U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

STATEMENT OF 

GRACIA M. HILLMAN, VICE CHAIR 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

July 15, 2004 

Good afternoon Chairperson Berry and Members of the Commission. The U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission appreciates the opportunity to brief you on its 2004 

activities to implement the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). In our presentation, 

we will review our progress and accomplishments, and our plans for the balance of this 

fiscal year and FY 2005. 

The four members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission are DeForest B. 

Soaries, Jr., Chairman; Gracia Hillman, Vice Chair; Paul DeGregorio; and Ray Martinez 

III. Our biographies are attached to this statement. I am Gracia Hillman and am pleased to 

speak with you today on behalf of EAC. Chairman Soaries is out of town and sends his 

regrets that he could not be here today. 

 

We appreciate the vested interest that the Civil Rights Commission has in the status 

of voting in America. We also recognize and acknowledge the importance of what you 

have done for the United States and look forward to today’s discussions. 

The EAC Commissioners and staff are proud of the accomplishments that we have 

made to date. As you probably know, we have worked under very challenging 

circumstances, which I will address in this testimony. Nonetheless, we decided, in strong 

bi-partisan unity, to not let the challenges and obstacles that we faced prevent us from

doing the work that the President, Congress, elections officials and perhaps most 

importantly, the voters of America, are depending on us to do. 

 In this presentation, I will review the status of several important aspects of HAVA, 

including Title II payments to the states; our review of the use, reliability, accessibility and 

security of various voting machines; and other issues related to HAVA implementation, 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 1 
including the recruitment and training of poll workers, and provisional voting. I will 

review EAC’s clearinghouse, resource and grants programs functions and steps we have 

taken to work with election administrators to minimize chances for irregularities in the 

November 2004 elections. 

HAVA established EAC as a new Federal agency, to be headed by four 

commissioners, who are appointed by the President. The commissioners serve staggered 

terms and no more than two of them may be of the same political party. HAVA Section 

203(a)(4) required EAC to be established no later than 120 days after the enactment date of 

the law. HAVA was enacted on October 29, 2002; therefore, EAC should have been 

established by February 26, 2003, but the commissioners were not appointed until 

December 13, 2003. This delay resulted in a number of set backs in the implementation of 

HAVA, including the appropriation of insufficient Fiscal Year 2004 funds ($1.2 million) to 

support the start up and operational costs of EAC. 

GETTING STARTED 

When we began our work at the beginning of January 2004, we were immediately 

confronted with the significant challenge of finding the estimated $800,000 that it would 

cost to meet HAVA requirements that State plans on HAVA implementation be published 

in the Federal Register. For without satisfying this requirement, EAC would not have been 

able to release the $2.3 billion that had been appropriated in FY 2003 and 2004, for Title II 

requirements payments to the States. 

In cooperation with GSA, EAC was able to publish the State plans and as of this 

week, we have issued Title II payments totaling about $918,500,000 to 30 states. 

Appendix C of this presentation lists HAVA Title II Requirements Payments issued as of 

July 12, 2004. We continue to receive self certifications weekly and expect that most of 

the Title II payments will be made before the November elections. 

Our other major challenge was to determine how, with an FY 2004 appropriation of 

only $1.2 million, we could afford to rent, furnish and equip EAC offices; hire staff; pay 

our salaries; receive the transfer of responsibilities of the Federal Election Commission 

Office of Election Administration (OEA), as required by HAVA; and meet at least some of 

the HAVA mandates to establish voting system standards and adopt voluntary guidelines 

for the States. 

We began hiring EAC staff in May and under our current budget and cash flow 

constraints, we must stagger our hiring. We are bringing on board about 2 employees per 

month and will continue to do so through September 2004. Today, EAC has 13 full time 

employees, including the four commissioners, and we utilize employees on detail from

other Federal agencies and interns to fill our critical staffing needs. 

The U.S. General Administration Services (GSA) approved a Fiscal Year 04 rent 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 2 
waiver for EAC and we were able to move in to the offices we now occupy at 1225 New 

York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. And, we were able to accept transfer of the OEA on 

April 1, when EAC moved in to its new offices. 

HAVA mandates EAC to appoint an Executive Director, a General Counsel, and an 

Inspector General but as noted above, our funding constraints have caused us to postpone 

these hires. We expect to appoint an Interim Executive Director and the General Counsel 

within the next few weeks. Additionally, we are considering our options with respect to 

the appointment of an Inspector General (IG), including exploring the possibility of 

sharing an IG with another small commission. 

