Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government
After the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973–1973aa-6), legislation had been urged for over two decades that would create a national voter registration system designed to make registration easier and more uniform from state to state. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA, P.L. 103-31, 107 Stat.77, [42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq.]), the so-called “motor-voter” bill, was signed into law by President Clinton on May 20, 1993. It required states to establish voter registration procedures for federal elections so that eligible citizens might apply to register to vote (1) simultaneously while applying for a driver’s license, (2) by mail, and (3) at selected state and local offices that serve the public. The law took effect on January 1, 1995, for most states.
Proponents argued that the NVRA would make it easier to register to vote, provide more-thanadequate measures to prevent voter fraud by making violations a federal offense, and cost states very little to implement, based on the experiences of states that previously used some form of “motor-voter” registration.
Opponents, on the other hand, argued that there was little evidence that increasing the number of persons on voter registration rolls would lead to higher voter turnout. By making it so easy to register, they believed the act would increase the likelihood of election fraud. Furthermore, according to opponents, implementation would be costly to the states, in terms both of dollars and other administrative costs.
The NVRA has been the law of the land for 18 years and has been in effect for 16 years. Between 1992 and 2008, voter registration increased nationally by almost nine percentage points. The courts have resolved many of the initial issues. A review of the required NVRA reports appears to indicate that the states have come to terms with the provisions, despite the fact that they would still like the federal government to provide funding for the implementation of aspects of the act. While amending parts of the NVRA in minor ways, the Help America Vote Act, passed in 2002, also created additional voter registration demands on the states (HAVA, P.L. 107-252 [42 U.S.C., Subchapter III, Part A., § 15482(a), 15483]).
However, there are still some problems with implementation at the local levels and in some selected state agencies, as well as with the training of non-election officials who are responsible under the NVRA for providing voter registration services. Some would like to curtail parts of the NVRA. Some do not think the NVRA has gone far enough. Proposed legislation introduced in the 112th Congress to deal with various aspects of the voter registration process includes the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2011 (H.R. 108), the Voter Fraud Prevention Act (S. 168), and the Member Address Privacy and Protection Act (H.R. 423).
This report provides an historical background for voter registration reform and the NVRA, a description of the major aspects of the act, a discussion of the implementation and postimplementation actions, and a catalog of subsequent efforts to amend or repeal the act.
Date of Report: April 20, 2011
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: R40609
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Kevin J. Coleman
Analyst in Elections
Eric A. Fischer
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
The November 2000 presidential election made previously obscure details of election administration the focus of state and federal legislative action. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in 2002, and states have made additional changes to election laws and procedures since then. HAVA created the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), set requirements for various aspects of election administration, and provided federal funding. The law did not supplant state and local control over election administration, but several election reform issues have arisen or persisted subsequently. HAVA promoted the use of electronic voting systems to facilitate voting by persons with disabilities, but those systems raised concerns about security and reliability that led many states to enact laws requiring voter-verifiable paper ballot records. Support for the EAC has eroded among some observers, who have criticized it for being too obtrusive, or for being slow, ineffectual, or even unnecessary. HAVA’s voter-identification provisions did not resolve the controversy over whether more stringent requirements are needed to prevent voter fraud, or whether such requirements are more likely to disenfranchise legitimate voters than prevent fraud. Similarly, while HAVA’s voter-registration requirement may have improved that process, some have argued for more automated systems. Concerns about inadvertent disenfranchisement of military and overseas voters led to legislation to correct those problems. Finally, the Obama Administration and others have argued that no additional federal funds should be expended to assist states in meeting HAVA requirements because large sums previously appropriated remain unexpended.
Altogether, more than $3.5 billion of federal funds has been appropriated through FY2010 under various HAVA authorities: about $3.3 billion in election reform payments to states; $130 million for the EAC and various programs it administers; and another $130 million in accessibility payments to states, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. For FY2011, the President’s budget request included $16.8 million for the EAC but no funding for election reform payments to the states. The Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 111-238) and the House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee recommended similar amounts. However, the EAC has been operating at FY2010 funding levels since September 30, 2010, under a series of continuing resolutions. For FY2012, the Administration requested $13.7 million for the EAC, with no funding for election reform payments.
