VOTER INFORMATION WEBSITES STUDY
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Section 1: Understanding The Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Section 2: Common Voter Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Section 3: Preliminary Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Section 4: Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Section 5: Marketing And Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Section 6: Security And Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Section 7: Designing A Positive User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Section 8: Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A: Scope And Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix B: Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix C: Index Of Eac Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix D: List Of Websites Reviewed In This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1
Introduction
Section 245(a) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates that the U.S. Election Assis-
tance Commission (EAC) conduct a thorough study of issues and challenges presented by in-
corporating communications and Internet technologies. Section 245(a)(2)(C) indicates that the
EAC may investigate the impact that new communications or Internet technology systems in
the electoral process have on voter participation rates, voter education, and public accessibil-
ity. In addition, Section 241(b)(9) allows the EAC to periodically study election administration
issues, including methods of educating voters on all aspects of voter participation.
Since the 1990s, pioneers in the election community have utilized the Internet to post voter
and election information. Many of the approaches have produced impressive results and im-
portant insights, including making elections more efcient; but posting voter information on
the Internet may have unintended consequences as well.
Early election websites focused on providing static information about the election process,
voter registration, or election night results. Voters were often presented with a large amount of
information and were expected to lter out inapplicable information themselves – a sometimes
overwhelming task. As a result, these websites evolved from providing static election informa-
tion to presenting dynamic and customized information for and about an individual voter.
This study is based on a review of active voter information websites in the fall of 2005 through
2006, from which 71 sites were identied as voter information websites and selected for in-
depth analysis. Common functions of these websites were cataloged and quantied and pre-
sented to a panel of experts for discussion and review. The EAC’s goal in undertaking this study
is to provide guidelines that will assist election administrators in developing Voter Information
websites that best serve voters.
Deciding what information to provide and how to provide it is the most important step in
developing a voter information website because the information and method of delivery dene
the implementation process. The recommendations that follow outline key considerations that
can be referenced when election ofcials consider constructing a voter information website.
The suggestions can be used as a how-to guide to assist in developing new projects, or as a
reference point for established projects.
2
Summary of Findings
In interviews with election ofcials and the information technology (IT) professionals working
for election jurisdictions, some distinct patterns emerged in the development of voter informa-
tion websites. Projects that were developed with dedicated time and thoughtful consideration
stood out. Likewise, projects that came together as add-ons to existing sites rarely received
high marks. Many of the projects at the focus of this study were created as a result of use of the
Internet and associated technologies in daily operations. The development of computerized
voter registration lists and the software to maintain them, removed the barrier to creating a
database that a Voter Information website can query.
This change lent itself to the development of voter information websites that were primarily
voter registration look-ups. These provided election ofcials with state-wide access the basic
utilities for per-voter reporting required so that election ofcials could answer the basic ques-
tion, “Am I registered to vote?” from the authoritative database. A natural progression was to
provide voters with the ability to use their Web browser to answer the question themselves.
Several ofcials commented that voter information websites have reduced calls to the election
department on Election Day. Increase in trafc and frequency of lookups against the voter reg-
istration database were also cited as evidence of the popularity of the website. Many websites
that provided voter registration took the next step to provide voters with ballot information
specic to their jurisdiction. Those that did provide voters with information on candidates and
contests increased usage of their website.
As voter information websites progress from voter registration lookup to interactive sample
ballots, the complexity of the website and its relevance to the voting public increases. Growing
public acceptance of these websites as a main source of voter information increases demand
and raises expectations.
Additional features make a website more complex, and with complexity challenges that arise.
As websites become more popular, there are greater possible usability or privacy issues that
arise. A popular website can also strain under heavy usage during high-prole races, perfor-
mance issues can occur when election ofcials can least afford them, and planning is required
to anticipate spikes. Once voters have grown accustomed to the voter information website, and
have integrated it into the routine they follow at each election, election bureaus may have to
eld calls about uptime and availability.
Well designed and implemented websites can bring in many more users. More users mean
more voters will nd answers online. If a regular visit to the election jurisdiction’s website is
part of a voter’s routine, voters are more likely to assist in the maintenance of voter rolls by
checking their registration. A popular and informative voter information website can be an
invaluable tool for a jurisdiction to inform voters of changes to election procedures, voting
equipment, polling locations, and to encourage informed participation.
3
Section 1: Understanding the Audience
Overview
Understanding voters’ interests is critical to effectively communicating with the voting public.
A voter information website’s utility may be tied to successfully pairing the information elec-
tion administrators wish to distribute with information voters seek.
To better provide the most useful information, election administrators must understand the
different concerns and common interests of the audiences that use voter information websites.
Though some questions and concerns apply to all voters, there are concerns specic to subcate-
gories of users. Key audiences break into seven common constituencies: Six categories of voters
and two organizational categories.
The seven identied voter information website audiences to consider are:
Voters:
First-time voters
Infrequent voters
Consistent voters
Voters with special circumstances
UOCAVA voters
Absentee voters
Organizations:
Advocacy organizations and Campaigns
The Media
First-Time Voters
First-time voters require the whole gamut of election information, including any peculiarities
of the election or registration process (e.g. rst time voters must vote in person, etc.).
Infrequent Voters
Infrequent voters are generally unfamiliar with the election process, and may be concerned
that their inactivity will result in de-registration. This group of voters may need to be refreshed
on where to vote and whether or not they are still registered.
Voters with Special Circumstances
This group typically uses voter information websites to obtain contact information for local
election ofcials. Accordingly, it is always important for these voters to have easy access to
information like phone numbers, mailing addresses, and email addresses.
Consistent Voters
Because of their high interest in the voting process, consistent voters often rely on sources
other than ofcial voter information websites to obtain information on upcoming elections.
When consistent voters do use an information website, they are usually looking for additional
information about an election, such as proposals and sample ballots.
4
UOCAVA Voters
UOCAVA voters’ main concern is typically registration since these voters need to vote from
their last ofcial residence. In addition, UOCAVA voters need the ability to check sample ballot
information and look for additional candidate information that may not be available from an
overseas location. UOCAVA voters also have increased interest in the turnaround time for pro-
cessing absentee ballot applications. Consequently, this group of voters may nd utilities that
track absentee ballot processing very useful.
Absentee Voters
Absentee voters want to participate in the election but cannot do so in person on Election
Day. These voters need to know how to obtain and ll in an absentee ballot. Usually this can
be done with static information (footnote def). In-country absentee ballot voters are often
consistent voters, but because the absentee balloting process often takes place weeks before
major media coverage, many absentee ballot voters may vote with less detailed information
on the election. Absentee voters who hold their ballots until closer to the election greatly
benet from voter information websites that help them access local election information
from distant locations.
Voter information websites can also assist absentee voters through the ability to remotely
track the absentee ballot process, from application, to delivery, and nal processing in order to
quickly resolve postal or processing problems.
Organizations
Advocacy Organizations and Campaigns:
Advocacy organizations and campaigns typically seek information such as bulk registration
lists. Real-time access to such lists allows advocacy groups to verify new registrations as they
progress. Advocacy groups may also use voter information websites to verify individual voter
registrations—this study uncovered two websites that were specically created to screen for ir-
regularities in voter registrations.
1
/
2
Media:
Media outlets are generally eager to add voter information features to election coverage, but
they are hesitant to allow users to leave their own websites. The benet of partnering with me-
dia outlets is that it allows election administrators to reach a larger audience, but media outlets
may prefer to display data differently than election administrators.
1 “Voting in Memphis”, ( www.shelbynet.com/voting - organization’s main page, www.shelbynet.com/wcon-
nect/vhistle.htm - voter registration look-up page) was launched to check voter registration in three Tennessee
counties against death records (SSID conrmation).
2 “Sound Politics”, (www.soundpolitics.com - organization’s main page, www.soundpolitics.com/
voterlookup.html - voter registration look-up page) was launched with the intention of monitoring reported
inaccuracies in King County voter registration.
5
Section 2: Common Voter Concerns
Overview
After reviewing the websites listed in Appendix D, several voter questions consistently emerged
as important common voter concerns
3
:
• Am I registered to vote?
Where do I vote?
• Who/What is on the ballot?
• How do I use voting equipment?
•Did my vote count?
Am I registered to vote? Voter registration lookup:
The information returned by a voter registration lookup includes items located on a voter regis-
tration card, such as name, voting district, and party afliation. Some lookup tools also include
a history of attendance at the polls (but not a record of how they voted). Typically, a voter is
required to process a voter registration lookup before a voter information website can display
polling place location or sample ballots.
Where do I vote? Polling place lookup:
Some polling place lookup utilities link the address of a polling place to a public mapping ser-
vice such as Google Maps©, Yahoo! Maps© or MapQuest©. Several election departments also
reference maps generated by internal Geographic Information Systems (GIS) departments. Keep
in mind that an address search answers the question: “Where is the polling location near this ad-
dress?” The only way to answer the question where do I vote is to reference a voter registration le.