Our operating budget constraints and the delayed establishment of EAC also led to 

several set backs in the implementation of HAVA. These delays were fully addressed in 

our Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report, which was submitted to the Senate Rules and House 

Administration committees on April 30, 2004. We would be happy to provide a copy of 

that report to the Commission. 

EAC ACTIVITIES 

Electronic Voting Security

 

At its July 13, 2004 meeting, EAC adopted a Commission Advisory Letter on steps 

to insure election integrity and to promote voter confidence in the use of Electronic Voting 

Systems. EAC recognizes that the issue of Electronic Voting Security is of paramount 

concern to the voters of America, Congress, this Commission and Advocacy Groups. 

EAC knows that voters across America want to be reassured that on Election Day 

they will have unaltered access to a ballot and that once that ballot is cast, their vote will 

be counted. We have found that a great deal of our work has been shaped by this issue 

since we took office just a few months ago. 

EAC is aggressively addressing the concerns that have arisen from the increased 

use of Electronic Voting Devices. Time is of the essence and we have made this is a 

priority issue. We held our first public hearing in May, on the use, reliability and security 

of electronic voting devices. Following that hearing, we have read many reports and have 

held discussions with election administrators, computer scientists, advocates, scholars, 

government officials and voters. 

We will soon issue a report on our May 5 hearing and on or about July 19, we will 

issue useful, practical and adaptable Best Practices to election administrators and voter 

advocates across the country. EAC believes there are many things that election 

administrators can do to increase the likelihood of the reliability of voting equipment and 

systems for the November 2004 elections and decrease the likelihood of irregularity. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 3 
These Best Practices address all types of voting equipment, not just the electronic 

systems and are the beginning of EAC’s HAVA Tool Kit. The soon to be issued Best 

Practices will present tips, reminders and common sense recommendations culled from

discussions with and materials provided by experienced local administrators, voter 

advocates and academics. In addition, four key sections provide guidance on the 

management of specific voting systems, focusing on strengthening accountability, 

reliability, usability and security. Electronic links throughout allow tool kit users to 

review models provided by their colleagues and other experts. 

In the meantime, what we have concluded is that we should not rush to a quick fix 

for November. The issue of Electronic Voting Security warrants thorough study, careful 

analysis, and deliberate review. EAC is prepared to do all of that. 

EAC Advisory Letter 2004-1

Our recently adopted Advisory Letter on Electronic Voting Security advises that 

the following steps can help insure election integrity and promote voter confidence. 

1. Every election jurisdiction that uses electronic voting devices should identify and 

implement enhanced security measures in November. EAC will create a Tool Kit 

that offers guidance on specific methods and will assist in the identification and 

execution of security methods when needed. 

2. All voting software vendors should allow election officials with whom they have 

contracted to analyze the proprietary source code of their software and to protect 

that process by using appropriate nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements. 

EAC will assist in the analysis when needed. 

3. Every voting software vendor should submit their certified software to the National 

Software Reference Library (NSRL) at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). This will facilitate the tracking of software version usage. 

NSRL is designed to collect software from various sources and incorporate file 

profiles computed from this software into a Reference Data Set (RDS) of 

information. The RDS can be used by law enforcement, government, and industry 

organizations to review files on a computer by matching file profiles in the RDS. 

The NSRL was built to meet the needs of the law enforcement community for 

rigorously verified data that can meet the exacting requirement of the criminal 

justice system. 

4. The EAC will solicit information about suspicious electronic voting system activity 

including software programming and will request aggressive investigative and 

prosecutorial responses from the U. S. Department of Justice Elections Crimes 

Branch in the Criminal Division. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 4 
5. EAC will document incidents and record data concerning electronic voting 

equipment malfunctions in November. This information will be submitted to the 

EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee that will be creating the new 

voluntary voting systems standards. 

Voting System Standards and Guidelines 

HAVA places an important responsibility on EAC to develop and adopt standards 

and voluntary guidelines for voting systems and voting equipment used in the 55 States. 

This responsibility includes the testing, certification, decertification and recertification of 

voting systems hardware and software. 

