment and training for the 2020 elections in response to the COVID-
19 pandemic. For example, most local jurisdictions recruited backup
Page 52 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
election workers in case others were unable to work, and a small
percentage recruited election workers with medical training to assist
voters with COVID-19. Additionally, nearly all local jurisdictions trained
election workers on measures to reduce COVID-19 transmission at voting
locations and how to protect themselves from COVID-19, and conducted
training in socially-distanced settings. See table 8.
Table 8: Steps That Local Election Jurisdictions Took Related to Election Worker Recruitment and Training for the 2020
Elections in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Categories Steps taken Estimated percentage of
local election jurisdictions
that took this step
Recruitment Recruited backup election workers in case others were unable to work 71
(66, 77)
Recruitment Recruited election workers from populations that do not usually 36
volunteer, such as young people (30, 41)
Recruitment Worked with schools, businesses, charitable organizations, or 23
advocacy groups to recruit election workers (19, 27)
Recruitment Offered incentives, such as hazard pay, to election workers 16
(13, 21)
Recruitment Recruited election workers with medical training to assist voters with 5
COVID-19 (3, 9)
Training Trained election workers on measures to reduce COVID-19 89
transmission at voting locations (84, 92)
Training Trained election workers on measures to protect themselves from 86
COVID-19 (82, 90)
Training Trained election workers in socially-distanced settings 82
(77, 87)
Training Conducted some or all election worker training online 48
(42, 54)
Training Trained more election workers than usual to perform tasks in relation to 46
absentee/mail voting (40, 52)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Parentheses contain both the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence interval.
The table is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about steps taken related to election worker recruitment and training.
Page 53 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Examples of Election Worker Recruitment and Training Successes Cited by Local
Election Jurisdictions
One local election official stated that the jurisdiction still had plenty of poll workers to
help work the elections, and that poll workers learning how to operate their new
election equipment went well.
Another local election official stated that the jurisdiction had an influx of citizens
contacting their office to be election workers. The election official noted that almost all
of the jurisdiction’s seasoned experienced election workers returned.
Source: 2021 local election jurisdiction survey responses. | GAO-22-104731
Many local jurisdictions found the majority of issues we asked about
related to election worker recruitment and training not challenging in the
2020 general election. By contrast, most local jurisdictions found one
issue—potential election workers’ concern about contracting COVID-19—
challenging in the general election. See figure 15.
Page 54 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 15: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Election Worker Recruitment and Training
in the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Page 55 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 15: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Election Worker
Recruitment and Training in the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Estimated percentage of local
election jurisdictions)
Issue Issues Extremely 95% 95% Moderately 95% 95% Not at all 95% 95%
categories or very confidence confidence or confidence confidence challenging confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— somewhat interval— interval— interval— interval—
lower upper challenging lower upper lower upper
bound bound bound bound bound bound
Recruitment Potential 23 18 27 46 40 53 25 20 31
election
workers
were
concerned
about
contracting
COVID-19
Recruitment Difficulty 9 6 13 38 32 44 43 37 49
determining
how many
workers to
recruit
Recruitment Insufficient 7 4 11 21 16 26 55 48 61
funding for
election
worker
recruitment
Recruitment Lack of 3 1 6 13 9 17 63 57 68
guidance
regarding
election
worker
recruitment
from your
state
government
Training Lack of 10 7 14 22 16 27 37 31 43
experience
training
election
workers
remotely
Training Lack of staff 9 6 14 18 13 23 54 48 60
to train
election
workers
Page 56 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Issue Issues Extremely 95% 95% Moderately 95% 95% Not at all 95% 95%
categories or very confidence confidence or confidence confidence challenging confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— somewhat interval— interval— interval— interval—
lower upper challenging lower upper lower upper
bound bound bound bound bound bound
Training Lack of 11 8 16 15 11 20 46 40 53
equipment
to conduct
election
worker
training
remotely
Training Insufficient 8 5 12 17 13 21 59 53 65
funding for
election
worker
training
Training Lack of 5 3 8 15 11 20 65 60 71
guidance
regarding
election
worker
training from
your state
government
Training Inability to 8 5 12 11 8 15 59 53 64
obtain
locations for
socially-
distanced
in-person
raining
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about challenges related to election worker recruitment and training. The figure does not
include the percentage of local election jurisdictions that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or
did not respond to these survey questions.
We compared local jurisdictions’ responses to survey questions about the
2020 general election to those about the 2020 primary elections. (See
figure 16.) For each issue, for the largest percentage of local jurisdictions,
there was no difference in their responses to questions about how
challenging, if at all, recruitment and training issues were during the
general election and during the primary elections. However:
Page 57 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
· Fifteen percent of local jurisdictions reported that the issue of potential
election workers’ concern about contracting COVID-19 was less
challenging during the 2020 general election than during the 2020
primary elections. Six percent reported that this issue was more
challenging during the general election than during the primary
elections.34
· Seven percent of local jurisdictions reported that the lack of
equipment to train election workers remotely was less challenging
during the 2020 general election than during the 2020 primary
elections. One percent reported that this issue was more challenging
during the general election than during the primary elections.35
34The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (11, 21) and (3, 10)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
35The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (4, 12) and (0, 4)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
Page 58 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 16: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses to Election Worker Recruitment and Training Issues in the
2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections
Page 59 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 16: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses to Election Worker Recruitment and
Training Issues in the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions)
Issue Issues General 95% 95% General less 95% 95% No 95% 95%
categories more confidence confidence challenging confidence confidence difference in confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— than primary interval— interval— response interval— interval—
than primary lower upper lower upper between lower upper
bound bound bound bound general and bound bound
primary
Recruitment Insufficient 8 4 13 2 1 5 90 84 94
funding for
election
worker
recruitment
Recruitment Lack of clear 4 2 9 6 3 10 90 84 94
guidance
regarding
election
worker
recruitment
from your
state
government
Recruitment Difficulty 9 5 14 5 3 9 86 80 90
determining
how many
workers to
recruit
Recruitment Potential 6 3 10 15 11 21 79 73 84
election
workers were
concerned
about
contracting
COVID-19
Training Lack of 1 0 4 7 4 12 92 86 95
equipment to
conduct
election
worker
training
remotely
Training Lack of clear 2 0 5 7 4 12 91 86 94
guidance
regarding
election
worker
training from
your state
government
Page 60 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Issue Issues General 95% 95% General less 95% 95% No 95% 95%
categories more confidence confidence challenging confidence confidence difference in confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— than primary interval— interval— response interval— interval—
than primary lower upper lower upper between lower upper
bound bound bound bound general and bound bound
primary
Training Inability to 2 1 5 7 3 12 91 86 95
obtain
locations for
socially-
distanced in-
person
training
Training Insufficient 2 1 5 8 4 13 90 85 94
funding for
election
worker
training
Training Lack of 3 1 10 9 5 14 88 81 93
experience in
training
election
workers
remotely
Training Lack of staff 5 2 10 8 4 14 87 80 92
to train
election
workers
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
With the exceptions of “potential election workers were concerned about contracting COVID-19,” and
“lack of equipment to conduct election worker training remotely,” the differences between (1) the
estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions reporting the 2020 general election was more
challenging than the 2020 primary elections and (2) the estimated percentage of local election
jurisdictions reporting the 2020 general election was less challenging than the 2020 primary elections
were not statistically significant.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about challenges related to election worker recruitment and training. The figure does not
include responses from local election jurisdictions that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did
not respond to these survey questions.
Page 61 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Voter Education and Outreach
Steps and Challenges Identified by States
All states that responded to our survey reported that they provided
information on their elections websites in response to the COVID-19
pandemic to educate voters about voting policies and procedures. In
addition, nearly all states took other steps related to education and
outreach during the pandemic by, for example, answering questions from
people who contacted their offices, or using various forms of media,
including social media, to educate voters about voting policies and
procedures. See table 9.
Table 9: Steps That State Election Offices Took Related to Voter Education and Outreach for the 2020 Elections in Response
to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Number of state election
Steps taken offices that took this step
Provided information on your state’s elections website to educate voters about voting 43
policies and procedures
Answered questions about voting policies and procedures from people who contacted 42
your office
Used social media to educate voters about voting policies and procedures 40
Conducted an outreach campaign using print, electronic, or other media to educate 40
voters about voting policies and procedures
Engaged with the news media to educate voters about voting policies and procedures 40
Worked with schools, businesses, charitable organizations, or advocacy groups to 35
educate voters about voting policies and procedures
Held or attended meetings or other events to educate voters about voting policies and 31
procedures
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The table is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about steps taken related to voter education and outreach.
Page 62 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Examples of Voter Education and Outreach Successes Cited by State Election
Offices
One state election official reported that the state conducted a successful voter
education and outreach campaign and that the state had high voter turnout.
Another state election official reported that the state worked with a professional public
relations group to assist it in developing and successfully disseminating information
about voting.
Source: 2021 state election survey responses. | GAO-22-104731
Nearly all states that responded to our survey reported that false or
misleading information about absentee/mail voting—particularly about the
security of this type of voting, and related deadlines and requirements—
was challenging in the general election. By contrast, few states found
understanding guidance issued by the EAC to be challenging in the
general election. See figure 17.
Page 63 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 17: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues Related to Voter Education and Outreach in the 2020 General
Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Page 64 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 17: How Challenging State Election Offices Found Issues Related to Voter Education and Outreach
in the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Number of state election offices)
Issues Extremely or Moderately or Not at all
very somewhat challenging
challenging challenging
False or misleading information about security of absentee/mail voting 26 11 3
False or misleading information about absentee/mail voting deadlines or 18 18 4
requirements
False or misleading information about the safety of voting in person 15 19 4
False or misleading information about in-person voting times, locations, or 11 21 6
requirements
Insufficient staff voter education and outreach 11 16 11
Managing the logistics of working with outside organizations, such as 6 20 9
businesses, charitable organizations, interest groups, clubs, or schools
Insufficient funding for voter education and outreach 9 12 18
Lack of clear guidance from other federal agencies regarding voter education 4 5 22
and outreach
Lack of clear guidance from the Election Assistance Commission regarding 4 4 24
voter education and outreach
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to voter education and outreach. The figure does not
include the number of state election offices that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or those that
did not respond to these survey questions.
We compared states’ responses to survey questions about the 2020
general election to those about the 2020 primary elections. For each
issue, for the largest number of states, there was no difference in their
responses to questions about how challenging, if at all, voter education
and outreach issues were during the general election and during the
primary elections. However, eight states reported that false or misleading
information about the security of absentee/mail voting was more
challenging during the 2020 general election than during the 2020 primary
elections, while one state reported that the issue was less challenging
during the 2020 general election than during the primary elections.
Similarly, eight states reported that false or misleading information about
absentee/mail voting deadlines or requirements was more challenging
during the 2020 general election than during the 2020 primary elections,
while two states reported that the issue was less challenging during the
2020 general election than during the primary elections. See figure 18.
Page 65 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 18: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to Voter Education and Outreach Issues in the 2020 General
Election and 2020 Primary Elections
Page 66 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 18: Comparison of State Election Office Responses to Voter Education and Outreach Issues in the
2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Number of state election offices)
Issues General more General less No difference
challenging than challenging than in response
primary primary between
general and
primary
Insufficient funding for voter education and outreach 2 2 31
Insufficient staff for voter education and outreach 3 3 28
False or misleading information about in-person voting times, locations, or 4 2 26
requirements
Lack of clear guidance from the Election Assistance Commission regarding 1 1 27
voter education and outreach
False or misleading information about the security of absentee/mail voting 8 1 26
False or misleading information about the safety of voting in-person 4 3 25
False or misleading information about absentee/mail voting deadlines or 8 2 25
requirements
Lack of clear guidance from other federal agencies regarding voter education 2 1 25
and outreach
Managing the logistics of working with outside organizations such as 3 4 24
businesses, charitable organizations, interest groups, clubs, or schools
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to voter education and outreach. The figure does not
include responses from states that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not respond to
these survey questions.
Steps and Challenges Identified by Local Election Jurisdictions
Nearly all local jurisdictions reported that in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, they answered questions about voting policies and procedures
from people who contacted their offices. Most local jurisdictions also
provided voters with information via their websites, and many local
jurisdictions used social or news media to educate voters. By contrast,
few local jurisdictions worked with organizations such as schools,
businesses, charitable organizations, or advocacy groups to educate
voters. See table 10.
Page 67 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Table 10: Steps That Local Election Jurisdictions Took Related to Voter Education and Outreach for the 2020 Elections in
Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Estimated percentage of local election
Steps taken jurisdictions that took this step
Answered questions about voting policies and procedures from people who contacted 92
your office (88, 96)
Provided information on your local elections website to educate voters about voting 63
policies and procedures (57, 69)
Used social media to educate voters about voting policies and procedures 55
(49, 61)
Engaged with the news media to educate voters about voting policies and procedures 42
(37, 48)
Conducted an outreach campaign using print, electronic, or other media to educate 38
voters about voting policies and procedures (32, 43)
Held or attended meetings or other events to educate voters about voting policies and 22
procedures (18, 27)
Worked with schools, businesses, charitable organizations, or advocacy groups to 19
educate voters about voting policies and procedures (15, 23)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Parentheses contain both the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence interval.
The table is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about steps taken related to voter education and outreach.
Examples of Voter Education and Outreach Successes Cited by Local Election
Jurisdictions
One local election official said that the jurisdiction expanded its outreach and education
efforts, helping the jurisdiction register a record number of voters.
Another local election official reported that the jurisdiction worked with an advocacy
group to inform voters on methods they could use to vote from home.
Source: 2021 local election jurisdiction survey responses. | GAO-22-104731
Most local jurisdictions found false or misleading information about the
following issues challenging: the security of absentee/mail voting and
associated deadlines and requirements, and the safety of in-person
voting. By comparison, a small percentage of local jurisdictions found it
challenging to manage the logistics of working with outside organizations,
such as businesses, charitable organizations, advocacy groups, clubs, or
schools. See figure 19.
Page 68 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 19: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Voter Education and Outreach in the 2020
General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Page 69 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 19: How Challenging Local Election Jurisdictions Found Issues Related to Voter Education and
Outreach in the 2020 General Election as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic (Estimated percentage of local election
jurisdictions)
Issues Extremely or 95% 95% Moderately 95% 95% Not at all 95% 95%
very confidence confidence or somewhat confidence confidence challenging confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— challenging interval— interval— interval— interval—
lower upper lower upper lower upper
bound bound bound bound bound bound
False or misleading 44 37 50 24 19 29 24 18 29
information about
security of
absentee/mail voting
False or misleading 31 26 37 31 25 36 27 22 33
information about
absentee/mail voting
deadlines or
requirements
False or misleading 25 20 30 36 30 42 29 23 34
information about
safety of voting in
person
False or misleading 18 14 23 32 26 37 39 33 45
information about in-
person voting times,
locations, or
requirements
Insufficient staff for 14 10 19 19 15 24 43 37 49
voter education and
outreach
Insufficient funding for 9 6 13 18 13 23 48 42 54
voter education and
outreach
Lack of clear 5 2 8 18 14 23 62 56 68
guidance from state
from your state
government regarding
voter education and
outreach
Managing the 4 2 7 14 11 19 45 39 51
logistics of working
with outside
organizations such as
businesses,
charitable
organizations,
advocacy groups,
clubs, or schools
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 70 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about challenges related to voter education and outreach. The figure does not include the
percentage of local election jurisdictions that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not
respond to these survey questions.
Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
We compared local jurisdictions’ responses to survey questions about the
2020 general election to those about the 2020 primary elections. (See
figure 20.) For each issue, for the largest percentage of local jurisdictions,
there was no difference in their responses to questions about how
challenging, if at all, voter education and outreach issues were during the
general election and during the primary elections. However:
· Thirteen percent of local jurisdictions reported that understanding
guidance from their state government about voter education and
outreach was less challenging during the 2020 general election than
during the 2020 primary elections. Two percent reported that this
issue was more challenging during the general election than during
the primary elections.36
· Fifteen percent of local jurisdictions reported that false or misleading
information about the security of absentee/mail voting was more
challenging during the 2020 general election than during the 2020
primary elections. Six percent reported that this issue was less
challenging during the general election than during the primary
elections.37
· Twenty percent of local jurisdictions reported that false or misleading
information about in-person voting times, locations or requirements
was more challenging during the 2020 general election than during
the 2020 primary elections. Four percent reported that this issue was
less challenging during the general election than during the primary
elections.38
· Eighteen percent of local jurisdictions reported that false or misleading
information about absentee/mail voting deadlines or requirements was
36The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (8, 19) and (0, 4)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
37The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (10, 21) and (3, 10)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
38The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (14, 26) and (2, 8)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
Page 71 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
more challenging during the 2020 general election than during the
2020 primary elections. Eight percent reported that this issue was less
challenging during the general election than during the primary
elections.39
Figure 20: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses to Voter Education and Outreach Issues in the 2020 General
Election and 2020 Primary Elections
39The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (13, 24) and (4, 12)
respectively. The difference between these estimates is statistically significant.
Page 72 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 20: Comparison of Local Election Jurisdiction Responses to Voter Education and Outreach Issues
in the 2020 General Election and 2020 Primary Elections (Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions)
Issues General 95% 95% General 95% 95% No difference 95% 95%
more confidence confidence less confidence confidence in response confidence confidence
challenging interval— interval— challenging interval— interval— between interval— interval—
than lower upper than lower upper general and lower upper
primary bound bound primary bound bound primary bound bound
Managing the 3 1 6 8 4 15 89 82 94
logistics of working
with outside
organizations such
as businesses,
charitable
organizations,
advocacy groups,
clubs, or schools
Insufficient funding 5 2 9 5 2 9 90 85 94
for voter education
and outreach
Lack of clear 2 0 4 13 8 19 86 80 91
guidance from your
state government
regarding voter
education and
outreach
False or misleading 15 10 21 6 3 10 79 73 85
information about
the security of
absentee/mail
voting
Insufficient staff for 11 6 18 9 5 15 80 73 86
voter education and
outreach
False or misleading 20 14 26 4 2 8 77 70 83
information about
in-person voting
times, locations, or
requirements
False or misleading 18 13 24 8 4 12 75 68 81
info about
absentee/mail
voting deadlines or
requirements
False or misleading 18 13 25 9 6 14 72 66 79
information about
the safety of voting
in-person
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
Page 73 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
With the exception of “lack of clear guidance from your state government regarding voter education
and outreach,” “false or misleading information about the security of absentee/mail voting,” “false or
misleading information about in-person voting times, locations, or requirements,” and “false or
misleading information about absentee/mail voting deadlines or requirements,” the differences
between (1) the estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions reporting the 2020 general
election was more challenging than the 2020 primary elections and (2) the estimated percentage of
local election jurisdictions reporting the general election was less challenging than the primary
elections were not statistically significant.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about challenges related to voter education and outreach. The figure does not include
responses from local election jurisdictions that selected “not applicable” or “don’t know” or did not
respond to these survey questions.
States and Local Jurisdictions Spent CARES
Grants on Various Activities; States Found
Grant Requirements Challenging and Local
Jurisdictions Did Not
States Spent CARES Grants on Supplies, Voter
Education, and Absentee/Mail Voting and Found Grant
Funding and Reporting Requirements Challenging
Over half of states that responded to our survey reported spending
CARES Act grant funds either directly or through subgrants or
reimbursements to local jurisdictions on supplies and equipment, voter
education, facilitating absentee/mail voting, and recruiting and training
election workers for the 2020 elections.40 Fewer than half of states
reported using CARES Act grant funds to secure additional locations for
in-person voting or additional office or storage space. See table 11.
Table 11: Activities on Which State Election Offices Reported Spending CARES Act Grant Funds
Activities Number of state election offices
Providing supplies for in-person voting, such as personal protective equipment, hand 41
sanitizer, cleaning supplies, physical barriers, or signage
Educating voters about their options for voting 37
40A subgrant is a grant made under an agency grant by the original award recipient to a
subrecipient. In this case, the EAC provided CARES Act grant funds to states, who
provided subgrant funds to local jurisdictions to use during the 2020 elections. A
reimbursement is a payment received after an agreed upon expense has already been
incurred. In this case, the state used CARES Act grant funds to pay local jurisdictions for
certain eligible expenses incurred during the 2020 elections.
Page 74 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Activities Number of state election offices
Facilitating absentee/mail voting, such as mailing applications to voters or prepaying 36
postage
Purchasing voting equipment, such as high-speed scanners, automatic mail sorters, or 31
automatic letter openers
Providing drop boxes to return absentee/mail ballots 29
Increasing the number of election workers, such as through recruiting efforts or 28
providing additional pay
Training election workers 23
Securing additional locations for in-person voting 21
Securing additional office or storage space 17
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The table is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about CARES Act grant funds.
Most states reported that the majority of issues related to CARES Act
grant funding and reporting requirements were challenging,41 for example,
submitting the EAC CARES Act progress narrative report within the
required 20-day timeframe.42 By contrast, most states reported that
requesting CARES Act grant funds from the EAC was not challenging.
See figure 21.
41When presenting survey results regarding how challenging respondents found issues
related to CARES Act grant funding and reporting requirements, we aggregated
“extremely challenging” and “very challenging” responses, and “moderately challenging”
and “somewhat challenging” responses. Additionally, when we report that states or local
jurisdictions found selected issues “challenging,” we are referring to the aggregated total
of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses.
42These reports are also known as 20-day reports or postelection reports.
Page 75 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 21: State Election Offices’ Perspectives on CARES Act Funding and Reporting Requirements
Page 76 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 21: State Election Offices’ Perspectives on CARES Act Funding and Reporting Requirements
(Number of state election offices)
Issues Extremely Moderately or Not at all Not Don’t
or very somewhat challenging applicable know
challenging challenging
Submitting the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 12 21 7 1 1
CARES Progress Narrative Report within the required 20-
day timeframea
Submitting the annual progress report to the EAC by the 13 17 8 1 1
February 28, 2021 deadline
Using the Federal Financial Report electronic reporting 8 21 9 2 2
system
Categorizing CARES Act grant expenditures for reporting 5 24 10 1 2
purposes
Meeting the 20 percent matching requirement 13 15 11 1 2
Determining what expenditures were permissible 5 22 12 1 2
Obtaining expenditure information from local election offices 11 16 9 5 1
Determining how funds would be allocated across local 3 22 9 6 2
election offices
Requesting CARES Act grant funds from the EAC 0 9 30 1 2
Obtaining authorization from the state legislature or 3 6 23 8 2
Governor to use the CARES Act grant funds
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about challenges related to CARES Act grant funding and reporting
requirements.
a
These reports are also known as 20-day reports or postelection reports.
Local Jurisdictions Spent CARES Grants on Supplies and
to Clean Voting Locations, and Did Not Find Grant
Funding and Reporting Requirements Challenging
More than half of local jurisdictions reported spending CARES Act grant
funds for the 2020 elections on some of the in-person voting activities that
we asked about, including purchasing protective supplies and physical
barriers, and cleaning and disinfecting voting locations following elections.
Less than half of local jurisdictions spent grant funds on the activities we
asked about related to absentee/mail voting; recruiting, hiring, and
training election workers; and voter education and outreach. See table 12.
Page 77 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Table 12: Activities on Which Local Election Jurisdictions Reported Spending CARES Act Grant Funds
Categories Activities Estimated percentage of local
election jurisdictions
Absentee/mail voting Paying for postage to send absentee/mail ballots 42
(36, 48)
Absentee/mail voting Paying for postage to send absente/mail ballot applications 31
(25, 37)
Absentee/mail voting Printing envelopes for absentee/mail voting 30
(24, 36)
Absentee/mail voting Paying for prepaid postage for voters to return completed 29
absentee/mail ballots (23, 34)
Absentee/mail voting Purchasing drop boxes 27
(21, 32)
Absentee/mail voting Purchasing equipment for absentee/mail voting, such as 27
high-speed scanners, automatic mail sorters, or automatic (21, 32)
letter openers
Absentee/mail voting Reconfiguring election office space to accommodate more 23
staff and social distancing (18, 28)
Absentee/mail voting Printing absentee/mail ballots 22
(17, 27)
Absentee/mail voting Printing absentee/mail ballot applications 20
(15, 26)
Absentee/mail voting Installing drop boxes 14
(10, 19)
Absentee/mail voting Securing additional locations for absentee/mail ballot 6
processing or storage (4, 10)
Absentee/mail voting Setting up an electronic system for tracking ballots 5
(2, 8)
Absentee/mail voting Hiring additional personnel to monitor drop boxes 3
(2, 6)
In-person Purchasing personal protective equipment (PPE) 62
voting activities (56, 68)
In-person Purchasing cleaning supplies 62
voting activities (56, 68)
In-person Purchasing physical barriers, such as plexiglass or sneeze 59
voting activities guards (53, 65)
In-person Purchasing hand sanitizer 58
voting activities (52, 64)
In-person Cleaning and disinfecting voting locations following the 51
voting activities primary or general elections (45, 57)
Page 78 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Categories Activities Estimated percentage of local
election jurisdictions
In-person Purchasing signage to remind voters to socially distance, 48
voting activities such as floor markings (42, 54)
In-person Securing additional locations for in-person voting 4
voting activities (2, 6)
Office staff or election Hiring additional election workers 34
worker activities (28, 40)
Office staff or election Training election workers 27
worker activities (21, 32)
Office staff or election Providing additional pay to election workers 25
worker activities (19, 30)
Office staff or election Hiring additional election office staff 24
worker activities (19, 29)
Office staff or election Recruiting election workers 15
worker activities (11, 20)
Voter education Educating voters about their options for voting 19
and outreach (15, 24)
Voter education Educating voters about policies and procedures for in- 19
and outreach person voting (14, 23)
Voter education Educating voters about policies and procedures for 18
and outreach absentee/mail voting (13, 22)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Parentheses contain both the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence interval.
The table is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about CARES Act grant funds.
Local jurisdictions generally reported that all issues related to funding and
reporting requirements for CARES Act grant funds were not challenging
or were not applicable to them.43 However, some local jurisdictions
identified determining what expenditures were permissible, categorizing
CARES Act grant expenditures for reporting purposes, and meeting
CARES Act grant reporting due dates as challenging. See figure 22.
43Local jurisdictions may have reported that the issues we asked about were not
applicable to them for various reasons. For example, some local jurisdictions did not
receive CARES Act grant funding from their states, including when states purchased items
using CARES Act grant funds and distributed those items to the local jurisdictions.
Page 79 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 22: Local Election Jurisdictions’ Perspectives on CARES Act Funding and Reporting Requirements
Page 80 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 22: Local Election Jurisdictions’ Perspectives on CARES Act Funding and Reporting
Requirements (Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions)
Issues Extreme 95% 95% Moderat 95% 95% Not at 95% 95% Not 95% 95% Don 95% 95%
ly or confide confide ely or confide confide all confide confide applica confide confide ’t confide confide
very nce nce somewh nce nce challeng nce nce ble nce nce kno nce nce
challeng interval interval at interval interval ing interval interval interval interval w interval interval
ing —lower —upper challeng —lower —upper —lower —upper —lower —upper —lower —upper
bound bound ing bound bound bound bound bound bound bound bound
Determining 9 6 14 25 20 30 37 31 43 18 14 23 11 7 14
what
expenditures
were
permissible
Categorizing 7 4 11 24 19 29 36 30 42 19 15 24 14 10 18
CARES Act
grant
expenditures
for reporting
purposes
Meeting 8 4 12 15 11 20 43 37 49 21 16 26 14 10 18
CARES Act
grant
reporting due
dates
Obtaining 3 1 7 17 13 23 49 43 55 20 15 25 10 7 14
CARES Act
grant funds
from your
state
government
Meeting the 1 0 4 9 6 14 23 18 28 47 41 53 20 15 24
20 percent
matching
requirement,
if local
jurisdictions
were required
to fund the
match in your
state
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Issues are displayed in descending order of most challenging to least challenging, based on
the sum of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses for
each issue.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about challenges related to CARES Act grant funds. The figure does not include the
percentage of local election jurisdictions that did not respond to these survey questions.
Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
Page 81 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Nearly All States Used EAC Information
Resources and Guidance; Local Jurisdictions
Commonly Reported They Were Not Aware of
or Did Not Need the Information
Nearly All States Used EAC Information Resources or
Guidance on Various Topics, and Most Found Them
Helpful
Nearly all states that responded to our survey reported that they used
EAC information resources or guidance about CARES Act grant funding.
Fewer states used EAC information resources or guidance on the other
topics we asked about regarding election administration during the
pandemic.44 Most states used EAC information resources or guidance
about two or more of these topics. See figure 23.
44In our surveys, we defined EAC information resources and guidance as “documents,
instructional materials, webinars, video recordings, links to other agency websites, and
any other information made available by the Election Assistance Commission about
conducting an election during a pandemic.” We also apply this definition throughout this
report.
Page 82 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 23: State Election Offices’ Use of U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information Resources and Guidance by
Topic and Number of Resources Used
Accessible Data for Figure 23: State Election Offices’ Use of U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information
Resources and Guidance by Topic and Number of Resources Used
Topic Number of
state election
offices
CARES Act grant funding 39
Election security 26
Other information posted on EAC’s COVID-19 resources webpage 20
In-person voting 15
Election worker recruitment and training 14
Absentee/mail voting 13
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 83 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Number of topics of EAC information resources or guidance that Number of state election offices
state election offices used
One 10
Two 10
Three 6
Four 2
Five 1
Six 11
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about EAC information resources and guidance. Three state election offices
responded that they either did not use or did not know if they had used any of the EAC’s information
resources or guidance listed in our survey.
We asked states to rate the overall helpfulness of the EAC’s information
resources and guidance in preparing for and conducting the 2020
elections during the pandemic. Most states found the EAC’s information
resources and guidance helpful during both the 2020 primary elections
and the 2020 general election.45 (See figure 24.) We compared states’
responses to the questions about the 2020 primary elections to those
about the general election. For the majority of states, there was no
difference in their responses to questions about how helpful, if at all, were
EAC information resources and guidance during the primary elections
and during the general election.
45We asked states how helpful EAC information resources and guidance were for their
offices in the 2020 primary elections and general election—extremely helpful, very helpful,
moderately helpful, somewhat helpful, or not at all helpful. When presenting survey results
regarding how helpful respondents found EAC resources and guidance, we aggregated
“extremely helpful” and “very helpful” responses, and “moderately helpful” and “somewhat
helpful” responses. When we report that states or local jurisdictions found EAC
information resources and guidance “helpful,” we are referring to the aggregated total of
“extremely or very helpful” and “moderately or somewhat helpful” responses.
Page 84 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 24: Helpfulness of U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information Resources and Guidance During the 2020
Primary and General Elections, According to State Election Offices
Page 85 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 24: Helpfulness of U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information Resources and
Guidance During the 2020 Primary and General Elections, According to State Election Offices (Number of state election
offices)
Issues Extremely or Moderately or Not at all Not
very helpful somewhat helpful applicable
helpful
Helpfulness of EAC information resources and guidance in preparing 11 17 6 5
for and conducting the 2020 primary election(s) during the pandemic
Helpfulness of EAC information resources and guidance in preparing 10 18 7 8
for and conducting the 2020 general election during the pandemic
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The figure is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about EAC information resources and guidance. Thirty-nine states responded to
our question about the helpfulness of EAC information resources during the 2020 primary elections
and 43 states responded to our question about the helpfulness of these resources during the 2020
general election.