Who/What is on the ballot? Sample ballots:
A sample ballot presents voters with information that includes only those contests in which
the voter will vote. Sample ballots can either be displayed as web pages or as documents (e.g.
downloadable Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format). These documents and/or Web pages
represent the actual ballot style that the voter will see at the polling location.
Candidate Information:
There are three main ways to supply candidate information: (1) ofcial candidate statements
collected by election administrators, (2) links to ofcial candidate websites, and (3) links to
third-party information sites, such as the League of Women Voters.
Candidate Statements:
Collecting candidates’ statements allows voters equal access to candidate messages and pro-
vides a benet to candidates. As voter information websites become more widespread, it is
likely that candidates will welcome the opportunity to provide statements on such sites.
3 For purposes of this study, the question: “Who won?” was excluded because it does not require tying results to
a voter registration lookup utility.
6
Links to Candidates’ Ofcial Websites:
One concern about linking to a candidate’s website is that it may appear as though election
administrators are endorsing one candidate or another. However, this can be alleviated by
alerting users when a link takes them to an independent website.
Links to Third-Party Information:
Similar to linking to candidates’ ofcial websites, election administrators should clearly alert
users when they are being directed to websites hosted by third parties to avoid confusion con-
cerning endorsements.
Other Ballot-Related Information:
Many elections include initiatives, amendments, or referenda which are required to be worded
as they would appear if adopted. Consequently, they often include ofcial legal wording that
may pose a challenge to voters with low literacy levels. To help clarify what a legal clause means
or what effect it would have, voter information websites may want to provide links to explana-
tions of the ofcial language.
How do I use voting equipment?
Poll worker outreach and training campaigns are typically more effective tools for teaching vot-
ers how to use voting equipment than voter information websites. Voters commonly expect that
voting equipment is either self-explanatory or someone at the polling place will assist users.
Provisional Ballots: Did my vote count?
HAVA requires states to provide voters with provisional ballots in certain circumstances. When
elections are contested, one of the rst areas contenders target are provisional votes. Conse-
quently, it is advisable to create a utility where voters can verify that provisional ballots have
been counted.
7
Section 3: Preliminary Planning
Overview
Much of the information voters seek online is static and does not need to reference a database.
For example, voter registration forms, absentee voting procedures, election dates, and results
are critical components of election information websites, but they do not change over time and
are not specic to the voter. Adding information specic to voters requires consideration of
several factors that are not presented by static sites.
The rst step in creating a voter information website is to decide what information will be
posted on the site and how it will be displayed. The project outline for developing and imple-
menting a voter information website will vary depending on these factors and the amount of
information each site seeks to convey.
4
Recommendation 3.1: Answer the question “Am I registered to vote?”
This is one of the key questions voters ask on Election Day. Websites that do not attempt or are
currently unable to answer this question will have limited efcacy. In addition, failing to an-
swer this question may lead to third party organizations creating their own utilities to answer
the question, reducing election administrators’ ability to control accuracy.
Recommendation 3.2: Review legal considerations.
Consider relevant laws and administrative rules that pertain to public access to voter informa-
tion. If the law does not currently anticipate public access to voter information online, consult
with legal counsel and legislators during the planning stage to ensure continued compliance
with laws and rules.
Recommendation 3.3: Update voter records as often as possible.
Due to security concerns outlined in detail in Section 6: Security and Privacy, the registry of
record should not be exposed to the Internet. However, as a general rule to ensure accuracy,
online records should be updated as often as they are changed on the registry of record. The
frequency of updates will be dictated by volume, capacity, and proximity to Election Day. For
example, in a jurisdiction with Election Day registration, having pre-existing registrations on-
line on Election Day can greatly increase efciency and decrease duplicate records
Recommendation 3.4: Adopt a neutral voice.
The most useful voter information website is the one that is updated and maintained regularly
during the campaign season by election administrators themselves. Voter information websites
should be presented with a neutral voice, and should be absolutely free of candidate promotion.
4 This section assumes that the voter information website’s primary audience will be individual voters.
8
Recommendation 3.5: Use effective design principles.
Some of the websites reviewed in this study provided useful information, but the designs made
accessing information complicated.
5
A good website will present useful information in a simple
and consistent format. This area of planning may be enhanced through the use of an expert
consultant who can advise on industry standards. Further discussion on this subject can be
found in Section 5: Accessibility.
Recommendation 3.6: Contract out work as needed.
Depending on a jurisdiction’s resources, IT staff may not have the breadth of knowledge or
time to develop a web application internally. Reports from the websites studied indicated that
in-house development hours were not regularly documented, and some cost estimates were un-
der reported.
6
Deciding whether to contract out work also requires consideration of the avail-
ability of internal staff during peak website usage times.
Recommendation 3.7: Review contractors’ prior work.
Although voter information websites are a relatively new specialty, it may be useful to consult
experts when planning one. Some things to consider when selecting an expert are quality of
service, average time websites are inoperable, availability of technicians, cost, and quality of
work-product. For many of the websites reviewed in this study, election administrators and
internal IT staff worked in concert, so that administrative, technological, and legal concerns
could be integrated in the planning.
Recommendation 3.8: Consider commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and open source solutions.
None of the websites in this study used COTS or open source, but many used components of
each. Reviewing available options will help ensure that whatever design method adopted con-
forms to state policy goals.
Recommendation 3.9: Establish clear goals before development.
Determine the features of your voter information website during the planning process. Dene
your desired feature set before you begin development. Have a clear understanding of how
you’re going to collect the information necessary to build your voter information website before
dedicating resources or hiring contractors.
Recommendation 3.10: Inventory data sources.
Investigate current data sources and document their location, current le format, frequency
of updates, and duplication. This will allow election administrators to coordinate information
gathering and aggregating data from disparate sources.
5 City of Chicago website (prior to November 2006 revision).
6 Example of cost accounting challenges: CanIvote.org sponsored by the National Association of Secretaries
of State was widely reported at cost of under $10,000, but the actual cost accounting for the functionality of an
aggregated website like CanIvote.org requires acknowledgement of the costs of the systems that actually provide
the functionality. Although CanIVote.org can be advertised as “being able to provide registration information,”
its cost is the cost of creating a site that links to that service, not the service itself.
9
Recommendation 3.11: Plan for high capacity peaks.
Promoting a voter information website will increase the site’s popularity, especially as Election
Day approaches (See Section 5: Marketing and Promotion). Determine in advance if the band-
width currently available will accommodate increased activities immediately before, during,
and after Election Day. In addition, assess IT resources to enable emergent problems with the
website to be efciently resolved.
Recommendation 3.12: Consider intellectual property and copyright issues.
Research websites that provide the capabilities each jurisdiction wishes to implement and deter-
mine if any of the products currently online are patented, copyrighted, or licensed. Consult with
legal advisors to ensure compliance with applicable intellectual property and licensing laws.
Recommendation 3.13: Document project development and system functionality.
At each stage of user interface design, project planners should develop and document context-
sensitive helpful hints for users. Documenting this information will allow users to self-diagnose
problems with the interface and can also serve as technical guidelines for election call center
staff, who may be required to assist callers with the website. Documentation also serves to
inform potential future staff and contractors who may be hired after the voter information
website is developed.
Recommendation 3.14: Budget for development, hosting, capacity, and promotion.
It is important when planning a voter information website to account for all resources involved,
including production, design, bandwidth, maintenance, programming, data collection, and
staff hours. Costs associated with sites that initially start as add-ons to preexisting voter regis-
tration databases must take into account changes and maintenance to systems over time. Sites
that are built in-house should use time tracking tools to accurately assess staff hours involved.
Further, although outside contractors generally track their own hours, election jurisdictions
should also incorporate internal staff hours used to supplement contractor work.
In addition to planning and design costs, promotion can be a signicant cost. Creating a voter
information website and failing to promote it may leave it unused by the public. Investment in
a voter information website should include a promotion campaign. The more a voter informa-
tion website is promoted, the more voters will use it (correspondingly, it should be noted that
the more trafc a website receives, the more it will cost to host). General guidelines and promo-
tional considerations are discussed in Section 5: Marketing and Promotion of this report.
Recommendation 3.15: Track usage patterns.
Using site-monitoring tools to observe usage patters is an indispensable tool in keeping a voter
information website reective of voter concerns and relevant. For example, site-monitoring
tools can track how long users spend on each page, how they navigate the site, and how often
les are downloaded. These patterns can change over time, so continual monitoring is advisable.
10
Section 4: Features
Overview
The following list of features has been collected from various voter information websites across
the country.
7
The features listed below answer questions outlined in Section 2: COMMON
VOTER QUESTIONS.
8
Recommendation 4.1: Provide voters with the answer to the question “Where do I vote?”
Websites that do not attempt to answer “Where do I vote?” have limited efcacy and will result
in all voter questions concerning where to vote being routed to a state or local call center. In
addition, not answering this question on a voter information website may encourage third
party organizations to create their own websites, which can limit accuracy.