Voting System Standards in the United States evolved over the past 25 years. In 

1975, the National Bureau of Standards issued a report on The Effective Use of Computing 

Technology in Vote Tallying. The report cited computer-related problems but it wasn’t 

until 1984, that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) received some funds to develop 

voluntary national standards for computer-based voting systems. 

We believe that it is accurate to say that prior to the establishment of EAC, the 

federal government did not have a comprehensive program to establish standards and 

guidelines for the use of voting equipment and to regularly test the equipment and related 

voting systems. The FEC published the first set of standards in 1990, and updated them in 

2002. Part of this work was done in conjunction with the National Association of State 

Election Directors (NASED), which operated a voluntary program to develop standards 

with limited funds. Under HAVA, EAC has inherited these Standards, which must be 

revised, updated, adopted and issued as guidelines to States. 

There is an urgent need for EAC to do this work, as is evident by the ongoing 

debate surrounding the use, accessibility, reliability and security of Electronic Voting 

Devices, commonly referred to as DREs. In November 2000, more than 100 million voters 

cast their ballots in about 7,000 local voting jurisdictions at 200,000 polling places. 

Numerous different voting devices were in place including touch screen DREs, optical 

scanners, lever machines, punch cards and paper ballots. The problems with voting 

equipment in the 2000 presidential election are well known and certainly contributed to the 

enactment of HAVA. 

Today, there are still numerous types of voting equipment in place that will be used 

on November 2, 2004. According to Election Data Services, Inc., it is estimated that the 

following types of voting equipment will be used by the corresponding percentage of 

voters when they cast their ballots in November 2004. Optical Scan – 37%; Electronic 

(DREs) – 31%; Punch Card – 15%; Lever – 15%; Paper Ballots – 2.5%. It is further 

estimated that 46% of counties will use Optical Scan and 22% will use electronic voting 

machines. 

EAC has an enormous responsibility to work with States to implement HAVA so as 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 5 
to minimize future problems. We accept the urgency of the work that must be done to 

meet this responsibility and in so doing, we will use a responsible and thoughtful approach. 

As mandated by HAVA, EAC will work with the National Institute of Standards 

(NIST) to establish standards and voluntary guidelines for the use of voting equipment. 

This is the appropriate role for EAC and NIST. These standards and guidelines cannot be 

responsibly established without the benefit of research, analysis and testing. 

HAVA sections 271 and 281 require EAC to administer grants for research, testing 

of voting systems and pilot programs to support HAVA implementation. Research and 

testing activities are a critical prerequisite to the establishment of standards and voluntary 

guidelines. Congress is currently considering EAC’s FY05 budget request for $20 million 

for salaries and expenses, of which $10 million is budgeted for research. 

In the meantime, we will continue to develop the EAC HAVA Tool Kit. The next 

set of Best Practices that we will issue later this summer will address the issues of Voter 

Identification Requirements, Administrative Complaint Procedures and Voter Education 

Signage at the polls. Further information about the HAVA Tool Kit and Best Practices are 

described on Page 12 of this presentation. 

EAC Partnership with National Institute of Standards and Technology

EAC is working closely with the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) to engage key constituencies, including election administrators, vendors, advocacy 

groups and voters, to develop guidelines for voting systems. Through this work, we will: 

• Develop recommended solutions in areas critical to ensuring that voting systems 

are secure, will protect individual privacy, allow voter anonymity, and are accurate 

and free from fraud and tampering. 

• Ensure that voting systems can be tested for compliance to usability and 

accessibility guidelines and to new standards beginning in 2006, as required by 

HAVA. 

• Review the Federal Election Commission 2002 Voting System Guidelines, conduct 

an evaluation of independent, non-federal laboratories and accredit laboratories 

(Independent Testing Authorities – ITAs) to carry out testing, certification, 

decertification and recertification of voting systems. 

In the long run, standards and guidelines need to be evaluated and updated more 

frequently than once every ten years, as has been done in the past. Additionally, the 

number of ITAs needs to be expanded. Currently there is one ITA to test and certify 

hardware and two that test and certify software. 

In the meantime, EAC and NIST are working to address concerns about voting 

systems standards. On May 3, 2004, the EAC released its “Human Factors” report on 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 6 
“Improving the Usability and Accessibility of Voting System Products.” As required by 

HAVA, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted the 

important research for this report, which we will use to guide our work. 