Numerous bills to amend HAVA have been considered in Congress. One has been enacted that made a minor change to the law. The 111th Congress enacted a new military and overseas citizens voting law that was signed into law in October 2009 as part of the defense authorization act (P.L. 111-84). The House passed H.R. 512, which would prohibit a state’s chief election official from actively participating in a federal election campaign, unless the official or an immediate family member was the candidate. The bill died in the Senate. A number of election reform bills were reported in the House as well. The reported bills would have established universal absentee voting (H.R. 1604), provided grants for voluntary absentee ballot tracking (H.R. 2510), and made improvements to military voting procedures (H.R. 2393).
In the 112th Congress, H.R. 235 (Kevin Brady) includes provisions that would terminate, upon enactment, the EAC’s authority to make requirements payments to the states, rescind unobligated requirements payments as of enactment, and terminate the EAC. H.R. 672 (Harper) would amend HAVA to eliminate the EAC and transfer its functions to the Federal Election Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The Subcommittee on Elections of the House Administration Committee held a hearing on H.R. 672 on April 14, 2011.
Date of Report: April 20, 2011
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RS20898
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Jessica Tollestrup
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
The Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341-1342, 1511-1519) generally bars the obligation of funds in the absence of appropriations. Exceptions are made under the act, including for activities involving “the safety of human life or the protection of property.” The interval during the fiscal year when appropriations for a particular project or activity are not enacted into law, either in the form of a regular appropriations act or a continuing resolution (CR), is referred to as a funding gap. Although funding gaps may occur at the start of the fiscal year, they also may occur any time a CR expires and another CR (or the regular appropriations bill) is not enacted immediately thereafter. Multiple funding gaps may occur within a fiscal year.
When a funding gap occurs, federal agencies begin a shutdown of the affected projects and activities, which includes the prompt furlough of non-excepted personnel. The general practice of the federal government after the shutdown has ended has been to pay furloughed employees for time missed, even when no work was performed.
Although a shutdown may be the result of a funding gap, the two events should be distinguished. This is because a funding gap may result in a total shutdown of all affected projects or activities in some instances, but not others. For example, when funding gaps are of a short duration, agencies may not have enough time to complete a shutdown of affected projects and activities before funding is restored. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget has previously indicated that a shutdown of agency operations within the first day of the funding gap may be postponed if a resolution appears to be imminent.
During the 35 fiscal years between FY1977-FY2011, 17 funding gaps occurred, ranging in duration from one day to 21 full days. About half of these funding gaps were brief (i.e., three days or less in duration). Of these, most occurred over a weekend, and the disruption in federal operations was minimal.
Almost all of the funding gaps occurred during the first half of the 35 fiscal year period between FY1977 and FY2011. During the 18 fiscal year period covering FY1977-FY1994, 15 funding gaps occurred. However, only two funding gaps occurred during the remaining 17 years, covering FY1993-FY2011.
The most controversial funding gaps since FY1977 occurred in late 1995 and early 1996, when President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress engaged in difficult and protracted negotiations over budget policy, resulting in the veto of a continuing resolution and several regular appropriations acts for FY1996. Two funding gaps, amounting to five days and 21 days, ensued leading to the initial furlough of about 800,000 federal employees.
As of the date of this report, there have been no funding gaps since the two that occurred during FY1996.
Date of Report: April 20, 2011
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS20348
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government
The federal government is expected to provide state and local governments more than $625 billion in federal grant-in-aid funding in FY2011, encompassing a wide range of public policies, such as health care, transportation, income security, education, job training, social services, community development, and environmental protection. The central role of federal grants-in-aid in American domestic policy was demonstrated by the prominent role grants-in-aid had in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). ARRA provided more than $325 billion for federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments.
Congress has a central role in determining the scope and nature of federal grant-in-aid programs. In its legislative capacity, Congress first determines what it wants to accomplish and then decides whether a grant-in-aid program is the best means to achieve it. Congress then selects which of the six grant mechanisms to use (project categorical grant, formula categorical grant, formula-project categorical grant, open-end reimbursement categorical grant, block grant, or general revenue sharing), and crafts legislation to accomplish its purpose, incorporating the chosen grant instrument. As with all legislation generally, Congress oversees the program’s implementation to ensure that the federal administrating agency is held accountable for making certain that congressional expectations concerning program performance are met.