Keep in mind that an address search answers the question: “Where is the polling location near
this address?” The only way to answer the question where do I vote is to reference a voter
registration le. When answering this question, include the street address of the polling place.
Some voter les do not provide complete street addresses for polling locations. Websites built
on voter les that reference a polling location at a church or a school but do not include the
address can make it difcult to plot on a map. If polling places change frequently between elec-
tions and the information is not always available, inform voters when the information will be
available again.
Recommendation 4.2: Add map links to polling locations.
Maps are a useful addition to the polling location identication information provided to voters.
This is especially benecial to new residents and when polling places are somewhat obscure.
There are many competing services that provide great mapping services for free.
9
Recommendation 4.3: Do not provide voters with driving directions.
Driving directions pose a potential privacy and liability risk and could be an unnecessary dis-
traction. Voters wishing to access directions to polling place locations would be better served to
use dedicated mapping websites.
Recommendation 4.4: When including mapping programs, use the simplest versions
available.
Many of the websites reviewed in this study included mapping functions that did not seem
directly relevant to polling place location. For example, the ability to zoom in and out of a map
may not be necessary and could provide a distraction to voters looking for a general geographic
orientation. In addition, more features mean more potential for confusion and technical dif-
culties. The scale of polling place identication maps should be relatively consistent. Despite
7 See Appendix D for a list of websites reviewed in this study.
8 This section assumes that websites will reference an online voter registration le to answer the question, “Am
I registered to vote?”
9 Such as Google Maps© and Yahoo Maps©
11
features that may be available (zoom-in, city view, 3D, etc.) through state geographical in-
formation systems (GIS), highlighting map capabilities over functionality is unnecessary. Be
sensitive to avoid providing too much information or too many features.
Recommendation 4.5: Provide voters with a sample ballot.
A Sample ballot is the most signicant section of voter information website when measured
by the time a voter spends reviewing information online.
Polling location and registration data
can be reviewed quickly; however, sample ballots, especially if linked to additional reference
information, can take time to review. Jurisdictions contemplating a voter information website
should consider including sample ballot display functionality in its site.
Recommendation 4.6: Display sample ballots exactly as they will appear on Election Day.
Including information about races in multiple jurisdictions on a single sample ballot may con-
fuse voters. The goal should be to provide voters with an exact replica of what they will see on
Election Day. Voters can react negatively when presented with too much information
Recommendation 4.7: Link sample ballots to helpful information.
The most popular feature of the more mature voter information websites studied were “interac-
tive sample ballots.”
10
An interactive sample ballot is a ballot that has been tailored to a specic
voter, and provides links to additional information about candidates and proposals. In many
cases, these links are to pre-existing published non-partisan voter guides, but they can also be
links to campaign websites, campaign nance information and other non-partisan sources. The
few sites across the country that have built interactivity into sample ballots have tracked strong
user popularity.
Recommendation 4.8: Do not link to incumbent government websites on a voter guide.
Linking a sample ballot to an incumbent’s ofcial government-funded website may persuade
voters that election administrators are biased or that incumbents are using shared resources to
their benet.
Recommendation 4.9: Give voters the ability to track absentee ballots online.
A few voter information websites reviewed in this study included the ability to check the status
of an absentee ballot application.
11
The ability to follow the absentee ballot process is especially
critical to overseas and military voters.
Recommendation 4.10: Allow users to check the status of provisional ballots online.
The websites in this study were primarily focused on delivering voter-specic information prior
to an election. The ability to verify the status of a provisional ballot is one voter-specic post-
election function that few websites performed.
12
Given the provisions in HAVA that require
10 www.publius.org (1996-present)
11 Macomb County, MI: http://itasw0aep001.macombcountymi.gov/AbsenteeBallot/faces/SearchAbsentee.
jspx
12 State of Indiana: http://www.indianavoters.com/PublicSite/Public/PublicProvisional.aspx
12
notication of the status of a provisional ballot, voter information websites provide an easy so-
lution to communicating with voters concerning provisional ballots while lessening the burden
on election administrators.
Recommendation 4.11: Provide instructions for how to use voting equipment.
Providing information on how to use voting equipment is valuable when there are changes to
voting equipment. In addition, providing instructions allows new voters and voters new to the
jurisdiction with information that can help alleviate wait times on Election Day. In addition to
static les, (word, PDF), interactive examples and videos are good resources as well.
Recommendation 4.12: Post Election Day times and polling location hours prominently.
While a single election calendar can cover an entire voting population, do not miss any oppor-
tunity to remind voters of these important dates and times.
Recommendation 4.13: Provide other readily-available information neatly and in a logi-
cal manner.
This list of features is not exhaustive, and there have been many instances of other information
presented through a voter registry lookup, such as candidate specic campaign nance infor-
mation, and disability access. Present other information where it makes sense.
13
Section 5: Marketing and Promotion
Overview
There is a direct relationship between how much promotion a voter information website
receives and the capacity such a site has to accommodate immediately prior to Election Day.
In nearly every website studied that tracked usage patterns, basic voter usage remained consis-
tent, but a marked increase was noted on or around Election Day. Accordingly, election admin-
istrators must address the following issues:
1. How much will the website be promoted?
2. How much trafc should each jurisdiction anticipate?
In the course of reviewing websites for this study, two patterns emerged. First, voter information
websites were part of a larger outreach campaign, such as a public service announcement. The
other approach used the voter information website as the central point of distribution for elec-
tion information. The second approach likely maximizes trafc to voter information websites.
Recommendation 5.1: Consider different user audiences in promoting a voter informa-
tion website.
Understanding the audience of voter information websites is a key to the success of your voter
information website. See Section 1: UNDERSTANDING THE AUDIENCE Understanding the
Audience, for a breakdown of voter interest categories. There is limited demographic infor-
mation available concerning usage of voter information websites. However, general trends
showing the demographics of the users of the Internet indicate that Internet use shoots up in
younger Americans.
13
Recommendation 5.2: Repetition equals reinforcement.
The single most effective way to promote a voter information website is to reinforce the connection
between voter questions and relevant information on a jurisdiction’s voter information website.
Recommendation 5.3: Use traditional media to promote voter information websites.
While it is possible to advertise on the Internet, the same principles that apply to political
campaigns can help promote voter information websites. Traditional media- radio, television
and print advertising can be critical to increase awareness of your services and drive users to
your website.
Recommendation 5.4: Include your voter information website address on all voter out-
reach and election materials.
Any form of voter outreach by election ofcials and staff should include reference to a voter
information website. In addition, it is a good idea when giving interviews to mention the web-
site’s address whenever possible.
13 “… while total usage in the United States is now at 71.1% of the population, among those in the 16-24 age
group it is 90.8%.” from the UCLA World Internet Project (2004) http://www.international.ucla.edu/bcir/re-
search/article.asp?parentid=7488
14
Recommendation 5.5: Encourage election staff to direct voters to the voter information
website.
Encourage election staff (and Secretaries of State or chief election ofcials) to mention the
voter information website as a resource to anyone who asks for information. The amount of
trafc you get on the website will vary depending on how much you promote it and how effec-
tive your promotion is
Recommendation 5.6: Adjust your capacity to account for your promotion.
The amount of trafc on a voter information website will vary depending on how much pro-
motion it receives and how effective the promotion was. During peak times, voter informa-
tion websites can become inundated with users, while off-peak times may result in few users.
Election jurisdictions should plan to meet the high demand times as necessary, without taxing
resources too heavily during low demand times.
Recommendation 5.7: Identify and consider factors that may increase trafc.
Examples of some factors that may increase trafc are voting age population, popularity of the
Internet, and the presence of a college or university within a jurisdiction. As each jurisdiction is
different, election administrators should take into account who might be using the site and how
demographics may inuence usage.
Recommendation 5.8: Make voter information website addresses simple and easy to
remember.
Many states still have complicated Web addresses. This can be a problem when working a quick ref-
erence into an interview, or when a voter tries to recall a voter information website they’ve heard on
the radio. Whatever website address an election jurisdiction chooses should be easy to remember.
There is not enough empirical data to conclusively recommend for or against using a distinct
URL. There is an obvious communication advantage to “statevotes.com” over “www.state.
st.us/departments/elections/vote” but statevotes.com can also easily be confused with “stat-
evotes.org” which could be a website set up by spammers or spoofers. A “.gov” address may
help clarify ownership, but as a precaution, any site that uses domains other than .com address
should also purchase the corresponding .com and .org addresses. In order to avoid voters ac-
cessing incorrect or deliberately misleading information created by outside parties.
Recommendation 5.9: Build promotion around a single website address.
Some proposed models of voter information website design include modular components of
statewide systems that are available for use by local jurisdictions. While this allows local juris-
dictions exibility, exposures to multiple ofcial website addresses is also confusing.