The Human Factors report assesses issues relating to the process of a voter casting 

a ballot as he or she intends, then makes 10 recommendations based on that research to 

help make voting systems and products simpler to use, more accurate and easily available 

to all individuals—including those with disabilities, language issues and other 

impediments to participating in an election. The reports main recommendation is for the 

development of performance-based voluntary standards for the usability of voting systems. 

Additionally, the report emphasizes developing standards in such a way that would allow 

independent laboratories to test systems to see if they conform to the standards. 

In addition to the Human Factors research, EAC is working with NIST on the 

following activities: 

• Meetings and activities of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 

of which NIST serves as Secretariat. 

• Development of a recommendation of an International Standard (ISO 17025) 

Laboratory Accreditation Program for Independent Testing Authorities. 

• Development of a NIST voting web site (http://vote.nist.gov) to include 

relevant Federal Information Processing standards (FIPS) to provide state and 

local election officials with an initial set of computer security “best practices”. 

NIST will regularly update the election community on the work of the Technical 

Guidelines Development Committee at its web site http://vote.nist.gov. They have already 

initiated a “Key News and Updates” feature accessible from the home page. 

If EAC receives the aforementioned $20 million operating budget for FY05, it will 

be able to conduct a comprehensive review of the existing standards and guidelines and a 

comprehensive evaluation of the accreditation process. Additionally, EAC would be able 

to expedite its process to accredit an increased number of ITAs, which would expand the 

certification and recertification services currently available to the vendors who 

manufacture the voting systems. The important end results will be more timely 

compliance with HAVA and the development of guidelines that election administrators 

can use when determining what voting equipment they will ultimately use. 

Technical Development Guidelines Committee 

HAVA establishes a 15-member Technical Guidelines Development Committee 

(TGDC) that is charged with the responsibility of developing voluntary guidelines for 

voting systems and voting equipment that will be reviewed by the EAC Board of Advisors 

and Standards Board and ultimately adopted by EAC. The TGDC is now organized and 

held its first meeting on July 9, 2004. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 7 
As established by HAVA, TGDC is to be chaired by the Director of the National 

Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). Dr. Arden Bement currently serves as 

Director of NIST and therefore chairs the TGDC. In consultation with NIST, EAC 

appointed the other 14 members of TDGC, which include representatives from the 

American National Standards Institute, the National Association of State Election 

Directors, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the Architectural and 

Transportation Barrier Compliance Board (commonly referred to as the Access Board), the 

HAVA Standards Board, the HAVA Board of Advisors, and individuals with technical and 

scientific expertise. TGDC consists of some of the best technological experts in the 

country, as well as dedicated election officials and public representatives. 

HAVA provides that the TGDC will have a 9-month timetable to draft voting 

system guidelines. These draft guidelines will then be reviewed by the EAC Board of

Advisors and Standards Boards before they are submitted to the EAC commissioners for 

final disposition. With all certainty, public hearings will be conducted on this important 

issue during the process to insure adequate input by officials and voters alike. 

HAVA provides that the Voting System Guidelines will be voluntary but most 

States and jurisdictions have already indicated that they will follow these guidelines as 

they develop their own standards for election equipment used in their states. 

BOARD OF ADVISORS and STANDARDS BOARD 

Critical to the establishment of standards and voluntary guidelines for the use of 

voting equipment is the participation of key stake holders. The HAVA required 

establishment of a 37-member Board of Advisors and a 110-member Standards Board 

provides two vehicles for stake holder input. The first meetings of these two boards were 

held on June 28 and 29, 2004, in Houston, TX. Membership lists of both boards are 

provided in Appendix D. 

HAVA creatively requires specific designation of members to each board to 

provide broad representation and a wide array of expertise and perspectives in to the 

deliberations of each group. Board members serve terms and can be reappointed. Further, 

HAVA title II section 215 (f) establishes the boards as permanent committees and EAC is 

to provide necessary administrative support. 

HAVA also requires that these boards conduct a number of activities, including 

that they meet; review standards, voluntary guidelines, and best practice guidance to the 

States, and various other HAVA reports that will be developed by EAC. Additionally, 

through committees, these boards are to recruit, interview and recommend to EAC, 

candidates for the position of EAC Executive Director. Both boards function solely as 

advisory bodies and must comply fully with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. 

As you know, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission has two seats on the EAC Board 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 8 
of Advisors and we look forward to receiving the names of your appointees so they can be 

included in the future work of the board. 