We asked states to identify the main reason(s) for not using EAC
information resources or guidance, if they reported not using EAC
resources or guidance in one or more of the topic areas listed in our
survey. The most frequently reported reason was that they did not need
the resources or guidance. See table 13.
Table 13: Reasons State Election Offices Reported for Not Using U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information
Resources or Guidance
Number of state election offices that
selected this reason for not using EAC
Reason information resources or guidance
I did not need these resources or guidance 18
The resources or guidance were not available in time to be helpful for my purposes 7
I was not aware the resources or guidance existed 7
The resources or guidance were not relevant to the topics I was interested in 5
The resources or guidance were not available in a useful format 4
The resources or guidance were not clearly written or presented 3
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The table is based on the 43 states that responded to the closed-ended questions in our state
election office survey about EAC information resources and guidance. States had the option to select
more than one response when reporting why they did not use EAC information resources or
guidance.
Ten of 43 states that responded to our survey reported that they
requested technical assistance or additional guidance from the EAC in
response to the pandemic during the 2020 primary elections or general
election. Seven of those 10 states reported that they were satisfied with
Page 86 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
the timeliness of EAC’s technical assistance or additional guidance and
seven were satisfied with its quality.46
Most Local Jurisdictions Did Not Use EAC Information
Resources or Guidance; Local Jurisdictions Reported that
They Were Not Aware of or Did Not Need the Information
We estimate that most local jurisdictions—65 percent—did not use EAC
information resources or guidance on any of the topics listed in our survey
to conduct elections during the pandemic.47 However, the remaining 35
percent used EAC information resources and guidance on at least one of
the topics.48 Among the local jurisdictions that used EAC information
resources or guidance about at least one topic, nearly all—87 percent—
used EAC information resources or guidance about more than one
topic.49 See figure 25.
46We asked states who reported that they requested technical assistance or additional
guidance from the EAC to indicate whether they were very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the
timeliness and with the quality of the assistance or guidance the EAC provided in
response to their request. For the purposes of this report, we aggregated “very satisfied”
and “somewhat satisfied” responses, as well as “somewhat dissatisfied” and “very
dissatisfied” responses. One state reported that it was dissatisfied with the timeliness of
technical assistance or additional guidance and one state reported that it was dissatisfied
with its quality. One state reported that it was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with its
timeliness. One state did not respond to our question about timeliness, and two did not
respond to our question about quality. Regarding local jurisdictions, 4 out of the 407
jurisdictions that responded to our survey reported that they requested technical
assistance or additional guidance from the EAC. Because of this small number, we did not
evaluate the extent to which local jurisdictions found technical assistance or additional
guidance helpful.
47The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is (60, 71).
48The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is (29, 41).
49The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is (78, 94).
Page 87 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 25: Local Election Jurisdictions’ Use of U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information Resources and
Guidance and Use by Topic
Accessible Data for Figure 25: Local Election Jurisdictions’ Use of U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information
Resources and Guidance and Use by Topic
Estimated percentage of local jurisdictions that used EAC information Estimated percentage 95%
resources and guidance confidence
interval,
lower and
upper bound
Did not use EAC information resources and guidance: 65 60, 71
Used EAC information resources and guidance 35 29, 40
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Estimated percentage of local jurisdictions that used EAC Of those that used EAC information resources 95%
information resources and guidance by topic and guidance, estimated percentage of local confidence
jurisdictions that used EAC information interval,
resources and guidance by topic lower and
upper
bound
Election Security 26 20, 31
In-person voting 26 20, 31
Absentee/mail voting 25 20, 30
CARES Act grant funding 23 18, 29
Page 88 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Estimated percentage of local jurisdictions that used EAC Of those that used EAC information resources 95%
information resources and guidance by topic and guidance, estimated percentage of local confidence
jurisdictions that used EAC information interval,
resources and guidance by topic lower and
upper
bound
Other information posted on EAC’s COVID-19 resources webpage 22 17, 27
Election worker recruitment and training 18 14, 23
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election
jurisdiction survey about EAC information resources and guidance. The figure does not include the
percentage of local election jurisdictions that did not respond to these survey questions.
Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
When we asked respondents how helpful they found the EAC information
resources and guidance in preparing for and conducting elections during
the pandemic, the most common response we received was “not
applicable.”50 The next most common response was that EAC information
resources and guidance were moderately or somewhat helpful during the
primary elections and the general election. (See figure 26.) We compared
local jurisdictions’ responses to the questions about the 2020 primary
elections to those about the 2020 general election.51 For the majority of
local jurisdictions, there was no difference in their responses to questions
about how helpful, if at all, EAC information resources and guidance were
during the primary elections, and during the general election.
50Our survey did not ask local jurisdictions why they selected certain responses to survey
questions. However, local jurisdictions may have selected “not applicable” to survey
questions about the helpfulness of EAC information resources and guidance because
most did not use EAC information resources or guidance.
51We asked local jurisdictions how helpful EAC resources and guidance were for their
offices in the 2020 primary elections and general election—extremely helpful, very helpful,
moderately helpful, somewhat helpful, not at all helpful. When presenting survey results
regarding how helpful respondents found EAC resources and guidance, we aggregated
“extremely helpful” and “very helpful” responses, and “moderately helpful” and “somewhat
helpful” responses.
Page 89 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Figure 26: Helpfulness of U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information Resources and Guidance During the 2020
Primary and General Elections, According to Local Election Jurisdictions
Page 90 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 26: Helpfulness of U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Information Resources and
Guidance During the 2020 Primary and General Elections, According to Local Election Jurisdictions (Estimated percentage of
local election jurisdictions)
Topics Extrem 95% 95% Moderat 95% 95% Not 95% 95% Not 95% 95%
ely or confide confide ely or confide confide at all confide confide applica confide confide
very nce nce somew nce nce helpf nce nce ble nce nce
helpful interval interval hat interval interval ul interval interval interval interval
—upper —lower helpful —upper —lower —upper —lower —upper —lower
bound bound bound bound bound bound bound bound
Helpfulness 13 18 9 22 27 16 3 5 1 63 69 56
of EAC
information
resources
and
guidance in
preparing
for and
conducting
the 2020
primary
election(s)
during the
pandemic
Helpfulness 13 18 10 24 29 18 3 6 1 60 66 54
of EAC
information
resources
and
guidance in
preparing
for and
conducting
the 2020
general
election
during the
pandemic
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Brackets in figure contain 95 percent confidence intervals.
The figure is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about EAC information resources and guidance.
The most common reasons cited by local jurisdictions for not using EAC
information resources or guidance were that local jurisdictions were not
aware that the information resources or guidance existed or that they did
not need the information resources or guidance. A small percentage of
local jurisdictions selected any of the other four reasons listed in our
survey, as shown in table 14.
Page 91 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Table 14: Reasons Local Election Jurisdictions Reported for Not Using U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Information Resources or Guidance
Estimated percentage of local
election jurisdictions that selected
this reason for not using EAC
Reason information resources or guidance
I was not aware the resources or guidance existed 37
(31, 42)
I did not need these resources or guidance 36
(30, 42)
The resources or guidance were not relevant to the topics I was interested in 3
(1, 7)
The resources or guidance were not available in time to be helpful for my purposes 2
(1, 5)
The resources or guidance were not clearly written or presented 2
(1, 5)
The resources or guidance were not available in a useful format 1
(0, 3)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Notes: Parentheses contain both the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence interval.
The table is based on responses to the closed-ended questions in our local election jurisdiction
survey about EAC information resources and guidance.
Local jurisdictions had the option to select more than one response when reporting why they did not
use EAC information resources or guidance.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to the EAC and the Department of
Homeland Security for review and comment. Neither the EAC nor the
Department of Homeland Security had formal written comments on the
draft report, as noted in emails received from the agencies on June 10
and June 21, 2022, respectively. The Department of Homeland Security
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Executive Director of the EAC, and the Secretary of
Homeland Security. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the
GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Page 92 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff members who made key
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
Rebecca Gambler
Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Page 93 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
List of Committees
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Chairman
The Honorable Richard Shelby
Vice Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman
The Honorable Mike Crapo
Ranking Member
Committee on Finance
United States Senate
The Honorable Patty Murray
Chair
The Honorable Richard Burr
Ranking Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate
The Honorable Gary C. Peters
Chairman
The Honorable Rob Portman
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
Chair
The Honorable Kay Granger
Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Republican Leader
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
Page 94 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Letter
List of Committees Continued
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
Chairman
The Honorable John Katko
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
Chairwoman
The Honorable James Comer
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Reform
House of Representatives
The Honorable Richard Neal
Chair
The Honorable Kevin Brady
Republican Leader
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives
Page 95 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope,
and Methodology
This report addresses the following questions:
1. What steps did states and local jurisdictions take to prepare for and
conduct elections in 2020 during the pandemic, and what challenges
did officials report?
2. How did states and local jurisdictions report using CARES Act grant
funding, and what challenges did officials report?
3. What U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) resources and
guidance did states and local jurisdictions use during the pandemic,
and what were their perspectives on such assistance?
Our scope focused on obtaining information and perspectives from state
and local election officials. Thus, to address these three objectives, we
conducted two web-based surveys of election officials—one of state
election officials and one of local election officials—and this report
presents the results of those surveys. Based on this scope, we did not
conduct follow-up work on the survey results with federal agencies, such
as the EAC and the Department of Homeland Security.
State Election Office Survey
We surveyed state election officials in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia.1 We received 43 completed questionnaires for an 84 percent
response rate. We conducted pretests of our draft state questionnaire by
telephone with election officials from five states with varying election
system characteristics, such as policies on absentee/mail voting, the size
of the electorate, geographic region, and whether local election
responsibilities are delegated generally to county governments or to sub-
county governmental units.2 We also considered whether the state had
held a presidential primary on or after March 13, 2020, when the
1When reporting survey results, we use the term “states” in reference to the 50 states and
the District of Columbia.
2In six states with county-run elections, selected cities within the states are responsible for
administering elections. Nine states delegate election responsibilities to sub-county
governmental units, rather than to counties.
Page 96 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
President declared a national emergency in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. We used these pretests to help further refine our questions,
develop new questions, clarify any ambiguous portions of the survey, and
identify any potentially biased questions, and made revisions, as
necessary.
Prior to fielding our state election office survey, we contacted the state
election directors to confirm the contact information for an appropriate
official to complete the survey, whether themselves or a designee. We
launched our web-based state election office survey in May 2021 and
collected responses online through August 2021. To encourage
response, we sent pre-notification emails prior to launching the survey,
and during fielding, followed up multiple times with non-respondents by
both phone and e-mail. The total number of responses to individual
questions may be fewer than 43, depending upon how many respondents
were eligible or chose to respond to a particular question. For example,
we did not ask survey respondents who indicated that their state did not
hold a primary election during the pandemic subsequent questions
related to conducting primary elections during the pandemic.
All sample surveys are subject to sampling error—that is, the extent to
which the survey results differ from what would have been obtained if the
whole population had been observed. Sampling errors are not relevant to
our state election office survey because we surveyed the entire
population of interest. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any
survey may introduce errors. For example, differences in how a particular
question is interpreted, the sources of information available to
respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can introduce
unwanted variability into the survey results, which is generally referred to
as non-sampling error.
We took numerous steps in questionnaire development, data collection,
and the editing and analysis of the state election office survey data to
minimize non-sampling errors. For example, to inform the development of
our questionnaire, we reviewed some of our previous surveys and work
related to this issue area.3 We interviewed election subject matter experts
3See, for example, GAO, Elections: Observations on Wait Times for Voters on Election
Day 2012, GAO-14-850 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2014), Voters with Disabilities:
Observations on Polling Place Accessibility and Related Federal Guidance [Reissued on
December 4, 2017], GAO-18-4 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 3, 2017), and Elections:
Observations on Voting Equipment Use and Replacement, GAO-18-294 (Washington,
D.C.: April 11, 2018).
Page 97 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
and representatives from organizations in the field of election
administration to obtain their views and perspectives on potential issues
and subject areas to consider covering in our questionnaire. Additionally,
we examined the survey results and performed computer analyses to
identify inconsistencies and other indications of error. A second,
independent analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses.
Local Election Jurisdiction Survey
In addition to the survey of state election officials, we conducted a web-
based survey of local election officials.4 We selected a nationally
representative statistical sample of 829 local election jurisdictions. For the
local election jurisdiction survey, we received 407 completed
questionnaires for an overall weighted response rate of 47 percent.5
To identify the universe of local election jurisdictions for the 2020 federal
elections, we utilized the population frame previously developed for the
survey of local election officials conducted for GAO-18-294.6 For the nine
states that delegate election responsibilities to sub-county governmental
units, known by the U.S. Census Bureau as Minor Civil Divisions (MCDs),
we compared the list of MCDs from the GAO-18-294 survey population
frame with 2019 Census MCD data for these states to identify all mergers
and splits which had occurred over the intervening years and updated the
4For the purposes of this report, we refer to this survey as the “local election jurisdiction
survey.”
5We used a weighted response rate because our survey sample incorporates strata with
different probabilities of selection. A weighted response rate more accurately reflects the
statistical effect of differing probabilities of selection. To calculate our weighted response
rate, we used a standard definition, known as RR2, from the American Association for
Public Opinion Research. See American Association for Public Opinion Research,
Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys,
9th edition (2016). All survey results presented in the body of this report are generalizable
to the population of local election jurisdictions, except where otherwise noted.
6For the survey that was administered for GAO-18-294, we constructed our nationwide
sample frame of all local election jurisdictions using 2010 decennial census data and
information on local jurisdictions from state election office websites.
Page 98 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
local jurisdiction population file accordingly.7 In states with cities that are
independent election jurisdictions, we checked the state government
websites to determine whether any changes had occurred between the
2016 and 2020 elections.8 There are about 10,300 local election
jurisdictions nationwide that are responsible for conducting elections.
To account for the variation in the characteristics of local election
jurisdictions nationwide, we stratified the population frame by type of
jurisdiction, population size, and whether it was located in an urban or
rural area.9 Due to the much greater number of Midwestern MCDs, we
separated Midwestern MCDs from New England MCDs in order to
guarantee geographic coverage in the sample. The total number of strata
is 33 because some combinations did not apply to any local election
jurisdictions, such as a rural county with a population of over 1 million.
See table 15.
Table 15: Stratification of Local Election Jurisdictions for Sample
Stratum Stratum Sample
Number Stratum Population Size
1 County/City 1,000,000 < Population - URBAN 33 11
2 County/City 500,000 < Pop <= 1,000,000 - URBAN 74 24
3 County/City 100,000 < Pop <= 500,000 - URBAN 394 129
7Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont in New
England and Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in the Midwest administer their
elections at the MCD level. Of the remainder, 41 states do so at the county or city-
equivalent level. The District of Columbia is also treated as a county/city equivalent for
sampling purposes. Alaska is organized into four election districts; for sampling purposes,
the state is also included with the 41 county/city-equivalent states and the District of
Columbia.
8In Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New York, and Virginia, selected cities are
responsible for administering elections. Examples of cities that are separate election
jurisdictions from the counties surrounding them include Baltimore in Maryland, and
Kansas City and St. Louis in Missouri; 37 of the 133 jurisdictions in Virginia are cities. New
York City is a single election jurisdiction that combines the five counties, or boroughs, that
constitute the city.