Recommendation 5.10: Allow ofcial voter information websites to be used as a tool for
local voter outreach programs.
Don’t underestimate the value a voter information website can have for third party organiza-
tions preparing voters for elections, and the benet such partnerships may present to election
jurisdictions. A Web address that is shared across multiple jurisdictions can be especially use-
ful to third-party organizations that often operate in multiple jurisdictions.
15
Section 6: Security and Privacy
Overview
Voter information websites allow access to potentially sensitive information and should be
carefully constructed to avoid jeopardizing privacy voters or the integrity and security of the
records. Voter information can be compromised by falling into the wrong hands or by being
modied to the detriment of accuracy. This section is divided into a discussion of concerns of
the privacy of a voter and the security of the website.
The Privacy of an individual voter’s record sparked debate during workgroup discussions.
There are two schools of thought on the distribution of public information. Because voter regis-
tration records are public, it is legal to distribute this information without considering individ-
ual privacy. Still, few voters consider the rst name, last name, middle name, city of residence,
street address and birthday “public” information.
Privacy on the Internet is a high-prole concern in the public consciousness. The fear of
exposure to fraud and identity theft inhibits many people from supplying what appears to be
personal information.
A voter information website assumes a single voter as the target user. Website language was
directed at “you” the voter and the information supplied, registration status, polling locations,
disability access, sample ballots, etc, are intended to promote an efcient election day voting
experience. When voter information websites begin to combine purposes it is often at the peril
of a voter’s personal privacy and security.
In general, a succinct transaction seems to be the most secure and efcient method of distrib-
uting information about an individual voter. This approach requires voter information web-
sites to ask only for information absolutely needed to complete the request and return only the
information a voter absolutely needs. The total information exchanged on a voter information
website, input and output, should be as brief as possible, to protect the integrity of the election
and the interests of individual voters.
Recommendations in this section are followed by what is threatened in parenthesis.
6.1 EAC Recommendation: Do not expose the ofcial registry le to the Internet.
(ofcial voter registry le security)
Information that is available on the Internet is exposed to threats of tampering; computers ex-
posed to the Internet are exposed to denial of service attacks and the threat of intrusion. Create
a copy of your authoritative database to use for your voter information website and regularly
update it from the authoritative database. No one should ever be able to change a voter’s of-
cial status by compromising a website.
Security of a voter information website should be maintained and revisited over time. If a voter
information website is tampered with, a voter may receive inaccurate information. Regular
verication of the accuracy of the data in your exposed database is advised.
16
6.2 EAC Recommendation: Do not expose data to the Internet that is not used by your
voter information website. (unused registry data security)
This recommendation applies to the security of information that may be in the exposed regis-
try le, but not used in the online transaction. Sensitive data such as driver’s license numbers
shouldn’t be exposed on the Internet if they are not necessary to the function of the website,
and application developers should work to avoid using such information. When creating the
database that will be accessed online, unnecessary information should be removed completely,
not left in place.
6.3 EAC Recommendation: Avoid asking for too much information.
(online transaction security)
Online voter searches should be as efcient as possible. Determine and use the absolute mini-
mum amount of information necessary to accurately identify a voter record. Unnecessary infor-
mation uses resources. Consider the wasted time, computational cycles, database queries and
user attention it takes to input and process six data points for every voter if three will sufce.
Websites that ask for excessive information can deter usage for other reasons. If a website asks
too many question end users may avoid it because it seems onerous. Given the increase in iden-
tity related crime, users may also be apprehensive about divulging “personal
14
” information
over the Internet and asking for too much information may seem invasive to the user and deter
use. Election administrators should be judicious when asking for information. Even if infor-
mation is technically not private, it is not safe to assume that all voters consider their name, ad-
dress, and birth date open to anonymous online consumption as a matter of public record.
Asking for too much information poses another potential risk. While it seems logical that the
more information that can be veried, the greater the accuracy, the possibility exists that iden-
tity thieves could set out to collect information about a voter by creating a fake voter informa-
tion website.
15
6.4 EAC Recommendation: Review and comply with your jurisdiction’s security policies
on encrypting data. (online transaction security)
Review your web policies on passing data through an encrypted connection. When asked, many
of the web administrators cited that the information “was public anyway.” If a voter informa-
tion website limits the amount of data requested and granted, the necessity of encryption in
this context is arguable, but does not appear to be harmful.
14 In this case, information that is perceived as “personal” such as name address and birth date regardless or
ofcial public record status.
15 A theoretical fake website could be an exact duplicate of the ofcial site, but collects information a voter sub-
mits then indicate that “the database is unavailable please check back later.” If the ofcial government website
asks for rst name, last name, date of birth and zip code or unique voter ID (or middle name, address, social se-
curity number or driver’s license number) up front, before demonstrating any functionality voters could submit
signicant personal information before, if ever, they discover a scam.
17
6.5 EAC Recommendation: Make sure you know who is working with your voter information.
(web development security and individual voter privacy)
Chain of custody is important when dealing with voter registry data. Determine if you will use
contractors and who within your organization will spearhead the project. Establish clear bound-
aries between tasks required of your internal IT department and those of your contractors. Know
the chain of custody of your data. If contractors are going to be handling sensitive information,
make sure they understand the liability and have a proven track record of security. Review poli-
cies on the use of outsourced and overseas contractors when handling sensitive voter data.
6.6 EAC Recommendation: Use increased security if you set out to vet the voter registry
for accuracy, and avoid doing so at the expense of voter security.
(online transaction security and individual voter privacy)
This recommendation applies to the security of the online transaction and voter privacy. One
side of the privacy discussion contends that since voter registration information is public,
people are safer if they know that it is available. In addition, the integrity of the voter registra-
tion le is enhanced when voters can verify and correct information in the le. This perspec-
tive has additional weight when viewed through the lens of states that rely heavily on mail-in
balloting. Correct addresses in a mail-in ballot system may affect whether a voter receives a
ballot without soliciting one. Advocacy groups have also expressed interest in the publication of
addresses to aid in voter registration activities. Address verication required to maintain accu-
rate registration les should be conducted as securely as possible, separate from the ability to
verify registration on a voter information website. Unless effort has been made to authenticate
a user, it is impossible to keep information about voters in one locality from being accessible
everywhere. If a voter information website is designed to be a tool for vetting voter addresses to
increase accuracy, it can be at the expense of voter privacy.
Although this school of thought raises important and legitimate concerns, they are not neces-
sarily the provenance of voter information websites. Public access to voter records is necessary
as a check on the integrity of the election, but anonymous public access to all data in a record
is not necessary to prepare an individual voter for an election. Concern for the safety of vot-
ers through unregulated anonymous access to voter records is considerable, as is the potential
damage done by identity theft.
16
6.7 EAC Recommendation: Display as little information as possible about the voter - just
enough to answer the voter’s question.
(online transaction security and individual voter privacy)
A voter registration website should reveal as little as possible about individual voters. While a
voter information website can serve as a tool to check the accuracy of voter records, the public
right to inspect voter records can be achieved through ofcial documented request, and there-
fore does not need to be a primary design consideration.
16 “We have taken the approach that [information available online to the public] is for the functionality of
what you need to do to vote.” (David Tom, San Mateo County - June 2006 EAC Working Group meeting)
18
The goal of limiting disclosure is to provide the voter with accurate information while limiting
access to information useful to potential wrongdoers. Make sure you review your website to
determine if it poses a threat to voters, or the election process. The key to protecting voters and
the integrity of the election when creating a voter information website is to carefully review the
questions to be asked and the answers received.
6.8 EAC Recommendation: Avoid disclosing a voter’s birth date or current address.
(individual voter privacy and security)
A voter information website that displays a voter’s birth data or address can inadvertently
facilitate criminal activity because it is anonymous, and available anywhere, anytime. Although
voter addresses and birthdates are public, entering a government ofce and documenting a
request for an individual voter’s information is more involved and can be traced. Most voters
recognize if a polling location is near a current or former address, and can conrm “is this in
your neighborhood?” Allowing unfettered access to names, addresses and birth dates, is an
invitation to abuse them.
6.9 EAC Recommendation: Make sure your website is not a stalking tool.
(individual voter privacy and security)
A stalker uses any means available to locate a target, and an anonymously accessible online
voter registration le can be a valuable resource. Many states offer stalking victims the op-
tion to redact their personal information from publicly accessible registration lists
17
, but to use
these programs the voter must opt-in. Since individuals must be aware of potential threats
before they can request participation in a redaction program relying on this approach alone
leaves voter information exposed for anyone who does not know he or she has been targeted. It
is safer to avoid exposing address information.
6.10 EAC Recommendation: Review you website to make sure it is not useful for identity
theft. (individual voter privacy and security)
This recommendation applies to voter privacy and security. Every voter is a potential target of
identity theft at any time. Examine how much voter information is disclosed and hypotheti-
cally consider if an identity thief used your website, how much information could they obtain
and what could be done with it? Armed with a name, address and a birth date, a criminal could
easily pursue further information for purposes of obtaining nancial records or other informa-
tion. Name, address and birth date alone may not be sufcient to cause harm, they are starting
points for “phishing
18
” and “pretexting
19
,” or other social engineering schemes.