EAC Board of Advisors

Membership on the Board of Advisors shall include: two members each appointed 

by the National Governors Association (NGA); National Conference of State Legislatures 

(NCSL); National Association 0f Secretaries of State (NASS); National Association of 

State Election Directors (NASED); National Association of Counties NACO); National 

Association of County Recorders, Election Administrators and Clerks (NACRAC); U.S. 

Conference of Mayors; Election Center; International Association of County Recorders, 

Election Officials and Treasurers (IACREOT); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; 

Architectural and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board. The other members include 

one representatives from each of the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity 

and the Civil Rights Division; the director of the U.S. Department of Defense Federal 

Voting Assistance Program; 4 members representing professionals in the field of science 

and technology, one each appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader of the U.S. House 

of Representatives and the Majority and Minority leaders of the U.S. Senate; and 8 

members representing voter interests of whom 2 each are appointed by the Chairs and the 

Ranking Minority Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House 

Administration and the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. 

The Board of Advisors elected Doug Lewis, Executive Director of the Election 

Center, to serve as Chairman while it develops it bylaws. 

EAC Standards Board

 

The Standards Board shall consist of 110 members. Fifty-five members shall be 

State election officials selected by the chief State election official of each State. And, 55 

members shall be local election officials selected under a process supervised by the chief 

election official of the State. As you know, under HAVA, references to States include the 

District of Columbia and all territories. 

Regarding the make up of this membership, HAVA also mandates that the 2 

members who represent the same state may not be members of the same political party. 

The board shall select 9 of its members as an Executive Board, of whom not more than 5 

may be State election officials; not more than 5 may be local election officials; and not 

more than 5 many be members of the same political party. HAVA further provides for 

lengths of terms for service on the Executive Board. 

 

REQUIREMENTS PAYMENTS 

HAVA creates new mandatory minimum standards for States to follow in several 

key areas of election administration. HAVA provides funding to help States meet these 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 9 
new standards, replace outdated voting systems, and otherwise improve election 

administration. Under these provisions, EAC is required to: 

 Distribute Title II “requirements payments” to States and certain other grants to 

improve election administration. 

 Serve as a clearinghouse for information on the administration of elections. 

 Conduct studies on matters affecting election administration. 

 Promulgate voluntary guidelines for election equipment, in consultation with the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

 Develop a national testing program for voting systems, in consultation with the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

 Provide guidance to States on the administration of elections. 

Title I Payments – “Early Money”

Congress has appropriated over $3 billion for HAVA implementation, most of 

which is for requirements payments to States. In FY 2003, while waiting for EAC to be 

established, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) was directed by Congress to 

distribute about $650 million in HAVA Title I “early money” to States to be used to 

improve the administration of elections ($325 million under HAVA Section 101) or to 

replace punchcard and lever voting equipment ($325 million under HAVA Section 102). 

States were required to report to GSA their actual expenditures as of December 31, 

2003. The reports were due by January 21, 2004, and EAC is working to collect and 

review these expenditure reports. 

 Based on our preliminary reviews, it is apparent that most of the States have not yet 

expended the majority of their Title I payments. Since these reports only cover a period 

ending last December, it is conceivable that a number of States may have made efforts to 

obligate and expend additional funds since the beginning of this year. GSA reporting 

requirements for Title I funds only required actual expenditures so EAC is not able to 

discern the specific activities conducted by States with the use of Title I funds. Therefore, 

we have requested updated financial reports to include additional information. This will 

enable us to be better informed as to the use of the Title I funds, which we can report to 

Congress and the general public. We will institute similar reporting requests for the Title 

II payments. 

 

Title II Requirements Payments

As reported earlier in this presentation, EAC and GSA have distributed almost $1 

billion in Title II payments to 30 states since the beginning of June 2004. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 10 
EAC has also been working with the Office of Management and Budget, GSA and 

other federal agencies to establish the various administrative procedures and protocols 

regarding the disbursement, reporting and auditing of the payments. EAC has significant 

fiduciary responsibility to assure self-compliance and self-certification by the States. In 

FY05, EAC will be fully responsible for paying for all costs associated with publishing 

State plan updates in the Federal Register and administering the FY05 requirements 

payments. 