9To identify jurisdictions located in a rural area, we used the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Economic Research Service’s Rural-Urban Continuum Code system, which
classifies counties into a nine-category continuum based on their characteristics and
location relative to metropolitan areas. The urban stratum was defined as all local election
jurisdictions located in a county with a Rural-Urban Continuum code of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.
The rural stratum was defined as all local election jurisdictions that were counties with a
code of 7, 8, or 9. Minor Civil Divisions were assigned based upon the coding of the
county in which they were located.
Page 99 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Stratum Stratum Sample
Number Stratum Population Size
4 County/City 50,000 < Pop <= 100,000 - URBAN 341 57
5 County/City 50,000 < Pop <= 100,000 - RURAL 5 3
6 County/City 25,000 < Pop <= 50,000 - URBAN 464 79
7 County/City 25,000 < Pop <= 50,000 - RURAL 86 16
8 County/City 10,000 < Pop <= 25,000 - URBAN 441 19
9 County/City 10,000 < Pop <= 25,000 - RURAL 331 23
10 County/City 1,000 < Pop <= 10,000 - URBAN 114 6
11 County/City 1,000 < Pop <= 10,000 - RURAL 496 34
12 County/City 0 < Pop <= 1,000 - URBAN 1 1
13 County/City 0 < Pop <= 1,000 - RURAL 30 3
14 New England MCD (Minor Civil Division) 500,000 < Pop <= 1,000,000 - 1 1
URBAN
15 New England MCD 100,000 < Pop <= 500,000 - URBAN 11 4
16 New England MCD 50,000 < Pop <= 100,000 - URBAN 39 7
17 New England MCD 25,000 < Pop <= 50,000 - URBAN 92 16
18 New England MCD 10,000 < Pop <= 25,000 - URBAN 214 10
19 New England MCD 10,000 < Pop <= 25,000 - RURAL 4 3
20 New England MCD 1,000 < Pop <= 10,000 - URBAN 642 27
21 New England MCD 1,000 < Pop <= 10,000 - RURAL 158 11
22 New England MCD 0 < Pop <= 1,000 - URBAN 196 9
23 New England MCD 0 < Pop <= 1,000 - RURAL 175 13
24 Midwest MCD 500,000 < Pop <= 1,000,000 - URBAN 2 2
25 Midwest MCD 100,000 < Pop <= 500,000 - URBAN 11 4
26 Midwest MCD 50,000 < Pop <= 100,000 - URBAN 46 9
27 Midwest MCD 25,000 < Pop <= 50,000 - URBAN 84 14
28 Midwest MCD 10,000 < Pop <= 25,000 - URBAN 230 10
29 Midwest MCD 10,000 < Pop <= 25,000 - RURAL 8 3
30 Midwest MCD 1,000 < Pop <= 10,000 - URBAN 1871 79
31 Midwest MCD 1,000 < Pop <= 10,000 - RURAL 396 27
32 Midwest MCD 0 < Pop <= 1,000 - URBAN 1941 81
33 Midwest MCD 0 < Pop <= 1,000 - RURAL 1405 94
Total 10336 829
Source: GAO. | GAO-22-104731
Our initial sample size was designed to achieve a margin of error of no
greater than plus or minus 8 percentage points for an attribute measure at
the 95 percent level of confidence when making population estimates for
urban local election jurisdictions, rural local election jurisdictions, and
Page 100 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
local election jurisdiction size.10 To adjust for expected non-response, we
increased the initial stratum sample sizes upward using an assumed
response rate of 70 percent to arrive at our final sample size. This
resulted in several small strata becoming certainty strata, where all
members of the stratum population were selected into the sample.
After selecting the jurisdictions to be included in our survey sample, we
obtained contact information for the chief election official within the
jurisdictions selected.11 To do this, we first collected contact information
for local election jurisdictions from state election office websites and other
publicly available sources. We then called the jurisdiction offices directly
to confirm the accuracy of the information and the appropriate official and
e-mail address to which we should send the survey URL and the
respondent’s login information for the questionnaire. We learned that
some MCDs in Minnesota contract with their respective counties to carry
out election administration responsibilities. In these cases, we sent the
questionnaire for the MCD to the appropriate county official for
completion.12 We launched the web-based local election official survey in
May 2021, and collected responses online through August 2021.13 We
emailed login information for the survey to the relevant election official of
each sampled jurisdiction. In June and July 2021, we conducted follow-up
with non-respondents by phone and e-mail.14
10We aggregated the strata by population size into 3 categories. Jurisdictions with 25,000
or fewer inhabitants were categorized as small, jurisdictions with 25,001 – 100,000
inhabitants were categorized as medium, and jurisdictions with a population of 100,001 or
more were categorized as large.
11In some states, multiple local officials are responsible for administering elections. For
example, in New York, county boards of elections have commissioners from both major
political parties. We contacted both and confirmed which of them should receive the
survey or obtained a shared email address they asked us to use.
12We did this for 38 Minnesota MCDs.
13We mailed a paper copy of the survey to seven jurisdictions that indicated they could not
complete the survey in its web-based format.
14After launching the local election jurisdiction survey, we learned that questions 8 and 10
in the questionnaire incorrectly asked about how challenging issues were for the state
election office rather than the local election office. We corrected the question wording and
emailed respondents who may have previously seen the incorrect wording to encourage
them to review their responses for accuracy. When analyzing responses to these
questions, we excluded respondents who responded before the correction unless they
confirmed the accuracy of their response, such as by reopening the survey or contacting
the survey team. Based on this, we excluded 44 respondents for questions 8 and 10.
Page 101 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
All sample surveys are subject to sampling error—that is, the extent to
which the survey results differ from what would have been obtained if the
whole population had been observed. Because we followed a probability
procedure based on random selections, our sample is one of a large
number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample could
have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the
precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence
interval (for example, plus or minus 8 percentage points). This is the
interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of
the samples we could have drawn. Confidence intervals are provided with
each sample estimate in the report. All survey results presented in the
body of this report are generalizable to the population of local election
jurisdictions, except where otherwise noted. We tested for statistical
response bias using logistic regression models on available
administrative variables, and did not find any statistical response bias. We
adjusted the base sampling weights for nonresponse within each stratum.
In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties of
conducting any survey may introduce non-sampling errors—as discussed
above in relation to the state election office survey—and we took similar
steps with the local election jurisdiction survey as we did with the state
election office survey to minimize these errors. We also pretested the
draft questionnaire by telephone with officials in five local election
jurisdictions (four counties and one MCD) in five states representing a
variety of policies on absentee/mail voting, population sizes, and timing of
primary elections. These pretests included some jurisdictions that held
elections before and some that held elections after the President declared
a national emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on March
13, 2020. We used these pretests and reviews to further refine our
questions, develop new questions, clarify any ambiguous portions of the
questionnaire, and identify any potentially biased questions, and made
revisions, as necessary. We conducted computer analyses to identify any
inconsistencies in response patterns or other indications of questionnaire
response errors. All computer syntax was peer reviewed and verified by
separate programmers to ensure that the syntax had been written and
executed correctly.
Survey Topics and Reporting Decisions
For our first objective, we conducted our state election office survey and
local election jurisdiction survey as described above to obtain information
on steps state and local election officials took regarding absentee/mail
Page 102 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
voting and in-person voting; obtaining election supplies; recruiting and
training staff and election workers; and conducting voter education and
outreach efforts.15 We also asked respondents to comment in open-ended
survey questions about aspects of the 2020 elections that they thought
went particularly well. We reviewed all of the responses and included two
responses that were unique for each area (i.e., absentee/mail voting, in-
person voting, election supplies, election worker recruitment and training,
and voter education and outreach) from the state election office survey
and the local election jurisdiction survey. In reporting these examples, we
attempted to use the exact wording of the open-ended response if
possible, but also edited the selected responses for concision and clarity,
and to ensure anonymity of the responding states or local jurisdictions.
We also asked respondents whether issues related to each of these
various election activities were challenging to them. When presenting
survey results regarding how challenging respondents found these
issues, we aggregated “extremely challenging” and “very challenging”
responses, and “moderately challenging” and “somewhat challenging”
responses. Additionally, when we report that states or local jurisdictions
found selected issues “challenging,” we are referring to the aggregated
total of “extremely or very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat
challenging” responses.
For all of the survey questions on reported challenges associated with
these election activities, we compared responses to survey questions
about challenges in the 2020 general election to similar questions about
the 2020 primary elections. When reporting these results for the state
election office survey, we highlight those issues for which the difference is
5 or greater in the number of states that found the 2020 general election
more challenging than the 2020 primary elections and the number that
found the general election less challenging than the primary elections.
When reporting these results for the local election jurisdiction survey, we
highlight those issues for which the difference in the estimated
percentage of respondents that found the 2020 general election more
challenging than the 2020 primary elections and the estimated
15The state election office survey questionnaire and aggregated responses for each
closed-ended question are included in appendix II. The local election jurisdiction survey
questionnaire and aggregated responses for each closed-ended question are included in
appendix III.
Page 103 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
percentage that found the general election less challenging than the
primary elections was statistically significant.
For our second objective, we conducted our state election office survey
and local election jurisdiction survey as described above to obtain
information about states’ and local jurisdictions’ use of grant funding
provided by the CARES Act.16 When presenting survey results regarding
how challenging respondents found issues related to CARES Act grant
funding and reporting requirements, we aggregated “extremely
challenging” and “very challenging” responses, and “moderately
challenging” and “somewhat challenging” responses. Additionally, when
we report that states or local jurisdictions found selected issues
“challenging,” we are referring to the aggregated total of “extremely or
very challenging” and “moderately or somewhat challenging” responses.
For our third objective, we conducted our state election office survey and
local election jurisdiction survey as described above to obtain information
about states’ and local jurisdictions’ use of EAC information resources
and guidance. When presenting survey results regarding how helpful
respondents found EAC information resources and guidance, we
aggregated “extremely helpful” and “very helpful” responses, and
“moderately helpful” and “somewhat helpful” responses. Additionally,
when we report that states or local jurisdictions found EAC information
resources and guidance “helpful,” we are referring to the aggregated total
of “extremely or very helpful” and “moderately or somewhat helpful”
responses. We also compared responses to survey questions about how
helpful respondents found EAC information resources and guidance in
the 2020 primary elections to a similar question about the 2020 general
election.
We also asked states and local jurisdictions who reported that they
requested technical assistance or additional guidance from the EAC to
indicate how satisfied they were with the timeliness and quality of the
assistance or guidance the EAC provided in response to their request.
For the purposes of this report, we aggregated “very satisfied” and
“somewhat satisfied” responses, as well as “somewhat dissatisfied” and
“very dissatisfied” responses. When we report that states were “satisfied”
with technical assistance or additional guidance provided by the EAC, we
16See Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 530 (2020).
Page 104 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
are referring to the aggregated total of “very satisfied” and “somewhat
satisfied” responses.
For all three objectives, for the purpose of reporting results of the state
election office survey, “nearly all” refers to responses given by 35 to 43
states, “most” to responses given by 26 to 34 states, “many” to responses
given by 18 to 25 states, “some” to responses given by 9 to 17 states,
and “few” to responses given by 1 to 8 states.
For the purpose of reporting results of the local election jurisdiction
survey, “nearly all” refers to responses given by an estimated 81 to 100
percent of local jurisdictions, “most” to responses given by 61 to 80
percent of local jurisdictions, “many” to responses given by 41 to 60
percent of local jurisdictions, “some” to responses given by 21 to 40
percent of local jurisdictions, and “a small percentage” to responses given
by 1 to 20 percent of local jurisdictions. Unless noted otherwise, the
estimates we report from the local election jurisdiction survey responses
are national-level estimates representing the experiences, views, and
opinions of all local election jurisdictions nationwide.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2020 to July 2022 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Page 105 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s
2021 State Election Office Survey
We conducted a web-based survey of state-level election offices in the 50
states and the District of Columbia to obtain information on (1) the steps
states took to prepare for and conduct elections in 2020 during the
pandemic, and what reported challenges officials faced, (2) how states
reported using CARES Act grant funding,1 and what challenges they
reported facing, and (3) what U.S. Election Assistance Commission
(EAC) resources and guidance states used during the pandemic, and
their perspectives on such assistance.2 Our survey was composed of
closed-ended and open-ended questions. In this appendix, we include all
survey questions and results of responses to the closed-ended questions.
We do not provide information on responses provided to open-ended
questions that required manually entered text responses. The tables
below represent the frequencies of state responses to the questions. We
received surveys from 43 states (an 84 percent response rate), while 8
states did not respond. However, the total number of responses to
individual questions may be fewer than 43, depending upon how many
states were eligible or chose to respond to a particular question. For a
more detailed discussion of our methodology, see appendix I.
Background
Table 16: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 1
Did your state conduct a primary election—either a presidential preference primary or a primary for congressional offices—on or after
March 13, 2020 when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared?
Number of state election offices
Yes 39
No 3
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
1See Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 530 (2020).
2For the purpose of this appendix, we refer to the 50 states and the District of Columbia
collectively as “states.”
Page 106 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Absentee/Mail Voting
Table 17: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 2
Prior to the 2020 election(s), did your state—or any jurisdiction in your state—use an all vote-by-mail system (i.e., send a mail ballot to
all registered or active registered voters)?
Number of state election offices
Yes 8
No 31
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Table 18: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 2 Part II
Was the vote-by-mail system used statewide, or only in certain jurisdictions?
Number of state election offices
Statewide 4
Only in certain jurisdictions 4
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 107 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 19: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 3
Did your state election office take any of the following steps in relation to absentee/mail voting for either the 2020 primary
election(s) or the 2020 general election?
For each step, we are interested in the activities your office (not your local election offices) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Coordinated with the United States Postal Service 39 2 2 0
b. Set up a system to allow voters to track the status of 33 4 6 0
their absentee/mail ballots
c. Consulted with vendors regarding absentee/mail 33 7 3 0
voting
d. Consulted with experts—such as academics, 28 11 3 1
nonprofits, election administration associations, or
other states—regarding absente/mail voting
e. Developed and distributed guidance on absente/mail 39 0 3 0
voting to local election offices
f. Distributed guidance on absentee/mail voting 16 22 3 1
developed by other organizations or agencies to local
elections offices
g. Worked with state legislators to make changes to 20 18 4 0
absentee/mail voting requirements
h. Worked with the Governor’s office or other 25 15 2 0
executives to make changes to absentee/mail voting
requirements
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 108 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 20: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 4
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your state election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to
absentee/mail voting?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Increased 5 11 7 5 4 5 1
volume of
absentee/mail
voting
b. Lack of clear 1 2 4 2 17 11 1
guidance from the
Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC) on
absentee/mail
voting
c. Lack of clear 1 1 3 3 19 10 1
guidance from
other federal
agencies on
absentee/mail
voting
d. Limited state or 0 2 4 14 10 7 0
local election
official experience
with
absentee/mail
voting
e. Limited voter 2 7 8 11 8 2 0
experience with
absentee/mail
voting
f. Insufficient 1 2 6 5 16 7 1
funding for
absentee/mail
voting
g. Responding to 1 8 5 7 4 12 0
litigation related to
absentee/mail
voting
Page 109 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
h. Changes made 3 6 2 9 2 16 0
to absentee/mail
voting process as
a result of
legislation or court
orders
i. State 1 3 3 5 20 6 0
requirements
regarding when
localities may
begin counting
absentee/mail
ballots
j. Concerns about 7 9 5 11 5 1 0
the United States
Postal Service’s
ability to deliver
absentee/mail
ballot applications
and/or
absentee/mail
ballots in a timely
manner
k. Other 0 0 2 0 0 16 2
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Page 110 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 21: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 5
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your state election office during the 2020 general election in relation to
absentee/mail voting?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Increased 8 10 8 6 6 3 1
volume of
absentee/mail
voting
b. Lack of clear 1 2 4 2 18 14 1
guidance from the
Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC) on
absentee/mail
voting
c. Lack of clear 0 2 4 2 22 11 1
guidance from
other federal
agencies on
absentee/mail
voting
d. Limited state or 1 3 5 16 12 5 0
local election
official experience
with
absentee/mail
voting
e. Limited voter 3 6 10 10 10 3 0
experience with
absentee/mail
voting
f. Insufficient 1 4 5 5 17 9 1
funding for
absentee/mail
voting
g. Responding to 2 8 8 4 5 14 0
litigation related to
absentee/mail
voting
Page 111 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
h. Changes made 4 7 2 8 6 15 0
to absentee/mail
voting process as
a result of
legislation or court
orders
i. State
requirements
regarding when
localities may
begin counting
absentee/mail
ballots 2 3 4 6 19 7 0
j. Concerns about
the United States
Postal Service’s
ability to deliver
absentee/mail
ballot applications
and/or
absentee/mail
ballots in a timely
manner 7 14 5 10 4 1 0
k. Other 0 0 0 0 1 18 4
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
InPerson Voting
Table 22: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 6
Did your state election office take any of the following steps in relation to in-person voting for either the 2020 primary election(s) or
the 2020 general election?