17 As in the “Safe at Home” Address Condentiality Program employed by several states
18 Fighting Back Against Identity Theft, US Federal Trade Commission: www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/
idtheft/consumers/about-identity-theft.html#Howdothievesstealanidentity
19 Fighting Back Against Identity Theft, US Federal Trade Commission: www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/
idtheft/consumers/pretexting.html
19
6.11 EAC Recommendation: Make sure your website does not facilitate election fraud.
(election security)
Anonymous access to the names, addresses and birth dates of infrequent voters could be the
basis for sophisticated Election Day fraud.
6.12 EAC Recommendation: Use implied information when possible.
(individual voter privacy and transaction security)
A valuable method of supplying information without exposing excess information is implied
information. Election authorities have all the information in a voter’s record so it is possible to
design website queries to leverage the information on le without divulging it. An example of
implied information: if a voter’s identity is conrmed and matches a registration record, that
voter’s polling location is displayed; if the voter’s identity does not match a registration record,
the voter is informed that he or she is not registered. The voter is never told explicitly that he
or she is registered, but may deduce from the result of a polling location search whether or not
that is the case. This approach can be described symbolically as:
if registered = true then display = polling location
if registered = false then display = not registered
The scenario: if registered = true then display = registered does not need to be displayed.
(Registered is a characteristic of a voter, whereas polling location is an independent data ob-
ject, generally considered “public” information.) Registration is implied, and by eliminating its
display, fewer characteristics of the actual voter are divulged, while the voter still has the neces-
sary information to vote.
In another example, data itself can be conrmed without exposure to the user. A jurisdiction’s
registrar’s ofce already possesses each voter’s name, address and birth date. An address can
be veried by the user supplying a street address number, rather than the site displaying the
entire address for the user to select. If the street numbers submitted match the registrar’s re-
cord, then the address can be veried:
if input = 12345 Street and record = 12345 Street then display = polling loca-
tion
if input = 12345 Street and record = 56789 Street then display = contact your
registrar
In this case the address record is validated and no additional information about the voter is
displayed to the user who inputs the data. There may be special circumstances that apply to
specic voters, such as a requirement to vote in person. Take care when displaying informa-
tion about voters. Depending on the sensitivity of the information, you may want to consider a
separate authenticated login.
20
6.13 EAC Recommendation: Avoid displaying information about more than one voter.
(individual voter privacy and transaction security)
The opposite of a limited disclosure approach might be termed a “multiple disclosure” ap-
proach. Multiple disclosures go beyond limited and full disclosures to expose information
about more than one voter per query. An example of this type of voter information website
implementation would be identifying all voters in residence at a specic address. The site
might request the input of an address and display information on the names of the registered
voters at the input address:
if input = 12345 Street then display = voter 1 name, voter 2 name, voter 3
name
Thus, a user in possession of only an address can nd information about multiple voters. An
entire apartment building could be exposed in such a case.
6.14 EAC Recommendation: Avoid using lists
(individual voter privacy and transaction security)
This recommendation applies to voter privacy and transaction security. There is no need to
expose more than one voter’s information to anyone using the site. Refer to the section in this
document on Privacy for more details.
Similarly, using a list to conrm a voter’s identity should be discouraged:
if input = John Smith then display = did you mean:
John Smith at 12345 Street in City X
John Smith at 56789 Street in City X
John Smith at 45678 Street in City Y
John Smith at 54321 Street in Town Z
Here, information for all John Smiths in this particular jurisdiction is exposed.
6.15 EAC Recommendation: Avoid information over-exposure. (individual voter privacy)
This recommendation applies to voter privacy and transaction security. Secondary clarication
prevents the need to manually lter multiple results. A secondary question like: “What city town
or village do you live in?” or “What is your middle initial?” can clarify a voter’s identity without
exposing it.
if input = John Smith then display = What city, town or village do you live in?
if input = City X and record = City X then display = polling location
if input = Town Z and record = City X then display = contact your registrar
21
6.16 EAC Recommendation: Avoid asking for obscure information.
(online transaction security)
This recommendation applies to transaction security. Sites can disrupt the ow of a smooth
user experience by asking for information outside of what is expected. Election administra-
tors should be careful to keep the information requested within the end user’s understanding
of the transaction. Requesting obscure information can be impractical for two reasons: if the
information requested is difcult to immediately recall, a user may get frustrated and stop. It is
not uncommon for sites to ask for a driver’s license number, zip+4 , voter ID, DMV ID, or even
a specially requested PIN personal identication number; however, doing so forces the user to
search for that information before they can obtain information they seek. You may only get one
chance at delivering information to a voter online; you don’t want to turn them away.
22
Section 7: Designing a Postive User Experience
Overview
Websites must take into account the ow of information from page to page—the “user experi-
ence”. A good user experience is critical to the success of a voter information website as it will
encourage repeat users and positive word-of-mouth advertisement. A positive user experience
is designed with the end-user in mind.
Poor design and complicated layout can deter usage. Common functions should be grouped
in high visibility locations, and more obscure or detailed information can be in lower prole
locations deeper into the site for committed users, or users seeking answers to very specic
questions. In general, simplicity is the key. Voter information Websites should use pictographic
artifacts wherever possible to avoid excessive reliance on text.
Crafting the user experience is one of the areas where outside design experts may be a valu-
able resource. There is also a wealth of user interface research available online, detailing good
design practices for page layout and navigation. Two U.S. Government sites that have already
addressed Web design and usability for government-related applications are the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services’ www.usability.gov and the General Services Administra-
tion’s www.webcontent.gov.
Recommendation 7.1: Move users quickly from general to specic information.
Move from the general to the specic in your information architecture. Different users will
access voter information websites for different reasons. It is imperative that voter informa-
tion websites move users quickly to the information they require so that users don’t navigate
elsewhere.
As an example, not every voter will be a rst time voter, so a voter information website should
avoid asking every visitor if they are a rst time voter. Most website users will not belong to
a specialized category, so emphasize these options as alternate branches off the main path a
voter will navigate through, not as obstacles. No one wants to ll out a detailed questionnaire
before they begin to use the system.
Recommendation 7.2: Employ industry standard graphic design principles and highlight
the most popular features.
Graphic design, layout and intuitive ow of the user experience are in their respective indus-
tries scientic disciplines. There are experts in the eld that can advise election jurisdictions
about the most effective way to display material. Awkward design and layout were very com-
mon among the websites studied. While there is no one standard format for voter informa-
tion websites, voters should easily see what information they will be able to access on a voter
information website.
Recommendation 7.3: Review design to ensure simplicity.
User interface design can take place parallel to the database and software development. The
key concern is whether or not information is logical and available where users expect it. Watch
23
people use the site – often small assumptions at this stage can result in major user frustration
in the end product. The user interface should be tested for use on multiple browser platforms
and operating systems. Usability testing should be run on static mock-ups of the website.
Recommendation 7.4: Use broad and simple language; link to legal detail as necessary.
Election laws can be complicated especially when every variable and scenario is fully docu-
mented. Voter information websites need only display broad concepts and do not need to be
presented in full legal detail. When complicated concepts are unavoidable, consider whether an
interactive narrated experience can help users navigate. For example:
Are you a rst time voter? YES > Are you a student? YES > Did you register in
person? etc.
Review the section on Accessibility in this document for a summary of reading comprehension
levels and simple, clear and accessible language.
Recommendation 7.5: Encourage voters with complex questions to contact election ad-
ministrators.
Even when a voter’s question cannot be anticipated, it is still possible to provide voters with the
means to ask those questions directly. Besides phone numbers, providing email addresses and
Web forms for voters to submit questions in their own words can assist election administrators
in effectively addressing voters’ needs.
Recommendation 7.6: Use clear and consistent menus and icons.
Graphic elements can assist with website legibility and usability. Development of a set of “com-
mon language icons” consistently used throughout the site, will contribute to users’ sense of
familiarity while researching information.
Recommendation 7.7: Use simple and recognizable visual language.
Decreasing text and emphasizing easily identiable graphics can help users establish where
and how to obtain information and/or move to the next step. Buttons or similar elements that
enact a behavior, such as visually depressing when clicked, enhance users’ understanding. An
excess of graphics, however, can slow response times considerably during peak usage. Where
graphics are not required for navigation or other essential uses, text-based alternatives should
also be made available. Also, all graphics should make use of alt text for compatibility with
speaking browsers (a Section 508 requirement).
Recommendation 7.8: Avoid excessive graphic design.