EAC’s FY05 budget request includes $30 million in requirements payments to 

States of the remaining $639 million that is authorized. Most States have developed their 

plans to implement HAVA based on their expectation of full funding. The FY05 budget 

request does not fully fund the authorized requirements payments. EAC anticipates that 

most states will submit revisions to their plans to adjust for the decrease in funds 

appropriated for requirements payments. 

CLEARINGHOUSE, RESOURCE and GRANT PROGRAMS 

HAVA requires EAC to serve as a national clearinghouse and resource for the 

compilation of information and the review of procedures relevant to the administration of 

federal elections. The research conducted by EAC to develop voting system standards and 

guidelines will provide a critical body of knowledge that will help EAC develop and 

implement several other of its HAVA mandated activities, including: 

 Produce voluntary guidance on the implementation of HAVA Title III requirements 

(voting systems standards, computerized statewide voter registration lists, and public 

information on provisional voting, voter education, and for voters who register by 

mail). 

 Maintain information on the experiences of States in implementing EAC guidelines for 

the procurement and use of voting equipment and on the general operation of voting 

systems. 

 Conduct studies and other activities to promote the effective administration of federal 

elections. 

 Administer grants for research on voting technology improvements and for pilot 

programs to test election equipment and technology. 

 Administer grant to the National Student and Parent Mock Election. 

 Develop and implement the Help America Vote College Program (described further on 

Page 14). 

 Assume responsibilities previously assigned to the Federal Election Commission under 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 11 
Section 9(a) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(a), 

which includes providing States with information on their responsibilities under the 

law, developing and maintaining the National Mail Voter Registration Form, and 

reporting to Congress every two years on the impact of the law on the administration of 

federal elections. 

 Make available the results of State reports on the combined number of absentee ballots 

transmitted to absent uniformed and overseas voters for each general election for 

federal office, and the combined number of such ballots returned and cast in the 

election. 

 Disseminate to the public, on an ongoing basis, information on the activities carried out 

under HAVA. This will be done through the Internet, published reports, and other 

appropriate means. 

THE HAVA TOOL KIT and 2004 BEST PRACTICES GUIDANCE 

As part of its Clearinghouse responsibilities, EAC is committed to gathering 

information regarding "best practices" and "lessons learned," and to disseminate this 

information to election administrators, advocates and other interested parties in a timely 

and informative manner. EAC believes there are many things that election administrators 

can do to increase the likelihood of the reliability of voting equipment and systems for the 

November 2004 elections, and decrease the likelihood of irregularity. EAC is working to 

develop a repository of useful information, which will enable it to provide critical guidance 

and resources to election officials as they prepare for the upcoming General Election and 

federal elections to come. 

 

EAC is also developing a HAVA Tool Kit that will offer guidance to election 

officials. The first set of guidance, which is described in the next paragraph, will be 

published within a few days so that it can be of practical use in time for the November 

elections. Then, as EAC progresses in its work, the Tool Kit will evolve in 2005 to include 

guidelines, guidance, resource manuals and other publications that will be helpful over the 

long run to election administrators, elected officials, advocates, scientists, academics, the 

media and other parties interested in the administration and integrity of our election 

systems and processes. 

Of course, guidance and voluntary guidelines are just that, guidance and guidelines 

to election administrators and others who want to know what can be done to improve our 

election systems and processes. Therefore, all of EAC’s Best Practices guidance will be 

practical, user friendly, easy for elected officials to adopt as they see appropriate for their 

jurisdictions, and easy to understand by advocates and other stakeholders. And the 

practical ideas of the guidance will promote the highest possible standards in the 

administration of elections and management of voting system security. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 12 
Best Practices Guidance for November 2004

Very soon, EAC will issue Best Practices that cover Challenges, Solutions and 

Model Practices in the Administration, Management and Security of Elections. The 

practices will cover Pre-election Management, Outreach, Poll Workers and Polling Places, 

and Election Operations (Technology and Equipment, and Pre-Election, Election Day, 

Election Night, and Post Election Activities) on All Voting Systems. This set of practices 

also covers the use of Lever Voting, Punch Card, Optical Scan and Direct Recording 

Systems, and Provisional Voting. 

The Best Practices include a Checklist for HAVA Implementation, including 

precise guidance on Identification Requirements for New Voters, Provisional Voting, 

Voter Information that must be posted at all polling places, Complaint Procedures, 

Disability Access, and a lengthy list of resources. 