For each step, we are interested in the activities your office (not your local election offices) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
We will ask in a later section about steps your office took to assist local election offices in obtaining specific election
supplies, such as personal protective equipment (PPE).
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Coordinated with state, regional, or local emergency 34 6 3 0
management agencies about in-person voting
b. Coordinated with state, regional, or local public 35 4 3 1
health agencies about in-person voting
Page 112 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
c. Used National Guard personnel to assist with in- 8 31 3 1
person voting
d. Consulted with vendors regarding in-person voting 26 14 2 0
e. Consulted with experts—such as academics, 26 13 3 0
nonprofits, election administration associations, or
other states—regarding in-person voting
f. Assisted local election offices in adding new polling 26 12 4 1
locations or voting centers, such as at sports arenas or
other large venues
g. Worked with state legislators to make changes to in- 16 20 5 1
person voting requirements during the pandemic
h. Worked with the Governor’s office or other 24 13 3 0
executives to make changes to in-person voting
requirements during the pandemic
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 113 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 23: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 7
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your state election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to in-
person voting?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
We will ask in a later section about challenges related to election supplies, such as personal protective equipment (PPE).
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 2 0 5 6 16 9 0
guidance from
the Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC) regarding
in-person voting
b. Lack of clear 2 2 3 6 14 11 0
guidance from
other federal
agencies
regarding in-
person voting
c. Lack of clear 2 3 4 7 16 6 0
guidance from
state health
authorities
regarding in-
person voting
d. Insufficient 1 1 7 5 15 9 0
funding for in-
person voting
e. Responding 2 5 1 4 8 17 0
to litigation
related to in-
person voting
f. Changes 0 5 1 5 7 19 0
made to in-
person voting
processes as a
result of
legislation or
court orders
g. Other 0 0 1 0 1 20 1
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Page 114 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 24: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 8
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your state election office during the 2020 general election in relation to in-
person voting?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
We will ask in a later section about challenges related to election supplies, such as personal protective equipment (PPE).
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 2 1 3 8 19 9 0
guidance from
the Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC) regarding
in-person voting
b. Lack of clear 2 4 2 7 17 11 0
guidance from
other federal
agencies
regarding in-
person voting
c. Lack of clear 2 4 3 8 20 6 0
guidance from
state health
authorities
regarding in-
person voting
d. Insufficient 1 3 7 5 18 9 0
funding for in-
person voting
e. Responding 1 6 6 3 11 16 0
to litigation
related to in-
person voting
f. Changes 1 7 3 6 8 18 0
made to in-
person voting
processes as a
result of
legislation or
court orders
g. Other 0 0 1 0 1 21 2
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Page 115 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Election Supplies
Table 25: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 9
Did your state election office assist local election offices with obtaining the following election supplies for either the 2020 primary
election(s) or the 2020 general election?
Assisting local election offices could include, for example, obtaining and distributing supplies directly or coordinating with external
groups (such as state or federal agencies, businesses, or non-profits) to provide them.
For each step, we are interested in the activities your office (not your local election offices) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
For each step, please exclude funding provided to local election offices to purchase these supplies. Subsequent questions
will ask about funding.
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Personal protective equipment, such as face shields 36 5 1 1
or non-medical-grade masks
b. Medical-grade protective equipment, such as N95 24 15 1 2
masks
c. Hand sanitizer 39 3 1 0
d. Disinfectant wipes or other cleaning supplies 35 6 1 1
e. Disposable shared objects, such as pens or sample 29 12 1 1
ballots
f. Signage or other reminders to encourage social 31 10 1 1
distancing among voters and election workers
g. Physical barriers, such as plexiglass 26 15 1 1
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 116 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 26: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 10
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your state election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to
assisting with election supplies?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 1 3 4 9 15 5 0
guidance from
the Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC) about
supplies
b. Lack of clear 0 3 2 9 18 6 0
guidance from
other federal
agencies about
supplies
c. Insufficient 1 4 5 4 20 4 0
funding
d. Determining 2 5 12 10 6 3 0
the types of
supplies needed
e. Determining 2 6 13 8 6 3 0
the quantities of
supplies needed
f. Identifying 6 5 9 9 6 3 0
reliable vendors
or suppliers
g. High demand 8 11 7 4 5 3 0
or competition
for supplies
h. Other 1 0 1 1 2 13 4
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Page 117 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 27: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 11
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your state election office during the 2020 general election in relation to
assisting with election supplies?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 1 5 2 7 20 7 1
guidance from
the Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC) about
supplies
b. Lack of clear 1 3 1 10 20 7 1
guidance from
other federal
agencies about
supplies
c. Insufficient 2 4 4 6 23 4 0
funding
d. Determining 2 2 15 12 9 2 1
the types of
supplies needed
e. Determining 2 3 18 11 7 2 0
the quantities of
supplies needed
f. Identifying 2 7 12 9 10 2 1
reliable vendors
or suppliers
g. High demand 5 12 10 5 7 2 1
or competition
for supplies
h. Other 0 1 1 1 3 15 3
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Page 118 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Recruitment and Training
Table 28: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 12
Did your state election office take any of the following steps in relation to recruitment and training for either the 2020 primary
election(s) or the 2020 general election?
For each step, we are interested in the activities your office (not your local election offices) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Conducted an outreach campaign to encourage 36 5 2 0
people to serve as election workers
b. Coordinated with schools, businesses, charitable 32 7 3 1
organizations, or advocacy groups to recruit election
workers
c. Encouraged state government employees to serve 24 15 3 1
as election workers
d. Trained local election officials 28 11 4 0
e. Provided guidance or materials to help local election 37 2 4 0
officials train election workers
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 119 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 29: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 13
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your state election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to
recruitment and training?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 1 0 2 8 17 9 0
guidance from
the Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC) about
election worker
recruitment and
training
b. Lack of clear 0 1 2 7 16 11 0
guidance from
other federal
agencies about
election worker
recruitment and
training
c. Insufficient 0 2 5 5 16 9 0
funding for
election worker
recruitment
d. Insufficient 0 1 6 3 14 12 1
funding for
election worker
training
e. Difficulty 2 4 5 8 6 11 1
determining how
many workers to
recruit
f. Potential 11 8 5 4 0 8 0
election workers
were concerned
about
contracting
COVID-19
g. Insufficient 6 8 5 7 2 8 1
number of
election workers
Page 120 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
h. Determining 0 4 9 9 8 7 0
training needs of
local election
officials
i. Determining 0 5 5 8 8 11 0
training needs
for election
workers
j. Providing 1 9 7 8 3 9 0
training remotely
k. Securing a 3 3 1 7 3 20 0
large enough
space to offer
in-person
training with
appropriate
social distancing
l. Other 0 0 1 0 0 19 1
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Page 121 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 30: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 14
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your state election office during the 2020 general election in relation to
recruitment and training?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 1 1 2 6 20 12 0
guidance from
the Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC) about
election worker
recruitment and
training
b. Lack of clear 0 2 2 5 19 14 0
guidance from
other federal
agencies about
election worker
recruitment and
training
c. Insufficient 0 2 4 4 18 13 0
funding for
election worker
recruitment
d. Insufficient 0 1 6 3 18 14 0
funding for
election worker
training
e. Difficulty 2 4 7 11 5 13 0
determining how
many workers to
recruit
f. Potential 13 6 11 5 0 7 0
election workers
were concerned
about
contracting
COVID-19
g. Insufficient 6 5 10 8 4 8 0
number of
election workers
Page 122 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
h. Determining 1 4 5 10 11 8 0
training needs of
local election
officials
i. Determining 1 5 3 12 11 9 0
training needs
for election
workers
j. Providing 2 5 9 8 7 11 0
training remotely
k. Securing a 4 2 2 5 6 23 0
large enough
space to offer
in-person
training with
appropriate
social distancing
l. Other 0 0 1 0 0 20 2
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Voter Education and Outreach
Table 31: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 15
Did your state election office take any of the following steps in relation to voter education and outreach for either the 2020 primary
election(s) or the 2020 general election?
For each step, we are interested in the activities your office (not your local election offices) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Provided information on your state’s elections 43 0 0 0
website to educate voters about voting policies and
procedures
b. Used social media to educate voters about voting 40 2 1 0
policies and procedures
c. Conducted an outreach campaign using print, 40 2 1 0
electronic, or other media to educate voters about
voting policies and procedures
d. Engaged with news media to educate voters about 40 2 0 0
voting policies and procedures
e. Held or attended meetings or other events to 31 10 1 1
educate voters about voting policies and procedures
Page 123 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
f. Worked with schools, businesses, charitable 35 5 2 0
organizations, or advocacy groups to educate voters
about voting policies and procedures
g. Answered questions about voting policies and 42 0 1 0
procedures from people who contacted your office
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 124 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 32: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 16
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your state election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to
voter education and outreach?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 1 2 1 4 21 8 0
guidance from the
Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC) regarding
voter education
and outreach
b. Lack of clear 0 1 3 4 20 9 0
guidance from
other federal
agencies
regarding voter
education and
outreach
c. Managing the 0 6 6 12 8 5 0
logistics of
working with
outside
organizations
such as
businesses,
charitable
organizations,
interest groups,
clubs, or schools
d. Insufficient 2 6 4 6 17 2 0
funding for voter
education and
outreach
e. Insufficient staff 4 6 7 8 9 3 0
for voter
education and
outreach
f. False or 8 6 10 6 3 4 0
misleading
information about
the safety of
voting in-person
Page 125 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
g. False or 7 3 7 11 4 4 1
misleading
information about
in-person voting
times, locations,
or requirements
h. False or 14 6 9 5 1 2 0
misleading
information about
the security of
absentee/mail
voting
i. False or 11 4 9 8 3 2 0
misleading
information about
absentee/mail
voting deadlines
or requirements
j. Other 0 0 1 0 0 18 1
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Page 126 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 33: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 17
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your state election office during the 2020 general election in relation to voter
education and outreach?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 1 3 1 3 24 10 0
guidance from the
Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC) regarding
voter education
and outreach
b. Lack of clear 0 4 1 4 22 11 0
guidance from
other federal
agencies
regarding voter
education and
outreach
c. Managing the 0 6 6 14 9 6 1
logistics of
working with
outside
organizations
such as
businesses,
charitable
organizations,
interest groups,
clubs, or schools
d. Insufficient 4 5 3 9 18 3 0
funding for voter
education and
outreach
e. Insufficient staff 3 8 8 8 11 4 0
for voter
education and
outreach
f. False or 9 6 11 8 4 3 0
misleading
information about
the safety of
voting in-person
Page 127 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
g. False or 7 4 10 11 6 3 1
misleading
information about
in-person voting
times, locations,
or requirements
h. False or 18 8 8 3 3 2 0
misleading
information about
the security of
absentee/mail
voting
i. False or 13 5 13 5 4 2 0
misleading
information about
absentee/mail
voting deadlines
or requirements
j. Other 0 0 2 0 1 17 3
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
2020 Election Successes
Question 18 (open-ended question): In your view, what aspects of the
2020 primary election(s) and/or the 2020 general election in your state
went particularly well?
CARES Act Funding
Table 34: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 19
Did your state election office spend CARES Act funds—either directly or through sub-grants or reimbursements—on any of the
following activities?
Yes No Don’t know
a. Increasing the number of election workers, such as through recruiting 28 13 1
efforts or providing additional pay
b. Training election workers 23 17 2
c. Securing additional office or storage space 17 22 3
d. Securing additional locations for in-person voting 21 19 2
Page 128 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Yes No Don’t know
e. Providing supplies for in-person voting, such as personal protective 41 1 0
equipment, hand sanitizer, cleaning supplies, physical barriers, or signage
f. Facilitating absentee/mail voting, such as mailing applications to voters 36 5 1
or prepaying postage
g. Providing drop boxes to return absentee/mail ballots 29 12 1
h. Purchasing voting equipment, such as high-speed scanners, automatic 31 9 1
mail sorters, or automatic letter openers
i. Educating voters about their options for voting 37 4 1
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 129 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 35: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 20
How challenging, if at all, were the following actions relating to CARES Act grant funding and reporting for your state election
office during either the 2020 primary or general elections?
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Requesting 0 0 5 4 30 1 2
CARES Act
grant funds from
the Election
Assistance
Commission
(EAC)
b. Obtaining 1 2 3 3 23 8 2
authorization
from the state
legislature or
Governor to use
the CARES Act
grant funds
c. Meeting the 7 6 7 8 11 1 2
20 percent
matching
requirement
d. Determining 2 3 9 13 12 1 2
what
expenditures
were permissible
e. Determining 2 1 7 15 9 6 2
how funds would
be allocated
across local
election offices
f. Obtaining 3 8 10 6 9 5 1
expenditure
information from
local election
offices
g. Categorizing 1 4 18 6 10 1 2
CARES Act
grant
expenditures for
reporting
purposes
Page 130 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
h. Submitting the 5 7 11 10 7 1 1
EAC CARES
Progress
Narrative Report
within the
required 20-day
timeframe
i. Submitting the 6 7 9 8 8 1 1
annual progress
report to the
EAC by the
February 28,
2021 deadline
j. Using the 2 6 12 9 9 2 2
Federal
Financial Report
(FFR) electronic
reporting system
k. Other 0 0 1 0 1 18 3
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Table 36: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 21
In your state, who was responsible for meeting the 20 percent match required by the CARES Act?
Number of state election offices
State government only 28
Both state and local government 10
Local government only 2
Don’t know 1
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Other Grants, Donations, and Assistance
Table 37: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 22
Did your state election office receive grants, donations, or any other forms of financial or nonfinancial assistance from any of the
following sources for the purpose of conducting either the 2020 primary election(s) or the 2020 general election during the pandemic?
Page 131 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Yes No Don’t know
a. Federal agencies, other than the Election Assistance Commission 13 29 1
(EAC)
b. Other state agencies 16 25 1
c. Universities, colleges, schools, or any other educational institutions 2 40 1
d. Private businesses 11 31 1
e. Private individuals 0 41 2
f. The Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and/or the Center for 18 24 1
Election Innovation and Research (CEIR)
g. Other nonprofit organizations 8 32 2
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Information Resources and Guidance
Table 38: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 23
Did your state election office use EAC information resources or guidance on any of the following topics to administer elections
during the pandemic?
