Yes. Maintenance of a statewide voter registration system can be paid for from Section 251 funds or Section 101 funds. However, cost reasonableness must still be considered. The state should carefully consider the prudence of funding an ongoing expense with a one-time funding source like these HAVA funds. These costs will inevitably be assumed by the state or local government upon the exhaustion of federal funds.

Generally, upgrading wiring is an allowable cost for this purpose. Upgrading wiring is justified if it improves the administration of federal elections. It can be paid for using Section 101 funds or Section 251 funds up to the minimum payment identified in Section 252. However, allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. If the internet wiring will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant.

Office furniture would generally be considered an allowable cost if such cost is not covered by the maintenance of effort requirements imposed by Section 254(a)(7). The purchase of office furniture is only allowable if it can be demonstrated that the furniture would improve the administration of federal elections. As such, those costs could only be allocated to the funding programs under Sections 101 and 251(b). Factors such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the office furniture will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Furthermore, the cost for the furniture must be reasonable as compared to what the election jurisdiction is getting.

HAVA does not contain a definition of the term "election for federal office." The EAC has adopted the view of the U.S. Department of Justice which is charged with enforcing the requirements of HAVA Title III. The Justice Department determined that requirements were intended to apply in any general, special, primary, or runoff election for the office of the President or Vice President, including presidential preference primaries, and any general, special, or runoff election for the office of Senator, Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five territories.

Forklifts used exclusively for stacking, moving, and storing voting equipment are an allowable cost for this stated purpose. However, allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the forklift will not be used exclusively for the purpose of moving stored voting equipment and are used for purposes unrelated to improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, it may be more reasonable to rent a forklift rather than to purchase and maintain forklifts that will only be used infrequently or periodically.

Purchase of vehicles requires prior approval from the EAC. While motorized vehicles are an allowable cost when they are used for voter education pursuant to Section 101(b)(1)(C) of HAVA, there are significant issues related to allocability and cost reasonableness that must still be considered in assessing the appropriateness of such an expense. For example, if the vehicle will not be used exclusively for the purpose of voter outreach or other activities associated with improving the administration of federal elections and is used for purposes unrelated to improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Even in this instance, the appropriate percentage of cost could only be allocated to the funding programs under Section 101 or Section 251(b). As for the reasonableness analysis, it may be more reasonable to rent a vehicle rather than to purchase, insure, and maintain vehicles that will only be used infrequently or periodically.

This type of mail processing system is an allowable cost for the stated purpose. However, allocability and cost reasonableness must be considered to fully assess the appropriateness of such an expense. For example, if the mail processing system will not be used exclusively for the purpose of processing mail related to improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, depending on the volume of mail it may be more reasonable to manually process the mail.

High speed letter openers are an allowable cost for this stated purpose. Allocability and cost reasonableness must be considered in assessing the propriety of this type of expense. If the letter opener will not be used exclusively for the purpose of opening absentee ballots, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, depending on the volume of mail it may be more reasonable to manually open the letters.

Storage cabinets and shelving are allowable costs if they are not covered by the required maintenance of effort. See Section 254(a)(7). Cost principles such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the security cages and shelving will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant.

The amount awarded for the research portion of the project is capped at 15% for the intermediary. This project was originally envisioned with an intermediary that would coordinate and provide leadership, expertise and experience to a number of sub-recipients that would perform the bulk of the research. The intermediary can perform a larger portion of the research; however, any portion of the work in excess of the 15% cap should be considered as an in-kind matching contribution.