Yes, HAVA funds in general, including CARES Act funds, can be used to develop or improve the technology, privacy, and efficiency of address confidentiality programs. Survivors of domestic and sexual violence, stalking, and trafficking should be able to receive election mail, including absentee ballots, without disclosing their physical address to the public. State-administered address confidentiality programs help victims from being located by their perpetrator through public records by providing substitute addresses and confidential mail forwarding services. However, keep in mind that you need to allocate the funds appropriately based on the benefits of the cost to the various activities of the office. If the system to develop or improve address confidentiality is also used for activities unrelated to improving the administration of federal elections or in response to the pandemic, only the percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the CARES Act grants. 

This addresses the use of airtime and other media donations as match on the grants. It covers both how to determine if the media coverage is an allowable activity under the grants and what the state must maintain to support the value of the donation. In these cases, the costs are considered an in-kind donation because they have been provided at no cost, or reduced cost, to the agency by a third party.

As always, the state must determine if the costs are reasonable, necessary and allocable to the grant. Costs related to voter education are an allowable expenditure under HAVA grants. The items procured must provide information on voting procedures, rights or technology. During the pandemic, states will need to communicate with voters about changes in voting procedures in the state. Therefore, costs of educating voters about those procedures would be an allowable cost.  Items intended to “get out the vote” or merely encourage voting do not meet this requirement. Nor can states use the value of interviews with state staff or officials, unless the topics are about voting procedures, rights or technology. Interviews designed to highlight partisan voting issues or political campaigns are not allowable; the interviewee should not be a candidate for public office as this would appear to involve partisan publicity.  In addition, items that are not fundamentally educational may be considered advertising or public relations costs prohibited under 2 CFR § 200.421, Advertising and public relations costs. Examples of allowable costs would include:

• Development and dissemination of flyers and mailings to voters about changes in voting procedures
• Development of radio and television announcements to voters about changes in voting procedures
• Costs associated with the airtime to broadcast radio and television announcements about changes
• Costs associated with publishing voting procedure changes in print media

If the state is able to get these costs donated by printers, advertising companies and media outlets, the value of that donation is an allowable cost under the grant. You must maintain documentation that supports the value ascribed to the donation along with the date of the donation and other relevant documentation supporting the need. In many cases, the donor can provide information about what they normally charge for the activity, but the state is ultimately responsible for determining if that cost is reasonable and necessary. Media outlets can be helpful in determining the value of airtime and advertising costs in print media are readily available. 

There are issues to address in using media costs as donations. As noted above, costs associated with “Get out the Vote” campaigns are not allowable and states must also be careful about claiming interviews media conduct with state staff and officials. State staff may also be approached by a media outlet preparing a story about voting in the state and asking for interviews. In most cases, to meet the reasonable and necessary criteria for allowability, the state should request or initiate the coverage to ensure the content would be allowable under HAVA.  It would be difficult to include the value of interviews in which you have no or limited control over the content. Allowable media activities that are intermixed with political or other non-HAVA messages should not be considered as cost-sharing. In addition, the value of airtime can sometimes be inflated. If the state asks stations to run their announcements as PSAs, it would be important to justify the value of the airtime.