Poor or awkward design can be a hallmark of an underused website. Because election adminis-
trators cannot pre-determine what equipment is used to visit a voter information website, the
design and layout should be simple and readable by as many computer and software variations
as possible. Confusion or discomfort with voter information websites not only limits what the
voter gains by using the site, but may deter further use.
24
Recommendation 7.9: Use “Frequently Asked Questions.”
To address multiple scenarios without overwhelming voters, using “Frequently Asked Ques-
tions” pages and links that move from general questions (e.g. “Are you a rst-time voter?”, “Do
you have a drivers’ license or state ID?”) to more specic is helpful.
Recommendation 7.10: Avoid asking voters for information that is not readily-available.
Many people don’t have their driver’s license number or Zip +4 memorized, for example. Ask-
ing such questions may deter users from further navigating on a voter information website.
25
Section 8: Accessibility
Overview
Accessibility addresses compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It also
encompasses emerging technologies intended to enhance user experiences, designing clear
user interfaces, designing for people whose rst language isn’t English, and designing for
people with limited literacy or Internet experience. For example, voters who access the Internet
through a public library or community library may not have the permission or ability to install
special software or browser plug-ins such as Flash or Adobe Reader.
Recommendation 8.1: Establish Section 508 as a minimum requirement for usability.
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that federal agencies make their websites
accessible to persons with disabilities. Subpart B, 1194.22 of Section 508 sets out standards
for website compliance, which are located at: www.section508.gov. The United States Ac-
cess Board is the federal agency that developed the accessibility standards; a standards guide,
frequently asked questions, and other resources are available on the Board’s website at: www.
access-board.gov.
Although Section 508 dictates accessibility for users with disabilities, 508 requirements still
may not address usability for all users. Therefore, it is advisable that election jurisdictions im-
plement usability testing, which aims at designing the most practical and easy to use website.
Recommendation 8.2: Follow foreign language requirements for printed materials on the
website.
Many jurisdictions have signicant populations for whom English is a second language. In de-
signing a voter information website, election jurisdictions should apply federal, state, and local
laws regarding printed material translation equally to online content.
Recommendation 8.3: Ensure that content is written at a basic or intermediate literacy
level.
Functional literacy is measured in gradations by The National Assessment of Adult Literacy
(NAAL). NAAL was conducted in 2003 by the U.S. Department of Education to measure
English literacy in American adults.
20
The 500 point NAAL scoring system was separated into
four ranges: Below Basic, Basic, Intermediate and Procient. In 2003, the average Document
Literacy score for all adults fell within the Intermediate range. More resources are available at:
www.nces.ed.gov
Except where specic wording is legally required, written material should not exceed a stan-
dard appropriate for the Intermediate level. In addition, since roughly 1 in 5 adults read at the
Basic level and 1 in 7 read at Below Basic, use of “short, commonplace prose text” wherever
possible is appropriate.
20 The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) http://nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480.pdf
26
Recommendation 8.4: Ensure that website design encompasses users of below-average
Internet literacy.
To accommodate users who may not be familiar with the Internet or have regular access to it,
voter information websites should make user interfaces as open as possible so that access to
information does not require changes to browser settings or personalization. Voter information
websites should not require specic browsers, restrict usage by requiring specic software, or
depend on browser features such as cookies or JavaScript to operate properly.
Recommendation 8.5: Ensure compliance with new technologies when designing a voter
information website.
As access to the Internet continues to grow, users may access voter information websites from
PDAs or cell phones. Some of these other forms of access require new considerations such as
how their browsers render sites, and what sorts of input mechanisms they allow. Voter infor-
mation websites should plan for compatibility with different Internet-ready devices because
variously-sized display areas, limited input devices, and proprietary browsers will pose an
ongoing design challenge to voter information websites.
Recommendation 8.6: Use simple technologies.
To guarantee access to voters who use shared computers, limit the use of plug-in technologies
that require administrative privileges to install. In addition, election jurisdictions should limit
website features that require frequent browser upgrades or special software to operate cor-
rectly.
As an example, Adobe Reader is a common browser plug-in used to read Adobe PDF les, but
it may not be installed on every computer. If a sample ballot is presented only in PDF format
and a voter is using a shared computer without the appropriate software, he or she may not be
able to view the ballot. On the other hand, if a voter information database can provide a HTML
representation of the ballot, all users will be able to view the ballot.
Recommendation 8.7: Display pages in printer-friendly formats.
Printable sample ballots, legible maps of polling places, and short biographies or statements by
candidates (in districts where those are supplied) can be saved and/or printed by users who do
not have ready access to the Internet, increasing their efcacy. In addition, creating Web pages
in printer-friendly formats further allow third party organizations to help election jurisdictions
inform voters by passing out information directly from a voter information website.
Recommendation 8.8: Indicate polling location accessibility information.
Whenever possible, polling place information should include details about accessibility such as
identifying entrances with ramp access or where elevators are located.
27
Appendix A: Study Background and Methodology
HAVA Mandate
In June of 2005, staff at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) undertook a survey of
public access portals available online to determine trends in voter questions and what entities
were sponsoring online portals. The EAC found that there were several public access portals in
operation for the 2004 Presidential election. Sponsorship ranged from locally-based govern-
ments to the independent sector and private corporations. Many of the websites were found
to be duplicative, disorganized, and often erroneous. The EAC also found that voters primarily
wanted two questions answered on Election Day: (1) Am I registered? and (2) Where do I vote?
Section 245(a) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates that the U.S. Election Assis-
tance Commission (EAC) conduct a thorough study of issues and challenges presented by in-
corporating communications and Internet technologies. Section 245(a)(2)(C) indicates that the
EAC may investigate the impact that new communications or Internet technology systems in
the electoral process have on voter participation rates, voter education, and public accessibil-
ity. In addition, Section 241(b)(9) allows the EAC to periodically study election administration
issues, including methods of educating voters on all aspects voter participation.
To assist with collecting data, the EAC contracted Publius, a non-partisan non-prot organiza-
tion to organize and conduct a voter information website design study and workgroup. This
study is the aggregation of expert opinion at the time the study was conducted. It is ultimately
exploratory in nature. The recommendations contained herein outline the current develop-
ment, function and usefulness of voter information websites.
As election ofcials dene, rene, design and utilize the recommendations to build and main-
tain voter information websites a more accurate sense of the utility of the recommendations
presented and uncovered in this study. Field experience, combined with these initial reference
recommendations, and the emergence of controls should result in the possibility of a more
quantitative study in the future.
At some point, the time will come to revisit voter information website design and see how well
these recommendations hold up.
Overview:
Preliminary research was conducted online and over the phone. Findings were compiled and
presented to a panel of experts to spark comment and discussion. The resulting expert opinion
was reviewed and compiled to produce the recommendations in this document.
Online Research
In November 2005, the EAC began a comprehensive survey of voter information websites. This
study reviewed hundreds of election information websites from various jurisdictions across the
county. Seventy-one voter information websites
21
chosen for detailed study at a minimum could
21 Listed in Appendix D.
28
answer the question: “Am I registered to vote?” This distinction meant that the site itself had to
be able to reference a voter registration le in order to qualify for in-depth study.
From November 2005 through February 2006 the selected voter information websites were
reviewed and documented in three stages:
A thorough examination of information available online was categorized and distilled as discrete
answers to anticipated voter questions. These anticipated questions were categorized in order to
extrapolate the answer to the question: “What questions did the author of this website antici-
pate answering?” This extrapolated data was averaged across the studied websites and a distinct
pattern emerged that substantiated the initial survey research: “Am I registered to vote?” and
“Where do I vote?” were found to be the two most anticipated questions from voters.
New vectors were introduced to the aggregate data, focusing on the websites that offered the
most detailed information and those that had been in existence the longest. The goal was to see
what features may have been anticipated and which features had been added as service ex-
panded. Many of these features indicated that newer full-featured websites are already building
on the functionality of more established sites. Features of these more robust sites were catego-
rized and averaged, and the most common question extrapolated from feature-rich websites
was: “What is on the ballot?”
22
Finally, information delivery methods were categorized and averaged to understand how the
information was delivered, and extrapolate what concerns were considered in the develop-
ment of the delivery method. Categories were developed and delivery methodologies cataloged,
which resulted in the detailed study of privacy discussed in this document.
Phone Interviews
The study then conducted follow-up phone interviews with the election administrators re-
sponsible for the websites identied above to gather further data about the policy and political
motivations and execution of these projects. Administrators were asked a variety of questions,
such as:
• How did your project come into being?
• Was it done in house?
• What were the obstacles you encountered in setting up your site?
• What went right?
• What would you do differently?
• Do you have future plans for changing or expanding the site?
• How much did it cost to create the site?
• How popular is your site with your constituency?
• Many interviewees were asked other follow-up questions as new issues
emerged.
22 Publius, Washington State, King County Washington, Johnson County Kansas
29
As part of the study, the contractor requested detailed website log-le information. However,
few of the sites in the study could furnish log-le data, resulting in too few data to generate an
accurate sample.