“EAC information resources and guidance” includes documents, instructional materials, webinars, video recordings, links to other
agency websites, and any other information made available by the Election Assistance Commission about conducting an election
during a pandemic.
Yes No Don’t know
a. Absentee/mail voting 13 28 2
b. In-person voting 15 26 2
c. Election worker recruitment and training 14 27 1
d. CARES Act grant funding 39 3 1
e. Election security 26 14 3
f. Other information posted on EAC’s COVID-10 resources webpage 20 19 3
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 132 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 39: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 24
If you answered “no” for any of the topics above, what were the main reasons your state election office did not use EAC’s information
resources or guidance to administer elections during the pandemic? Check all that apply.
Number of state election offices
that checked the reason listed
I was not aware the resource or guidance existed. 7
The resources or guidance were not available in time to be helpful for 7
my purposes.
The resources or guidance were not clearly written or presented. 3
The resources or guidance were not available in a useful format. 4
The resources or guidance were not relevant to the topics I was 5
interested in.
I did not need these resources or guidance. 18
Other 3
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Table 40: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 25
Overall, how helpful, if at all, would you say EAC information resources and guidance were for your state election office in preparing
for and conducting the 2020 primary election(s) during the pandemic?
Number of state election offices
Extremely helpful 1
Very helpful 10
Moderately helpful 7
Somewhat helpful 10
Not at all helpful 6
Not applicable 5
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 133 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Table 41: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 26
Overall, how helpful, if at all, would you say EAC information resources and guidance were for your state election office in preparing
for and conducting the 2020 general election during the pandemic?
Number of state election offices
Extremely helpful 1
Very helpful 9
Moderately helpful 9
Somewhat helpful 9
Not at all helpful 7
Not applicable 8
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Table 42: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 27
Did your state election office request technical assistance or additional guidance from the EAC in response to the pandemic during the
2020 primary or general elections?
Number of state election offices
Yes 10
No 30
Don’t know 3
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Table 43: Responses to GAO 2021 State Election Office Survey Question 27 Part II
How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following aspects of the technical assistance or additional guidance that the EAC
provided in response to your request?
Very Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Very Not
satisfied satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied applicable
Timeliness 6 1 1 1 0 0
Quality 7 0 0 1 0 0
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 state election office survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 134 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix II: Results of GAO’s 2021 State
Election Office Survey
Additional Comments and Survey Contact
Question 28 (open-ended question): If you have any additional comments
concerning any of the topics covered in this questionnaire, please use the
space below.
Question 29 (open-ended question): What is the name, title, telephone
number, and e-mail address of the primary person completing this
questionnaire so that we may contact you if we need to clarify any
responses?
Page 135 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s
2021 Local Election Jurisdiction
Survey
We conducted a web-based survey of officials from a stratified sample of
829 local election jurisdictions nationwide to obtain information on (1) the
steps local jurisdictions took to prepare for and conduct elections in 2020
during the pandemic, and what reported challenges officials faced, (2)
how local jurisdictions reported using CARES Act grant funding,1 and
what challenges they reported facing, and (3) what U.S. Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) resources and guidance local jurisdictions
used during the pandemic and their perspectives on such assistance. In
total, 407 local jurisdictions responded to our survey, for a weighted
response rate of 47 percent. Our survey was composed of closed-ended
and open-ended questions. In this appendix, we include all survey
questions and results of responses to the closed-ended questions. We do
not provide information on responses provided to open-ended questions
that required manually entered text responses.
The tables below represent the estimated percentages of the jurisdictions’
responses to the closed-ended questions. The estimates we report are
rounded to the nearest percentage point and are national-level estimates
representing the experiences, views, and opinions of all local jurisdictions
nationwide. Because our estimates are from a generalizable sample, we
express our confidence in the precision of our particular estimates as 95
percent confidence intervals, which are also provided in the tables. For a
more detailed discussion of our methodology, see appendix I.
Background
Table 44: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 1
Did your local jurisdiction conduct a primary election—either a presidential preference primary or a primary for congressional offices—
on or after March 13, 2020 when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared?
1See Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 530 (2020).
Page 136 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Estimated percentage of local 95 percent confidence 95 percent confidence
election jurisdictions interval—lower bound interval—upper bound
Yes 89 85 92
No 11 8 15
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Absentee/Mail Voting
Table 45: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 2
Prior to the 2020 election(s), did your local jurisdiction use an all vote-by-mail system (i.e., send a mail ballot to all registered or active
registered voters)?
Estimated percentage of local 95 percent confidence 95 percent confidence
election jurisdictions interval—lower bound interval—upper bound
Yes 7 4 11
No 93 89 96
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Table 46: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 3
Did your local jurisdiction take any of the following steps in relation to absentee/mail voting for either the 2020 primary election(s) or
the 2020 general election?
For each step, we are interested in the activities your office (not your state election office) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Used United States Postal 57 26 11 6
Service election mail guidance (51, 63) (20, 31) (7, 15) (4, 10)
or resources
b. Consulted with vendors 21 61 12 6
regarding absentee/mail voting (17, 26) (55, 66) (8, 17) (3, 9)
c. Worked with experts—such 17 64 14 5
as academics, nonprofits, (13, 22) (58, 70) (10, 18) (3, 8)
election administration
associations, or other election
jurisdictions—to revise
absentee/mail ballot or envelope
designs
Page 137 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
d. Consulted with experts about 34 51 10 5
absentee/mail voting processes (28, 39) (45, 57) (6, 14) (3, 9)
procedures, strategies, and
policies
e. Purchased prepaid postage 39 47 10 3
for voters to return completed (33, 45) (41, 53) (7, 15) (1, 6)
absentee/mail ballots
f. Assigned staff to review voter 37 38 21 4
registration rolls prior to sending (32, 43) (32, 44) (16, 26) (2, 7)
absentee/mail ballot request
forms
g. Assigned staff to review voter 46 31 19 4
registration rolls prior to sending (40, 52) (26, 37) (14, 24) (2, 7)
absentee/mail ballots
h. Set up a system to allow 33 43 22 3
voters to track the status of their (27, 38) (37, 49) (17, 27) (1, 6)
absentee/mail ballots
i. Installed ballot drop boxes 50 39 9 2
(44, 56) (33, 45) (6, 14) (1, 4)
j. Installed cameras or other 23 53 20 4
security mechanisms to protect (19, 28) (47, 59) (15, 25) (2, 7)
ballot drop boxes
k. Purchased equipment to 26 63 9 1
process or tabulate (21, 32) (58, 69) (5, 13) (0, 4)
absentee/mail ballots, such as
automatic letter openers
l. Reconfigured space or 72 19 8 1
arranged for additional space to (66, 77) (14, 24) (5, 13) (0, 4)
facilitate social distancing while
processing absentee/mail ballots
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate.
Page 138 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 47: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 4
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to
absentee/mail voting?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Increased 28 19 22 10 11 9 1
volume of (22, 34) (15, 24) (16, 27) (6, 14) (7, 16) (6, 14) (0, 3)
absentee/mail
voting
b. Lack of access 1 1 6 8 47 36 2
to reliable vendors (0, 4) (0, 2) (4, 10) (5, 12) (40, 53) (29, 42) (0, 3)
or suppliers
c. Lack of clear 6 9 13 11 42 17 1
guidance from (3, 9) (5, 14) (8, 18) (8, 16) (36, 49) (13, 23) (0, 3)
state election
officials on
absentee/mail
voting
d. Insufficient 4 11 13 15 37 18 2
funding for (2, 7) (7, 16) (9, 18) (11, 21) (31, 43) (13, 24) (1, 5)
absentee/mail
voting
e. Changes made 16 15 18 12 20 14 4
to state (12, 22) (11, 20) (13, 24) (8, 16) (15, 26) (10, 20) (2, 8)
absentee/mail
voting process as
a result of
legislation or court
orders
f. Printing more 11 13 15 11 23 26 2
absentee/mail (8, 16) (9, 18) (10, 20) (7, 16) (17, 28) (20, 31) (1, 4)
ballots than usual
g. Lack of a 11 11 11 21 32 15 0
sufficient number (7, 15) (7, 15) (7, 15) (16, 26) (26, 38) (10, 20) (0, 2)
of election
workers
h. Lack of 9 9 12 18 37 15 0
experienced (5, 14) (6, 13) (9, 17) (13, 23) (31, 43) (11, 21) (0, 2)
election workers
Page 139 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
i. Insufficient 2 7 11 14 48 18 1
storage space for (1, 4) (4, 11) (7, 15) (10, 20) (41, 54) (13, 24) (0, 2)
absentee/mail
ballots
j. Insufficient 2 5 14 14 49 17 0
space for (1, 4) (3, 8) (9, 19) (10, 19) (42, 55) (12, 23) (0, 2)
absentee/mail
ballot processing
k. Other 4 0 1 0 18 64 14
(1, 8) (0, 3) (0, 5) (0, 2) (11, 26) (55, 72) (9, 20)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Page 140 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 48: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 5
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 general election in relation to
absentee/mail voting?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Increased 27 23 19 11 11 7 2
volume of (21, 32) (18, 27) (14, 24) (8, 16) (8, 16) (4, 12) (1, 5)
absentee/mail
voting
b. Lack of access 1 2 6 7 47 33 3
to reliable vendors (0, 2) (1, 4) (4, 10) (4, 10) (41, 53) (28, 39) (1, 6)
or suppliers
c. Lack of clear 4 8 12 15 42 17 2
guidance from (2, 7) (5, 13) (9, 17) (11, 19) (36, 48) (12, 22) (1, 4)
state election
officials on
absentee/mail
voting
d. Insufficient 6 8 15 16 35 19 2
funding for (3, 9) (5, 12) (11, 20) (11, 21) (29, 40) (14, 24) (1, 4)
absentee/mail
voting
e. Changes made 14 12 18 15 21 15 5
to state (10, 19) (8, 16) (13, 23) (11, 20) (16, 25) (10, 20) (3, 9)
absentee/mail
voting process as
a result of
legislation or court
orders
f. Printing more 10 14 12 12 25 24 3
absentee/mail (7, 14) (10, 20) (8, 16) (9, 17) (20, 30) (18, 29) (1, 5)
ballots than usual
g. Lack of a 10 8 14 19 36 11 1
sufficient number (7, 15) (5, 12) (10, 19) (14, 24) (30, 42) (8, 16) (0, 4)
of election
workers
h. Lack of 9 9 13 21 34 12 1
experienced (6, 13) (6, 12) (10, 18) (16, 26) (28, 40) (8, 17) (0, 4)
election workers
Page 141 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
i. Insufficient 5 10 8 12 48 16 1
storage space for (3, 7) (7, 15) (6, 12) (9, 16) (42, 54) (11, 21) (0, 4)
absentee/mail
ballots
j. Insufficient 4 10 10 11 50 15 1
space for (2, 6) (6, 14) (7, 14) (8, 15) (44, 56) (10, 20) (0, 4)
absentee/mail
ballot processing
k. Other 3 0 0 1 15 65 15
(1, 7) (0, 3) (0, 3) (0, 3) (10, 23) (57, 73) (10, 21)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
InPerson Voting
Table 49: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 6
Did your local jurisdiction take any of the following steps in relation to in-person voting for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the
2020 general election?
For each step, we are interested in the activities your office (not your state election office) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
We will ask in a later section about steps your office took to obtain specific election supplies, such as personal protective
equipment (PPE).
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Coordinated with state, 55 38 4 3
regional, or local emergency (49, 61) (32, 44) (2, 7) (1, 6)
management agencies about in-
person voting
b. Coordinated with state, 56 37 4 3
regional, or local public health (50, 62) (31, 43) (2, 6) (1, 7)
agencies about in-person voting
c. Consulted with vendors 18 60 19 3
regarding in-person voting (14, 23) (54, 66) (14, 24) (1, 6)
d. Consulted with experts—such 37 49 9 5
as academics, nonprofits, (31, 43) (43, 55) (6, 13) (2, 8)
election administration
associations, or other election
jurisdictions—about in-person
voting
Page 142 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
e. Improved ventilation or air 28 60 9 3
quality at voting locations (22, 33) (54, 66) (6, 13) (2, 7)
f. Modified or reconfigured 88 9 2 1
voting locations to facilitate (83, 91) (6, 13) (1, 5) (0, 4)
social distancing
g. Added new polling locations 14 79 6 1
or vote centers (11, 18) (74, 83) (4, 10) (0, 4)
h. Held in-person voting at 8 84 7 1
sports arenas or other large (5, 11) (80, 88) (4, 10) (0, 4)
venues
i. Installed signs or other 92 5 2 1
reminders for voters and (88, 95) (2, 8) (1, 4) (0, 4)
election workers to socially
distance
j. Provided personal protective 94 3 2 1
equipment, such as masks or (90, 97) (1, 6) (1, 4) (0, 4)
face shields, for voters and/or
election workers
k. Installed physical barriers 79 18 2 1
between voters and/or election (74, 84) (13, 23) (1, 4) (0, 4)
workers
l. Restricted the number of 71 24 3 1
people allowed inside voting (66, 77) (19, 29) (2, 6) (0, 4)
locations at any one time
m. Estimated the number of 46 30 23 1
people allowed inside voting (40, 52) (24, 36) (18, 28) (0, 4)
locations at any one time
n. Used a ticketing or 2 87 10 1
reservation system to manage (1, 5) (82, 91) (6, 14) (0, 4)
lines at voting locations
o. Gave voters more 38 49 11 1
opportunities for early in-person (33, 44) (43, 55) (7, 15) (0, 4)
voting
p. Provided voters with more 49 44 5 1
opportunities for curbside or (43, 56) (38, 50) (3, 8) (0, 4)
drive-through voting
q. Prepared alternative in- 52 34 10 3
person voting options for voters (46, 58) (28, 40) (7, 15) (1, 7)
with COVID-19 or COVID-19
symptoms
r. Cleaned and disinfected 94 5 1 1
voting locations following the (90, 96) (2, 8) (0, 3) (0, 2)
primary election(s) or general
election
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate.
Page 143 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 50: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 7
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to in-
person voting?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
We will ask in a later section about challenges related to election supplies, such as personal protective equipment (PPE).
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of 1 2 5 11 56 22 2
access to (0, 4) (1, 5) (3, 9) (7, 15) (50, 63) (16, 27) (1, 5)
reliable vendors
or suppliers
b. Lack of clear 4 9 8 18 52 9 1
guidance from (2, 8) (5, 13) (5, 12) (13, 23) (46, 59) (6, 14) (0, 3)
state election
officials
regarding in-
person voting
c. Insufficient 4 6 13 11 54 11 1
funding for in- (2, 7) (3, 10) (9, 19) (8, 16) (47, 60) (7, 15) (0, 4)
person voting
d. Changes 11 7 15 18 33 13 3
made to state in- (7, 16) (4, 11) (10, 20) (13, 23) (27, 39) (9, 18) (1, 6)
person voting
process as a
result of
legislation or
court orders
e. Lack of a 6 11 10 20 46 6 1
sufficient (4, 9) (7, 16) (6, 14) (15, 26) (40, 53) (4, 10) (0, 4)
number of
election workers
f. Lack of 7 8 10 22 45 6 1
experienced (4, 11) (5, 12) (7, 15) (17, 28) (39, 52) (3, 9) (0, 4)
election workers
g. Lack or loss 2 2 2 5 53 35 1
of in-person (1, 4) (1, 4) (1, 5) (3, 7) (47, 60) (29, 41) (0, 4)
voting locations
Page 144 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
h. In-person 2 3 9 16 53 16 1
voting locations (1, 4) (1, 6) (5, 13) (11, 21) (47, 60) (12, 22) (0, 4)
were not large
enough to
facilitate social
distancing
i. Long wait 2 4 8 16 57 12 1
times and/or (1, 4) (2, 7) (4, 12) (12, 21) (50, 63) (9, 17) (0, 4)
lines at in-
person voting
locations
j. Voters did not 2 3 10 18 54 12 1
take precautions (1, 5) (1, 7) (6, 14) (13, 23) (48, 61) (8, 16) (0, 4)
to reduce
COVID-19
transmission at
voting locations
k. Election 0 1 1 7 74 14 1
workers did not (0, 2) (0, 5) (0, 2) (4, 11) (69, 80) (10, 19) (0, 4)
take precautions
to reduce
COVID-19
transmission at
voting locations
l. Other 2 0 0 1 25 60 11
(0, 5) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 5) (18, 34) (51, 69) (7, 18)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Page 145 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 51: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 8
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 general election in relation to in-
person voting?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
We will ask in a later section about challenges related to election supplies, such as personal protective equipment (PPE).
