Resources

The Hand Count Workload Calculator is a simulation tool that helps election officials estimate the resources needed to conduct a hand count of ballots, whether for initial tabulation, an audit, or a recount. Officials can determine how many counting teams are needed to meet a deadline or how long a count will take with a fixed staff. Default timing data is based on observational data from a Northeastern state in November 2024.

This resource provides a transcript of U.S. Election Assistance Commission public hearing on election audit standards, reflecting current discussions among election officials and audit experts.

This structured testing protocol can help identify e-pollbook usability problems before Election Day, using mock-election scenarios with poll workers. Helps election officials evaluate existing systems and make informed procurement decisions.

The Center for Civic Design provides this toolkit for election officials to create educational materials about Election Day and post-election processes, adaptable to any jurisdiction. It helps election offices communicate clearly with voters and poll workers about what happens on and after Election Day.

This tool provides a training guide and customizable slide presentation to help election officials prepare poll workers to assist voters with disabilities in marking, verifying, and casting their ballots while preserving voter independence and privacy. It was published as NIST VTS 100-2.

The Accessible Voting Machines Calculator is a simulation tool that helps election officials estimate how many accessible voting machines are needed to maintain reasonable voter wait times. Officials can enter information about thier voting process and voter population and run simulations to produce recommended resource allocations.

In this paper, authors use a national survey of poll workers from the 2022 midterm election to analyze whether there are systematic differences between experienced and inexperienced poll workers in how they manage polling sites. They finds that experienced poll workers are more likely to say that their training prepared them for the election, yet their experience also correlates with more conflicts involving poll watchers and voters. This research fills a crucial gap in understanding how poll workers' experience influences Election Day operations.

This resource consists of a collection of EAC best practices, materials, and guidance to support election officials in delivering equal and accessible voting experiences, including resources on ADA-compliant equipment, accessible polling place design, and serving voters with disabilities.

This resources features a guidance handbook for testing voting systems against the usability and accessibility requirements in the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.0. It supports election officials and testing labs in evaluating whether voting equipment meets federal usability standards.

In this MS thesis, the author investigates how voting equipment type (paper ballots, optical scan, and ballot marking devices) affects voting process performance across three elections at three locations. They use observational time studies and discrete-event simulation to model how different voting systems affect voter wait times, throughput, and overall process efficiency. The author find that performance improvements from adopting newer voting technologies are inconsistent across election contexts.

This Publicly available, interactive tool helps election officials and their IT teams identify, understand, and prioritize cybersecurity solutions for their election operations.

In this MS thesis, Fry examines the accessibility of in-person voting equipment, specifically Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) and Direct Recording Electronics (DREs), across U.S. elections from 2000 to 2024. She uses data from Verified Voting, the U.S. Census Bureau, and BMD/DRE manufacturers to analyze trends in the deployment of accessible equipment and to evaluate current systems against VVSG 2.0 Principle 7 (the right to vote privately and independently). The author finds that although accessible equipment coverage has improved substantially since HAVA, significant gaps remain in meeting current usability and accessibility standards.