General Development Path
Phone interviews with the administrators who were responsible for the voter information on
their websites revealed that there was no uniform path to voter information website develop-
ment. Some election jurisdictions developed their websites through supplementary riders to
their voter registration database development contracts. Some projects also started as add-on
functionality to a voter registration le that displayed more information than is recommended
in this study. Some of the most user-friendly voter information websites were done in-house, as
were some of the most unwieldy ones. Some election jurisdictions contracted out the develop-
ment of their websites while others hired consultants to assist in development, assessing user
experiences and marketing.
Project Conclusion
From April to June 2006, additional websites, many newly created for the 2006 midterm elec-
tion, were reviewed and added to the study. All 50 state election websites were reviewed for
changes at this time.
On June 27,
2006, the EAC hosted the voter information website design workgroup of technol-
ogy experts, election administrators, advocacy organizations and other stakeholders. Partici-
pants were presented with the results of the second research study. A number of discussions
that focused on voter education and website design resulted from that meeting and the re-
search study. Feedback and recommendations from that meeting have been documented and
are cited throughout this best practices document.
EAC Project Team:
Edgardo Cortés, Election Assistance Commission
Karen Lynn-Dyson, Election Assistance Commission
Tamar Nedzar, Election Assistance Commission
Publius Project Team:
Vincent M. Keenan, Primary Investigator, Author
Rebecca Houtman, Writer, Editor
Liese Hull, Writer, Editor
Additional Writers, Researchers, and Contributors
Kenneth Paulus, Publius
Alan Gutierrez, Think New Orleans
30
Conference Participants:
Edgardo Cortés, Election Assistance Commission
Karen Lynn-Dyson, Election Assistance Commission
Tamar Nedzar, Election Assistance Commission
Vince Keenan, Director, Publius, Voter Information Website Study Primary Investigator
Kenneth Paulus, Publius, Voter Information Website Conference Coordinator
Sherif Abushadi, Technical consultant
Erika Aust, Assistant Director, Ofce of the Secretary of State of Washington
Mark Backus, Network Security Engineer, CyberLogic Consulting
Julia Bauler, Ofce of the Secretary of State of Indiana
Jo-Anne Chasnow, Project Vote
Maria Delvalle-Koch, Division of Elections, State of New Jersey
Kathleen Demers, Institute of Politics, Harvard University
Bobbie Egan, King County, Washington
Jennifer Faison
Alan Gutierrez, Think New Orleans
Russell Kasselman, Ofce of the Secretary of State of Washington
Tia Nelis, Project Vote and University of Illinois-Chicago
Andy Rivera, Advancement Project
Ari Schwartz, Center for Democracy and Technology
Cindy Southworth, National Network to End Domestic Violence
Cheryl O’Donnell, National Field Director, National Network to End Domestic Violence
Janice Winfrey, City of Detroit, City Clerk
David Tom, Director of Elections, San Mateo County, California
Additional Reviewing Experts
Doug Chapin, Pew Center on the States
From July through September 2006, results for the research study and the workgroup comments
were reviewed and preliminary ndings were developed for presentation to the EAC. On Septem-
ber 21, the preliminary ndings were presented to the EAC at a public meeting in St. Louis.
23
The best practices nal report was compiled through October and November 2006, and revised
in early 2007. Online comments from workgroup participants were solicited and a third review
of all 50 state websites was also done at this time. EAC staff and Publius have worked together
to edit the document for nal release.
23 http://www.eac.gov/Public_Meeting_092106.asp
31
Appendix B: Denitions
Dynamic Data: Data that is tailored to the individual viewer based on the registration infor-
mation supplied. For example, dynamically generated ballots make use of a voter’s registration
information to provide a list of contests exclusive to the individual voter.
Examples of dynamic data include: (1) registration status, (2) polling place location on interac-
tive maps, (3) type of voting equipment specic to each polling place, (4) type of ballot used at
a specic polling place, (5) initiatives and amendments specic to each ballot, and (6) calen-
dars of upcoming elections.
Election Information Website: A website that provides information about elections and
the election process.
Static Data: Information displays that are the same for each viewer. For example, static voter
information websites display generic sample ballots that may or may not resemble the actual
ballot voters will see on Election Day.
Examples of static data include: (1) how to apply for an absentee ballot, (2) election dates, (3)
polling place hours of operation, (4) registration deadlines, (5) district maps and boundaries,
(6) how to become a poll worker, and (7) instructions and/or frequently asked questions.
Voter Information Website: A website that provides information specic to an individual
voter by referencing the current voter registration le. Voter information websites are distinct
from election information websites in that they utilize public access to ofcial voter registration
records.
Voter Registration Look-up Mechanism: A utility that determines a voter’s identity in
order to display voter-specic registration information. Such a utility may require that the
user enter identifying information; or information may be retrieved by drilling down through
several menus.
Voters with Special Circumstances: Voters with special circumstances include voters who
recently moved to a new jurisdiction, voters who have had their voting rights restored following
a felony, deceased voters, and voters with limited reading comprehension.
32
Appendix C: Index of EAC Advisories in this Document
The following are the EAC Recommendations that were presented in this document. Following
each recommendation is the page number where it can be found.
Preliminary Planning — Recommendations
3.1: Answer the question “Am I registered to vote?” (P.7)
3.2: Review legal considerations. (P.7)
3.3: Update voter records as often as possible. (P.7)
3.4: Adopt a neutral voice. (P.7)
3.5: Use effective design principles. (P.8)
3.6: Contract out work as needed. (P.8)
3.7: Review contractors’ prior work. (P.8)
3.8: Consider commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and open source solutions. (P.8)
3.9: Establish clear goals before development. (P.8)
3.10: Inventory data sources. (P.8)
3.11: Plan for high capacity peaks. (P.9)
3.12: Consider intellectual property and copyright issues. (P.9)
3.13: Document project development and system functionality. (P.9)
3.14: Budget for development, hosting, capacity, and promotion. (P.9)
3.15: Track usage patterns. (P.9)
Features – Recommendations
4.1: Provide voters with the answer to the question “Where do I vote?” (P.10)
4.2: Add map links to polling locations. (P.10)
4.3: Do not provide voters with driving directions. (P.10)
4.4: When including mapping programs, use the simplest versions available. (P.10)
4.5: Provide voters with a sample ballot. (P.11)
4.6: Display sample ballots exactly as they will appear on Election Day. (P.11)
4.7: Link sample ballots to helpful information. (P.11)
4.8: Do not link to incumbent government websites on a voter guide. (P.11)
4.9: Give voters the ability to track absentee ballots online. (P.11)
4.10: Allow users to check the status of provisional ballots online. (P.11)
4.11: Provide instructions for how to use voting equipment. (P.12)
4.12: Post Election Day times and polling location hours prominently. (P.12)
33
4.13: Provide other readily-available information neatly and in a logical manner. (P.12)
Marketing and Promotion - Recommendations
5.1: Consider different user audiences in promoting a voter information website. (P.13)
5.2: Repetition equals reinforcement. (P.13)
5.3: Use traditional media to promote voter information websites. (P.13)
5.4: Include your voter information website address on all voter outreach and election materials.
(P.13)
5.5: Encourage election staff to direct voters to the voter information website. (P.14)
5.6: Adjust your capacity to account for your promotion. (P.14)
5.7: Identify and consider factors that may increase trafc. (P.14)
5.8: Make voter information website addresses simple and easy to remember. (P.14)
5.9: Build promotion around a single website address. (P.14)
5.10: Allow ofcial voter information websites to be used as a tool for local voter outreach
programs. (P.14)
Security and Privacy - Recommendations
6.1: Do not expose the ofcial registry le to the Internet. (ofcial voter registry le security)
(P.15)
6.2: Do not expose data to the Internet that is not used by your voter information website.
(unused registry data security) (P.16)
6.3: Avoid asking for too much information. (online transaction security)(P.16)
6.4: Review and comply with your jurisdiction’s security policies on encrypting data. (online
transaction security) (P.16)
6.5: Make sure you know who is working with your voter information. (web development
security and individual voter privacy) (P.17)
6.6: Use increased security if you set out to vet the voter registry for accuracy, and avoid doing
so at the expense of voter security. (online transaction security and individual voter privacy)
(P.17)
6.7: Display as little information as possible about the voter - just enough to answer the voter’s
question. (online transaction security and individual voter privacy) (P.17)
6.8: Avoid disclosing a voter’s birth date or current address. (individual voter privacy and
security) (P.18)
6.9: Make sure your website is not a stalking tool. (P.18)
(individual voter privacy and security)
6.10: Review you website to make sure it does not facilitate identity theft. (individual voter
privacy and security)(P.18)
34
6.11: Make sure your website does not facilitate election fraud. (election security)(P.19)
6.12: Use implied information when possible. (individual voter privacy and transaction
security)(P.19)
6.13: Avoid displaying information about more than one voter. (individual voter privacy and
transaction security)(P.20)
6.14: Avoid using lists (individual voter privacy and transaction security) (P.20)
6.15: Avoid information over-exposure. (individual voter privacy) (P.20)
6.16: Avoid asking for obscure information. (online transaction security) (P.21)
Designing a Positive User Experience - Recommendations
7.1: Move users quickly from general to specic information. (P.22)
7.2: Employ industry standard graphic design principles and highlight the most popular features.