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of 1 0 8 11 60 17 2
access to (0, 3) (0, 2) (5, 13) (7, 16) (54, 66) (13, 23) (0, 4)
reliable vendors
or suppliers
b. Lack of clear 3 7 9 16 54 11 1
guidance from (1, 7) (4, 11) (6, 13) (11, 21) (47, 60) (7, 16) (0, 3)
state election
officials
regarding in-
person voting
c. Insufficient 4 6 10 15 53 11 1
funding for in- (2, 8) (3, 9) (6, 15) (11, 20) (47, 59) (7, 15) (0, 3)
person voting
d. Changes 10 7 17 14 35 13 4
made to state in- (6, 15) (5, 11) (12, 23) (10, 19) (29, 41) (9, 18) (2, 7)
person voting
process as a
result of
legislation or
court orders
e. Lack of a 7 8 11 27 41 7 0
sufficient (4, 10) (5, 11) (7, 15) (21, 33) (35, 47) (4, 11) (0, 2)
number of
election workers
f. Lack of 8 4 14 27 40 7 0
experienced (5, 12) (2, 6) (10, 19) (21, 33) (33, 46) (4, 11) (0, 2)
election workers
g. Lack or loss 1 2 2 6 58 31 1
of in-person (0, 3) (1, 4) (1, 4) (4, 9) (52, 65) (25, 37) (0, 2)
voting locations
h. In-person 2 5 7 17 53 16 1
voting locations (1, 4) (2, 8) (4, 11) (12, 22) (47, 60) (12, 21) (0, 2)
were not large
enough to
facilitate social
distancing
Page 146 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
i. Long wait 2 4 9 15 56 14 1
times and/or (1, 4) (2, 7) (5, 13) (11, 20) (50, 63) (10, 19) (0, 2)
lines at in-
person voting
locations
j. Voters did not 2 4 9 17 57 11 1
take precautions (0, 4) (2, 7) (6, 14) (13, 22) (50, 63) (7, 15) (0, 3)
to reduce
COVID-19
transmission at
voting locations
k. Election 0 1 1 5 76 15 1
workers did not (0, 2) (0, 4) (0, 2) (3, 9) (71, 81) (11, 20) (0, 2)
take precautions
to reduce
COVID-19
transmission at
voting locations
l. Other 2 0 0 1 25 63 9
(0, 6) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 4) (18, 35) (54, 72) (5, 15)
GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Election Supplies
Table 52: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 9
Did your local jurisdiction obtain the following election supplies for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the 2020 general election?
For each item, we are interested in the activities your office (not your state election office) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Personal protective equipment, such as 92 5 2 0
face shields or non-medical-grade masks, (88, 95) (3, 9) (1, 4) (0, 2)
for election workers
b. Medical-grade protective equipment, 43 55 2 1
such as N95 masks, for election workers (37, 48) (49, 61) (1, 4) (0, 2)
c. Hand sanitizer 93 4 2 0
(90, 96) (2, 8) (1, 4) (0, 2)
Page 147 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
d. Disinfectant wipes or other cleaning 96 2 2 0
supplies (93, 98) (1, 5) (1, 4) (0, 2)
e. Disposable shared objects, such as 82 15 2 0
pens or sample ballots (77, 86) (12, 20) (1, 5) (0, 2)
f. Signage or other reminders to 92 6 2 0
encourage social distancing among voters (88, 95) (3, 9) (1, 4) (0, 2)
and election workers
g. Physical barriers, such as plexiglass 78 19 2 0
(73, 83) (14, 24) (1, 5) (0, 2)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate.
Page 148 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 53: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 10
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to
obtaining election supplies?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of 1 4 9 12 57 14 3
access to (0, 4) (2, 7) (5, 14) (8, 17) (50, 64) (9, 19) (1, 7)
reliable vendors
or suppliers
b. Lack of clear 1 5 7 20 54 11 2
guidance from (0, 3) (3, 9) (4, 12) (14, 26) (47, 60) (7, 16) (1, 6)
your state
government
about supplies
c. Insufficient 3 3 10 17 56 9 2
funding for (1, 7) (2, 6) (6, 15) (12, 23) (49, 62) (6, 14) (1, 6)
supplies
d. Delays in the 4 8 8 16 51 10 2
delivery of (2, 8) (5, 13) (5, 13) (11, 21) (44, 58) (6, 15) (1, 6)
supplies
e. Difficulty 3 6 16 15 50 9 2
determining (1, 5) (3, 10) (11, 22) (10, 20) (43, 57) (5, 14) (1, 6)
what supplies
were needed
f. Supplies were 7 9 11 13 46 12 2
out of stock or (4, 11) (5, 15) (7, 16) (9, 18) (39, 52) (8, 17) (1, 6)
otherwise
unavailable
g. Other 0 1 0 3 26 60 10
(0, 4) (0, 5) (0, 2) (0, 9) (17, 35) (51, 70) (5, 17)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Page 149 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 54: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 11
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 general election in relation to
obtaining election supplies?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of 1 2 8 13 58 16 2
access to (0, 2) (1, 4) (5, 13) (9, 17) (52, 64) (12, 21) (1, 5)
reliable vendors
or suppliers
b. Lack of clear 2 4 8 15 60 9 1
guidance from (1, 4) (2, 7) (5, 12) (11, 19) (54, 66) (6, 14) (0, 4)
your state
government
about supplies
c. Insufficient 4 4 10 16 56 10 1
funding for (2, 7) (2, 7) (7, 14) (11, 21) (50, 62) (6, 14) (0, 4)
supplies
d. Delays in the 3 7 9 12 57 11 1
delivery of (1, 5) (4, 11) (6, 13) (8, 16) (51, 63) (7, 15) (0, 4)
supplies
e. Difficulty 1 5 12 16 57 9 1
determining (0, 3) (2, 8) (8, 17) (12, 21) (51, 63) (5, 13) (0, 4)
what supplies
were needed
f. Supplies were 4 6 11 15 51 13 1
out of stock or (2, 6) (3, 9) (7, 15) (11, 19) (45, 57) (9, 18) (0, 4)
otherwise
unavailable
g. Other 3 0 0 3 26 59 9
(1, 9) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 8) (19, 35) (50, 67) (5, 15)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Page 150 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Election Worker Recruitment
Table 55: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 12
Did your local election office take any of the following steps in relation to election worker recruitment for either the 2020 primary
election(s) or the 2020 general election?
For each step, we are interested in the activities your office (not your state election office) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Worked with schools, 23 65 9 2
businesses, charitable (19, 27) (60, 71) (6, 14) (1, 5)
organizations, or advocacy
groups to recruit election
workers
b. Recruited election workers 36 53 10 1
from populations that do not (30, 41) (47, 59) (7, 14) (0, 4)
usually volunteer, such as young
people
c. Recruited back-up election 71 21 6 2
workers in case others were (66, 77) (16, 26) (4, 10) (0, 4)
unable to work
d. Recruited election workers 5 84 9 3
with medical training to assist (3, 9) (79, 88) (6, 13) (1, 5)
voters with COVID-19
e. Offered incentives, such as 16 75 7 2
hazard pay, to election workers (13, 21) (70, 80) (4, 11) (0, 4)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate.
Page 151 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 56: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 13
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to
election worker recruitment?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 1 2 4 11 61 19 3
guidance (0, 2) (1, 5) (2, 8) (7, 15) (55, 67) (14, 24) (1, 5)
regarding
election worker
recruitment
from your state
government
b. Insufficient 3 3 6 12 60 15 2
funding for (1, 6) (1, 7) (3, 9) (8, 17) (53, 66) (10, 20) (1, 4)
election worker
recruitment
c. Difficulty 2 5 12 25 44 10 2
determining (1, 5) (3, 9) (8, 17) (20, 31) (37, 50) (6, 14) (0, 4)
how many
workers to
recruit
d. Potential 13 13 14 29 23 7 1
election (9, 18) (9, 18) (10, 19) (23, 35) (17, 29) (4, 11) (0, 3)
workers were
concerned
about
contracting
COVID-19
e. Other 1 0 0 1 21 63 15
(0, 4) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 3) (14, 29) (54, 71) (9, 23)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Page 152 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 57: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 14
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 general election in relation to
election worker recruitment?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Page 153 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 1 2 5 8 63 19 2
guidance (0, 2) (1, 5) (2, 8) (5, 12) (57, 68) (15, 24) (1, 5)
regarding
election worker
recruitment
from your state
government
b. Insufficient 3 4 7 14 55 16 1
funding for (2, 6) (2, 7) (4, 10) (10, 19) (48, 61) (12, 21) (0, 3)
election worker
recruitment
c. Difficulty 2 7 13 25 43 9 1
determining (1, 4) (4, 11) (9, 18) (19, 30) (37, 49) (6, 14) (0, 3)
how many
workers to
recruit
d. Potential 12 11 16 31 25 5 0
election (8, 16) (7, 15) (12, 21) (25, 36) (20, 31) (3, 9) (0, 2)
workers were
concerned
about
contracting
COVID-19
e. Other 1 0 0 2 23 61 12
(0, 4) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 7) (16, 31) (53, 70) (7, 20)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Election Worker Training
Table 58: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 15
Did your local election office take any of the following steps in relation to election worker training for either the 2020 primary
election(s) or the 2020 general election?
For each step, we are interested in the activities your office (not your state election office) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Page 154 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Trained election workers on 86 12 1 1
measures to protect themselves (82, 90) (8, 16) (0, 4) (0, 2)
from COVID-19
b. Trained election workers on 89 9 2 1
measures to reduce COVID-19 (84, 92) (5, 13) (1, 4) (0, 2)
transmission
c. Conducted some or all 48 45 6 1
election worker training online (42, 54) (39, 51) (3, 9) (0, 3)
d. Trained election workers in 82 10 7 1
socially-distanced settings (77, 87) (7, 14) (4, 11) (0, 2)
e. Trained more election 46 42 10 2
workers than usual to perform (40, 52) (36, 48) (6, 14) (1, 4)
tasks in relation to
absentee/mail voting
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate.
Page 155 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 59: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 16
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to
election worker training?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 4 2 5 12 61 14 2
guidance (2, 7) (0, 4) (2, 9) (8, 17) (55, 68) (10, 19) (1, 4)
regarding
election worker
training from
your state
government
b. Insufficient 4 1 7 12 59 15 2
funding for (2, 8) (0, 4) (4, 10) (8, 17) (53, 66) (10, 20) (1, 4)
election worker
training
c. Lack of 6 4 5 13 44 28 1
equipment to (4, 10) (2, 7) (2, 8) (8, 18) (37, 50) (22, 33) (0, 3)
conduct
election worker
training
remotely
d. Lack of 5 5 8 13 38 29 1
experience in (3, 8) (2, 8) (5, 13) (9, 18) (32, 45) (24, 35) (0, 3)
training election
workers
remotely
e. Lack of staff 3 6 6 11 56 17 1
to train election (2, 6) (3, 10) (3, 10) (7, 16) (49, 62) (13, 22) (0, 4)
workers
f. Inability to 3 5 5 6 57 22 2
obtain locations (1, 5) (3, 9) (2, 9) (4, 11) (50, 63) (17, 27) (1, 5)
for socially-
distanced in-
person training
g. Other 0 1 0 1 26 61 11
(0,2) (0, 4) (0, 2) (0, 4) (18, 36) (52, 70) (6, 18)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 156 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Table 60: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 17
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 general election in relation to
election worker training?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 3 2 6 9 65 13 1
guidance (1, 6) (1, 5) (4, 10) (6, 13) (60, 71) (9, 18) (0, 4)
regarding
election worker
training from
your state
government
b. Insufficient 4 4 3 13 59 15 1
funding for (2, 7) (2, 7) (2, 6) (9, 18) (53, 65) (11, 20) (0, 3)
election worker
training
c. Lack of 6 5 5 10 46 27 0
equipment to (3, 10) (3, 9) (3, 8) (7, 15) (40, 53) (21, 32) (0, 2)
conduct
election worker
training
remotely
d. Lack of 5 5 8 14 37 30 1
experience in (3, 8) (3, 8) (5, 12) (10, 19) (31, 43) (25, 35) (0, 3)
training election
workers
remotely
e. Lack of staff 4 6 7 11 54 18 1
to train election (2, 6) (3, 10) (4, 11) (7, 15) (48, 60) (13, 23) (0, 3)
workers
f. Inability to 4 4 5 6 59 21 1
obtain locations (2, 6) (2, 8) (3, 8) (4, 10) (53, 64) (16, 26) (0, 3)
for socially-
distanced in-
person training
g. Other 1 0 0 0 25 65 9
(0, 4) (0, 2) (0, 3) (0, 3) (18, 34) (56, 73) (5, 14)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Page 157 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Voter Education and Outreach
Table 61: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 18
Did your local election office take any of the following steps in relation to voter education and outreach for either the 2020 primary
election(s) or the 2020 general election?
For each step, we are interested in the activities your office (not your state election office) undertook in preparation for or in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic for either the 2020 primary election(s) or the general election.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Yes No Not applicable Don’t know
a. Provided information on your 63 20 16 1
local elections website to (57, 69) (15, 25) (12, 22) (0, 3)
educate voters about voting
policies and procedures
b. Used social media to educate 55 32 11 2
voters about voting policies and (49, 61) (26, 37) (8, 16) (1, 5)
procedures
c. Conducted an outreach 38 49 11 3
campaign using print, electronic, (32, 43) (43, 55) (7, 15) (1, 5)
or other media to educate voters
about voting policies and
procedures
d. Engaged with the news media 42 44 11 2
to educate voters about voting (37, 48) (38, 50) (8, 15) (1, 5)
policies and procedures
e. Held or attended meetings or 22 65 10 2
other events to educate voters (18, 27) (60, 71) (6, 14) (1, 5)
abut voting policies and
procedures
f. Worked with schools, 19 67 11 3
businesses, charitable (15, 23) (62, 73) (7, 15) (1, 5)
organizations, or advocacy
groups to educate voters about
voting policies and procedures
g. Answered questions about 92 2 4 1
voting policies and procedures (88, 96) (1, 5) (2, 8) (0, 3)
from people who contacted your
office
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate.
Page 158 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 62: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 19
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 primary election(s) in relation to
voter education and outreach?
For the purpose of this survey, please only include responses related to primary elections that occurred on or after March 13, 2020,
when the pandemic-related national emergency was declared.