Federalism scholars agree that congressional decisions concerning the scope and nature of federal grant-in-aid programs are influenced by both internal and external factors. Internal factors include congressional party leadership and congressional procedures; the decentralized nature of the committee system; the backgrounds, personalities, and ideological preferences of individual congressmen; and the customs and traditions (norms) that govern congressional behavior. Major external factors include input provided by voter constituencies, organized interest groups, the President, and executive branch officials. Although not directly involved in the legislative process, the Supreme Court, through its rulings on federalism issues, also influences congressional decisions concerning federal grant-in-aid programs.
Overarching all of these factors is the evolving nature of cultural norms and expectations concerning government’s role in American society. Over time, the American public has become increasingly accepting of government activism in domestic affairs generally, and of federal government activism in particular. Federalism scholars attribute this increased acceptance of, and sometimes demand for, government action as a reaction to the industrialization and urbanization of American society, technological innovations in communications which have raised awareness of societal problems, and exponential growth in economic interdependencies brought about by an increasingly global economy.
This report provides an historical synopsis of the evolving nature of federal grant-in-aid programs, focusing on the role Congress has played in defining the scope and nature of those programs. It begins with an overview of contemporary federal grant-in-aid programs and then examines their evolution over time, focusing on the internal and external factors that have influenced congressional decisions concerning federal grant-in-aid programs. It concludes with an assessment of the scope and nature of the contemporary federal grants-in-aid system and raises several issues for congressional consideration, including possible ways to augment congressional capacity to provide effective oversight of this system.
Date of Report: April 20, 2011
Number of Pages: 38
Order Number: R40638
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
On September 14, 2007, President George W. Bush signed S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81), into law. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995 (P.L. 104-65, as amended) to provide, among other changes to federal law and House and Senate rules, additional and more frequent disclosure of lobbying contacts and activities. This report focuses on changes made to lobbying registration, termination, and disclosure requirements and provides analysis of the volume of registration, termination, and disclosure reports filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate before and after the HLOGA’s passage. This report does not analyze the content of these reports.
Under the LDA, as amended by the HLOGA, the Clerk and the Secretary manage the collection of registration, termination, and disclosure reports made by lobbyists and lobbying firms. Prior to the HLOGA, lobbyists and lobbying firms were required to submit semi-annual reports to the Clerk and the Secretary. The HLOGA amendments to the LDA modified reporting requirements to require quarterly filing of disclosure and termination reports. These forms are available for public inspection from the Clerk’s and Secretary’s websites.
The filing of registration, termination, and disclosure reports under the HLOGA amendments has continued at approximately the same pace as under the LDA. Examining data for filings between 2001 and 2007 under the LDA, and for 2008 through 2010 under the HLOGA amendments, reveals that the number of new registrations has remained mostly consistent under the HLOGA amendments. The termination reports filed by lobbyists and lobbying firms no longer representing a client have also remained constant following the implementation of the HLOGA amendments. Only disclosure reports, now filed quarterly, show a change between 2007 and 2010. Under the HLOGA amendments, the number of disclosure reports filed in the fourth quarter between 2008 and 2010 has decreased from filings between 2001 and 2007.
For further analysis on the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act and its other provisions, including amendments to House and Senate gift rules, travel restrictions, and campaign contributions, see CRS Report RL34166, Lobbying Law and Ethics Rules Changes in the 110th Congress, by Jack Maskell; CRS Report RL31126, Lobbying Congress: An Overview of Legal Provisions and Congressional Ethics Rules, by Jack Maskell; CRS Report RS22566, Acceptance of Gifts by Members and Employees of the House of Representatives Under New Ethics Rules of the 110th Congress, by Jack Maskell; CRS Report RL34377, Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007: The Role of the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate, by Jacob R. Straus; and CRS Report R40091, Campaign Finance: Potential Legislative and Policy Issues for the 111th Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
Date of Report: April 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R40425
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