(P.22)
7.3: Review design to ensure simplicity. (P.22)
7.4: Use broad and simple language; link to legal detail as necessary. (P.23)
7.5: Encourage voters with complex questions to contact election administrators. (P.23)
7.6: Use clear and consistent menus and icons. (P.23)
7.7: Use simple and recognizable visual language. (P.23)
7.8: Avoid excessive graphic design. (P.23)
7.9: Use “Frequently Asked Questions.” (P.24)
7.10: Avoid asking voters for information that is not readily-available. (P.24)
Accessibility – Recommendations
8.1: Establish Section 508 as a minimum requirement for usability. (P.25)
8.2: Follow foreign language requirements for printed materials on the website. (P.25)
8.3: Ensure that content is written at a basic or intermediate literacy level. (P.25)
8.4: Ensure that website design encompasses users of below-average Internet literacy. (P.26)
8.5: Ensure compliance with new technologies when designing a voter information website.
(P.26)
8.6: Use simple technologies. (P.26)
8.7: Display pages in printer-friendly formats. (P.26)
8.8: Indicate polling location accessibility information. (P. 26)
35
Appendix D: List of Websites Reviewed in this Study
24
State Jurisdiction Website
Alabama Mobile County http://www.mobile-county.net/probate/
Arizona
Secretary of
State
https://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/select_
language.do
Arkansas
Secretary of
State
https://www.voterview.ar-nova.org/
Arkansas Pulaski County http://www.pulaskiclerk.com/
California
San Mateo
County
http://www.shapethefuture.org/voters/default.asp
California
Sacramento
County
http://www.pollingplacelookup.saccounty.net/
LookupPollingPlace_SearchByDOB.aspx
Colorado Adams County http://webapps.co.adams.co.us/ElcPoll/VoterSearch.cfm
Colorado Boulder County
http://www.co.boulder.co.us/webapps/voter_reg/
promptforname.html
Colorado El Paso County http://car.elpasoco.com/VoteRegQuery.asp
Colorado Larimer County
https://www.co.larimer.co.us/elections/voter_inquiry.
cfm
Colorado Weld County
https://www.co.weld.co.us/departments/clerkrecorder/
voter_lookup/index.cfm
Connecticut
Southington
County
http://registrars.southington.org/voterlist/voters.php
Connecticut Vernon County http://www.vernonelections.org/voterlookup.php
Delaware
Secretary of
State
https://registertovote.elections.delaware.gov/
VoterRegistration/controller?TransName=VOTERREG_
MAINMENU
District of
Columbia
Secretary of
State
http://www.dcboee.org/voterreg/vic_step1.asp
Georgia
Secretary of
State
http://www.sos.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/locator.asp
Illinois City of Rockford http://www.voterockford.com/voters/regStatus.aspx
Illinois DuPage County http://cms.dupageelections.com/pages.asp?pageid=984
24 Websites reviewed in this study were active as of the study dates: October 2005 through April 2007.
36
State Jurisdiction Website
Illinois Kane County
http://www.kanecountyelections.org/VoterInformation/
VoterInfo.asp
Illinois Lake County
http://www.co.lake.il.us/cntyclk/elections/
voterservices/regvoter.asp
Illinois
Vermilion
County
http://www.co.vermilion.il.us/ctyvoterReg.asp
Illinois Will County
https://www.willcountydata.com/voternewinquiry/voter_
lookup_input.htm
Illinois City of Chicago http://chicagoelections.com/voterinfo/default.aspx
Illinois
Champaign
County
https://www.champaigncountyclerk.com/elections/
registration_status.html
Illinois Cook County http://www.voterinfonet.com/sub/am_i_registered.asp
Illinois Madison County
http://app1.co.madison.il.us/CountyClerk/VoterPolling/
VoterRegistration.cfm
Indiana
Secretary of
State
http://www.indianavoters.com/PublicSite/Public/
PublicVoterRegistration.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupp
ort=1
Kansas
Secretary of
State
https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org
Kansas Johnson County http://voter.jocoelection.org/search.aspx
Kentucky
Secretary of
State
https://cdcbp.ky.gov/VICWeb/index.jsp
Louisiana
Secretary of
State
http://sos.louisiana.gov/polllocator
Maine
Secretary of
State
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/votreg.htm
Maine City of Portland http://www.portlandmaine.gov/voter/voterlook.asp
Maryland
Secretary of
State
http://mdelections.umbc.edu/voter_registration/v2/
vote_prod.php
Massachusetts City of Boston http://www.cityofboston.gov/elections/voter/
Michigan
Secretary of
State
https://www.michigan.gov/vote
37
State Jurisdiction Website
Michigan
Detroit http://detroitvoter.info
Michigan
Statewide Non-
Governmental
http://www.publius.org
Missouri Kansas City http://www.kceb.org/electioninfo/electioninfo.php
Montana Yellowstone
https://secure.co.yellowstone.mt.us/elections/secure/
rvoterinfo.asp
Nebraska
Secretary of
State
https://www.votercheck.necvr.ne.gov/
Nevada Clark County http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/election/home.asp
Nevada Washoe County http://www.co.washoe.nv.us/voters/regsearch.php
North
Carolina
Secretary of
State
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/votersearch/seimsvot.htm
North Dakota
Secretary of
State
http://www.nd.gov/sos/forms/pdf/votereg.pdf
Ohio
Secretary of
State
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sosapps/elections/
voterquery.aspx
Ohio Butler County
http://www.butlercountyelections.org/index.
cfm?page=voterSearch
Ohio Hancock County http://66.194.132.88/search.aspx
Ohio Warren County
http://www.co.warren.oh.us/bdelec/search/where_to_
vote/index.htm
Ohio Wood County http://www.co.wood.oh.us/boe/VoterSearch.htm
Ohio Franklin County http://www.co.franklin.oh.us/boe/apps/voter/index.asp
Ohio
Hamilton
County
http://www.hamilton-co.org/BOE/votersearchs.asp
Pennsylvania
Secretary of
State
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/voting/cwp/view.
asp?a=1206&Q=446253
Pennsylvania
Allegheny
County
http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/votedistricts/
Rhode Island
Secretary of
State
http://www.sec.state.ri.us/vic/
38
State Jurisdiction Website
South
Carolina
Secretary of
State
https://webprod.cio.sc.gov/SCSECVoterWeb/
voterInformationSearch.do
Tennessee City of Memphis http://www.shelbynet.com/wconnect/vhistle.htm
Texas
Montgomery
County
http://www.co.montgomery.tx.us/election/vrlookup.asp
Texas Collin County
http://www.collincountytexas.gov/elections/voter_
registration/voter_registration_card_voter.jsp
Texas Dallas County http://dalcoelections.org/voters.asp
Texas Denton County
http://elections.dentoncounty.com/
go.asp?Dept=82&Link=292
Texas
Fort Bend
County
http://vote.co.fort-bend.tx.us/WebVoter/default.asp
Texas Harris County http://www.harrisvotes.org/non_frames/geninfo.htm
Texas Midland County
http://www.co.midland.tx.us/elections/VoterDatabase/
input.asp
Texas Nueces County
http://www.co.nueces.tx.us/countyclerk/elections/
search/
Texas Tarrant County
http://inet.tarrantcounty.com:8010/ElectionCGI/
gac1fw1p
Texas Travis County http://www.traviscountytax.org/showVoterSearch.do
Utah Utah County
http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/ClerkAud/Elections/
VoterSearch.asp
Utah Davis County
http://www.daviscountyutah.gov/clerkauditor/elections/
registered_voter_search/registered_voter_search.cfm
Virginia
State Board of
Elections
http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Voter_Information/
Where_Do_I_Vote/Polling_Place_Lookup_request.asp
Washington
Secretary of
State
https://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/lookup.aspx
Washington King County
https://www.metrokc.gov/elections/pollingplace/
voterlookup.aspx
Washington
Whatcom
County
http://www.whatcomcounty.us/auditor/election_
division/general_information/voter_lookup/IE6/Index.asp
39
State Jurisdiction Website
Washington
Statewide Non-
Governmental
http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html
West Virginia
Secretary of
State
http://www.wvvotes.com/voters/am-i-registered.php
EAC Commissioners
Chair Rosemary E. Rodriguez
Vice Chair Donetta L. Davidson
Commissioner Gineen Beach
Commissioner Gracia M. Hillman
EAC Staff
Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director
Juliet Hodgkins, General Counsel
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
1225 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
866-747-1471
www.eac.gov