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Lack of clear 3 5 7 14 55 14 2
guidance from (1, 6) (2, 9) (4, 11) (10, 20) (49, 62) (10, 19) (1, 5)
your state
government
regarding voter
education and
outreach
b. Managing the 2 2 5 11 40 37 3
logistics of (1, 4) (1, 4) (3, 9) (7, 16) (34, 46) (31, 43) (1, 5)
working with
outside
organizations
such as
businesses,
charitable
organizations,
advocacy groups,
clubs, or schools
c. Insufficient 3 5 8 10 48 24 3
funding for voter (1, 6) (2, 8) (5, 12) (7, 15) (41, 54) (18, 29) (1, 6)
education and
outreach
d. Insufficient staff 6 8 8 9 45 22 3
for voter (3, 9) (4, 12) (5, 13) (6, 13) (38, 51) (16, 27) (1, 5)
education and
outreach
e. False or 13 6 17 17 35 10 2
misleading (9, 18) (4, 9) (12, 23) (13, 23) (29, 41) (7, 14) (0, 5)
information about
the safety of
voting in-person
f. False or 10 4 12 15 47 11 2
misleading (6, 15) (2, 7) (8, 17) (10, 20) (40, 53) (7, 15) (0, 5)
information about
in-person voting
times, locations,
or requirements
Page 159 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
g. False or 23 11 17 14 24 9 2
misleading (18, 29) (8, 16) (12, 22) (10, 19) (19, 30) (5, 13) (0, 5)
information about
the security of
absentee/mail
voting
h. False or 16 9 14 18 31 10 2
misleading (12, 21) (6, 14) (10, 19) (13, 24) (25, 37) (7, 14) (0, 5)
information about
absentee/mail
voting deadlines
or requirements
i. Other 1 0 0 0 23 68 9
(0, 3) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (15, 32) (59, 77) (5, 14)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Page 160 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 63: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 20
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues for your local election office during the 2020 general election in relation to voter
education and outreach?
Please consider only those challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable Don’t know
a. Lack of clear 3 2 6 11 62 13 2
guidance from your (1, 5) (1, 5) (4, 10) (8, 16) (56, 68) (10, 18) (1, 5)
state government
regarding voter
education and outreach
b. Managing the 2 2 5 9 45 34 3
logistics of working with (1, 4) (1, 4) (3, 8) (7, 13) (39, 51) (28, 39) (1, 6)
outside organizations
such as businesses,
charitable
organizations, advocacy
groups, clubs, or
schools
c. Insufficient funding 4 6 6 12 48 22 3
for voter education and (2, 6) (3, 9) (3, 9) (8, 17) (42, 54) (17, 27) (1, 6)
outreach
d. Insufficient staff for 7 8 6 14 43 22 1
voter education and (4, 10) (4, 12) (4, 9) (9, 19) (37, 49) (17, 27) (0, 4)
outreach
e. False or misleading 15 10 14 22 29 9 2
information about the (11, 19) (7, 14) (10, 19) (17, 27) (23, 34) (6, 13) (1, 5)
safety of voting in-
person
f. False or misleading 11 7 15 16 39 9 2
information about in- (7, 15) (5, 11) (11, 20) (12, 22) (33, 45) (6, 13) (1, 5)
person voting times,
locations, or
requirements
g. False or misleading 29 15 12 12 24 7 2
information about the (23, 34) (10, 20) (8, 16) (9, 17) (18, 29) (4, 11) (1, 5)
security of
absentee/mail voting
h. False or misleading 19 12 17 14 27 9 2
information about (14, 24) (8, 17) (12, 22) (10, 19) (22,33) (6, 13) (1, 5)
absentee/mail voting
deadlines or
requirements
Page 161 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable Don’t know
i. Other 2 0 0 2 25 62 9
(0, 7) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 5) (17, 33) (54, 71) (5, 15)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
2020 Election Successes
Question 21 (open-ended question): In your view, what aspects of the
2020 primary election(s) and/or the 2020 general election in your
jurisdiction went particularly well?
CARES Act Grant Funds
Table 64: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 22
Did your local election office spend CARES Act grant funds on any of the following activities?
Estimated percentage of
local election jurisdictions
Activities Yes No Don’t know
Absentee/mail a. Securing additional locations for absentee/mail 6 88 6
voting ballot processing or storage (4, 10) (84, 92) (3, 9)
Absentee/mail b. Printing absente/mail ballot applications 20 72 8
voting (15, 26) (66, 77) (5, 12)
Absentee/mail c. Printing absentee/mail ballots 22 70 8
voting (17, 27) (64, 76) (5, 12)
Absentee/mail d. Printing envelopes for absentee/mail voting 30 62 8
voting (24, 36) (56, 68) (5, 12)
Absentee/mail e. Paying for postage to send absentee/mail ballot 31 60 8
voting applications (25, 37) (54, 66) (5, 13)
Absentee/mail f. Paying for postage to send absentee/mail ballots 42 51 7
voting (36, 48) (45, 57) (4, 11)
Absentee/mail g. Paying for prepaid postage for voters to return 29 64 7
voting completed absentee/mail ballots (23, 34) (58, 70) (4, 11)
Page 162 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Activities Yes No Don’t know
Absentee/mail h. Setting up an electronic system for tracking ballots 5 88 8
voting (2, 8) (83, 91) (5, 12)
Absentee/mail i. Purchasing drop boxes 27 67 6
voting (21, 32) (61, 73) (4, 10)
Absentee/mail j. Installing drop boxes 14 79 7
voting (10, 19) (74, 84) (4, 11)
Absentee/mail k. Hiring additional personnel to monitor drop boxes 3 90 7
voting (2, 6) (86, 93) (4, 11)
Absentee/mail l. Purchasing equipment for absentee/mail voting, 27 67 6
voting such as high-speed scanners, automatic mail sorters, (21, 32) (62, 73) (3, 10)
or automatic letter openers
Absentee/mail m. Reconfiguring election office space to 23 70 7
voting accommodate more staff and social distancing (18, 28) (64, 76) (4, 11)
In-person voting n. Securing additional locations for in-person voting 4 91 5
activities (2, 6) (87, 94) (3, 8)
In-person voting o. Purchasing personal protective equipment (PPE) 62 33 5
activities (56, 68) (27, 39) (3, 8)
In-person voting p. Purchasing hand sanitizer 58 37 5
activities (52, 64) (31, 43) (3, 9)
In-person voting q. Purchasing cleaning supplies 62 33 5
activities (56, 68) (27, 39) (3, 9)
In-person voting r. Purchasing physical barriers, such as plexiglass or 59 36 5
activities sneeze guards (53, 65) (30, 42) (3, 9)
In-person voting s. Purchasing signage to remind voters to socially 48 46 6
activities distance, such as floor markings (42, 54) (40, 52) (3, 9)
In-person voting t. Cleaning and disinfecting voting locations following 51 43 5
activities the primary or general elections (45, 57) (37, 49) (3, 9)
Office staff or u. Hiring additional election office staff 24 71 5
election worker (19, 29) (66, 77) (2, 8)
activities
Office staff or v. Recruiting election workers 15 79 6
election worker (11, 20) (74, 84) (3, 9)
activities
Office staff or w. Hiring additional election workers 34 61 5
election worker (28, 40) (55, 66) (3, 9)
activities
Office staff or x. Providing additional pay to election workers 25 70 6
election worker (19, 30) (64, 75) (3, 9)
activities
Office staff or y. Training election workers 27 67 6
election worker (21, 32) (61, 73) (4, 10)
activities
Page 163 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Activities Yes No Don’t know
Voter education z. Educating voters about their options for voting 19 73 7
and outreach (15, 24) (68, 78) (5, 11)
Voter education aa. Educating voters about policies and procedures 19 74 7
and outreach for in-person voting (14, 23) (69, 79) (4, 11)
Voter education ab. Educating voters about policies and procedures 18 75 7
and outreach for absentee/mail voting (13, 22) (70, 80) (5, 11)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate.
Question 22ac (open-ended question): If you spent CARES Act grant
funds on anything else, please describe those activities or purchases
here.
Table 65: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 23
How challenging, if at all, were the following issues relating to CARES Act grant funding and reporting for your local election office
during either the 2020 primary or general elections?
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
a. Obtaining 3 1 8 10 49 20 10
CARES Act (1, 6) (0, 2) (5, 12) (6, 14) (43, 55) (15, 25) (7, 14)
grant funds from
your state
government
b. Meeting the 1 1 4 5 23 47 20
20 percent (0, 4) (0, 3) (2, 8) (3, 9) (18, 28) (41, 53) (15, 24)
matching
requirement, if
local jurisdictions
were required to
fund the match
in your state
c. Determining 2 7 7 18 37 18 11
what (0, 4) (4, 12) (5, 11) (14, 23) (31, 43) (14, 23) (7, 14)
expenditures
were permissible
d. Categorizing 2 5 8 16 36 19 14
CARES Act (1, 6) (2, 8) (5, 12) (12, 21) (30, 42) (15, 24) (10, 18)
grant
expenditures for
reporting
purposes
Page 164 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Extremely Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all Not Don’t
challenging challenging challenging challenging challenging applicable know
e. Meeting 4 4 4 11 43 21 14
CARES Act (2, 8) (2, 7) (2, 7) (7, 15) (37, 49) (16, 26) (10, 18)
grant reporting
due dates
f. Other 3 0 1 0 20 62 13
(0, 9) (0, 1) (0, 5) (0, 3) (13, 28) (54, 71) (9, 19)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate. We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-
form text box.
Other Grants, Donations, and Assistance
Table 66: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 24
Did your local election office receive grants, donations, or any other form of financial or nonfinancial assistance from any of the
following sources for the purpose of conducting either the 2020 primary election(s) or the 2020 general election during the pandemic?
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Yes No Don’t know
a. Federal agencies, other than the Election Assistance 9 79 13
Commission (EAC, which distributed CARES grants to (6, 13) (74, 83) (9, 17)
states)
b. State agencies, other than your state election office 5 81 13
(3, 9) (77, 86) (9, 18)
c. Other local government agencies 8 81 11
(5, 11) (77, 86) (7, 16)
d. Universities, colleges, schools, or any other educational 1 91 8
institutions (0, 3) (87, 94) (5, 12)
e. Private businesses 2 89 9
(1, 4) (85, 92) (6, 13)
f. Private individuals 2 89 8
(1, 5) (85, 93) (5, 12)
g. The Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and/or the 26 65 9
Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) (21, 31) (59, 70) (6, 13)
h. Other nonprofit organizations 1 87 11
(0, 3) (83, 91) (8, 16)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate.
Page 165 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Information Resources and Guidance
Table 67: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 25
Did your local election office use EAC information resources or guidance on any of the following topics to administer elections during
the pandemic?
“EAC information resources and guidance” includes documents, instructional materials, webinars, video recordings, links to other
agency websites, and any other information made available by the Election Assistance Commission about conducting an election
during a pandemic.
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Yes No Don’t know
a. Absentee/mail voting 25 57 18
(20, 30) (51, 63) (13, 23)
b. In-person voting 26 57 17
(20, 31) (51, 63) (13, 22)
c. Election worker recruitment and training 18 64 18
(14, 23) (58, 69) (14, 24)
d. CARES Act grant funding 23 55 22
(18, 29) (49, 61) (17, 27)
e. Election security 26 57 17
(20, 31) (51, 63) (13, 22)
f. Other information posted on EAC’s 22 58 20
COVID-19 resources webpage (17, 27) (52, 64) (15, 24)
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the values for the 95 percent confidence intervals for the
estimate.
Table 68: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 26
If you answered “no” for any of the topics above, what were the main reasons your local election office did not use EAC’s information
resources or guidance to administer elections during the pandemic? Check all that apply.
Estimated percentage of local 95 percent confidence 95 percent confidence
election jurisdictions interval—lower bound interval—upper bound
I was not aware the resources of 37 31 42
guidance existed.
The resources or guidance were 2 1 5
not available in time to be helpful
for my purposes.
Page 166 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Estimated percentage of local 95 percent confidence 95 percent confidence
election jurisdictions interval—lower bound interval—upper bound
The resources or guidance were 2 1 5
not clearly written or presented.
The resources or guidance were 1 0 3
not available in a useful format.
The resources or guidance were 3 1 7
not relevant to the topics I was
interested in.
I did not need these resources or 36 30 42
guidance.
Other 4 3 7
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: We asked respondents who indicated “Other” to provide additional information in a free-form
text box.
Table 69: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 27
Overall, how helpful, if at all, would you say that EAC information resources and guidance were for your local election office in
preparing for and conducting the 2020 primary election during the pandemic?
Estimated percentage of local 95 percent confidence 95 percent confidence
election jurisdictions interval—lower bound interval—upper bound
Extremely helpful 3 1 7
Very helpful 10 6 14
Moderately helpful 10 6 15
Somewhat helpful 12 7 17
Not at all helpful 3 1 5
Not applicable 63 56 69
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 167 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 70: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 28
Overall, how helpful, if at all, would you say that EAC information resources and guidance were for your local election office in
preparing for and conducting the 2020 general election during the pandemic?
Estimated percentage of local 95 percent confidence 95 percent confidence
election jurisdictions interval—lower bound interval—upper bound
Extremely helpful 4 2 7
Very helpful 10 6 14
Moderately helpful 12 8 17
Somewhat helpful 12 8 16
Not at all helpful 3 1 6
Not applicable 60 54 66
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Table 71: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 29
Did your local election office request technical assistance or additional guidance from the EAC in response to the pandemic during the
2020 primary or general elections?
Estimated percentage of local 95 percent confidence 95 percent confidence
election jurisdictions interval—lower bound interval—upper bound
Yes 1 0 3
No 84 79 88
Do not know 15 11 20
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Page 168 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix III: Results of GAO’s 2021 Local
Election Jurisdiction Survey
Table 72: Responses to GAO 2021 Local Election Jurisdiction Survey Question 29 Part II
How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following aspects of the technical assistance or additional guidance that the EAC
provided in response to your request?
Estimated percentage of local election jurisdictions
Very Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Very Not
satisfied satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied applicable
Timeliness n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r
Quality n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r
Source: GAO analysis of 2021 local election jurisdiction survey results. | GAO-22-104731
Note: n/r indicates that we are not reporting the estimate because the maximum half-width of the
confidence interval is greater than 15 percentage points.
Additional Comments and Survey Contact
Question 30 (open-ended question): If you have any additional comments
concerning any of the topics covered in this questionnaire, please use the
space below.
Question 31 (open-ended question): What is the name, title, telephone
number, and e-mail address of the primary person completing this
questionnaire so that we may contact you if we need to clarify any
responses?
Page 169 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix IV: Additional Sources for Images
Appendix IV: Additional Sources
for Images
This appendix contains source information for images in this product
when such information was not listed adjacent to the image.
GAO.
GAO.
GAO.
GAO.
Page 170 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix IV: Additional Sources for Images
GAO.
Page 171 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Appendix V: GAO Contact and
Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Tom Jessor (Assistant Director),
Meghan Squires (Analyst-in-Charge), Carl Barden, Brad Crofford,
Benjamin Crossley, Susan Czachor, Aaron Gluck, Peter Haderlein,
Stephanie Heiken, Serena Lo, Amanda Miller, Jan Montgomery, Heidi
Nielsen, Kevin Reeves, and Jeff Tessin made key contributions to this
report.
(104731)
Page 172 GAO-22-104731 2020 Elections
GAO’s Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative
arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the
federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public
funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to
GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.
Order by Phone
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and
distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether
the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering
information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,
Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
Connect with GAO
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
Contact FraudNet:
Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Congressional Relations
A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, ClowersA@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington,
DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
Strategic Planning and External Liaison
Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
Washington, DC 20548
File and source
- File
- gao-22-104731.pdf
- Size
- 6,053,885 bytes
- SHA-256
- 9423d50ff3669d1c00711ac62acd05c5bb7bc01b83b7b1e2ca25bced14d127c9
- Our copy
- gao-22-104731.pdf
- Original
- www.gao.gov