Additionally, there are many aspects of election systems and practices that have 

nothing to do with how voting machines function. These areas of election administration, 

which are covered in HAVA, also need examination and guidance. Two glaring examples 

are poll worker recruitment and training, which are major challenges that confront most 

election officials. Also important and to be included in the HAVA tool kit will be 

information and guidance on voter registration requirements; provisional ballots; absentee 

ballots, especially for our troops and other American citizens who work outside of the 

United States; and other aspects of election administration and voter education. 

Pursuant to HAVA section 252, EAC will soon issue to Congress a report on “Best 

Practices for Facilitating Voting by U.S. Citizens covered by the Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act,” which is being developed in consultation with the Federal 

Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) of the U.S. Department of Defense. 

Provisional Ballots

Provisional ballots are being used by many states for the first time this year. EAC 

knows that advocates are concerned that this provision of HAVA is implemented in a 

uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. EAC’s soon to be issued Best Practices includes 

guidance on ensuring that the standards and procedures for issuing, processing, researching 

and counting provisional ballots are clear, transparent, public and uniform. This begins 

with recommendations and suggestions on how to reduce the need for provisional ballots 

by addressing voter registration problems well ahead of Election Day and working to 

resolve eligibility issues at the polling place so that voters can cast regular ballots. 

Key to the administration of provisional ballots will be voter and poll worker 

knowledge of when and how provisional ballots are to be issued, processed, and counted. 

The practices also encourage that election administrators record and publicize how many 

provisional ballots were issued, how many were counted and the reasons why some may 

not have been counted. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 13 
Poll Worker Recruitment and Training

Included in the next set of Best Practices that we will issue later this summer will 

be guidance on the recruitment and training of poll workers. Most Americans do not 

realize what a huge undertaking is involved in the recruitment and training of poll workers 

who staff Election Day services. 

Jurisdictions pay relatively small stipends to poll workers from $25 to $125 for 

what averages to be a 14-our day. Poll workers with the most experience are an aging 

group and election administrators are challenged to find the numbers of workers they need. 

To assist in this effort, EAC is considering a National Poll Worker Initiative. We are 

talking with election administrators, volunteer center directors, corporate executives, 

national nonprofit leaders and government agency directors to plan this endeavor. 

Additionally, EAC will hold a public hearing on this issue in September, hopefully in 

Atlanta, GA. 

Integral to this initiative is the Help America Voter College Program currently 

being developed by EAC. Recently, a California-based think tank1

 released polling data 

showing that only 35 percent of surveyed college students feel that voting in a Presidential 

election is a way to bring about change in society. This was a significant drop from 2001, 

when some 47 percent of college students said their votes could bring societal change. 

Under Title V of HAVA, the EAC is charged with developing a program to be known as 

the “Help America Vote College Program.” The purpose of this program is to encourage 

college students to act as nonpartisan poll workers during elections and to encourage State 

and local governments to use the services of the students participating in this program. 

Several local election jurisdictions already have programs in place that could serve 

as Best Practice models. For example, the Los Angeles County Registrar has been 

working in for the past several years with a number of local community colleges, most 

notably the Los Angeles County Community College System, to recruit and train volunteer 

student poll workers. This program is proving successful in L.A. County and was recently 

expanded. Likewise, San Francisco and Alameda counties have also been successful in 

utilizing college and high school students as poll workers. And similarly in New York, the 

CUNY system successfully implemented a poll worker initiative which organized and 

trained student poll workers at almost twenty colleges and universities across New York 

City. EAC continues to identify other currently existing programs that can serve as Best 

Practice models and will facilitate partnerships with colleges and election jurisdictions. 

CONCLUSION 

If there is one issue on which Americans have overwhelming agreement, it is that 

 

1 This study was commissioned by the Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California 

State University Monterey Bay. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 14 
the right to vote may be our most fundamental right. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 

established a new role for the Federal government in Federal elections and established the 

EAC to manage that involvement. The EAC Commissioners are committed to 

implementing HAVA and creating standards that will provide voters with a high degree of 

confidence in the integrity of the administration of elections in the United States. 

This concludes my formal statement and I am prepared to answer any questions 

that you might have about EAC. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 15 
Appendix A - Commissioner Biographies2

DeForest B. Soaries, Jr., Chairman 

Appointed to an initial four year term, Dr. DeForest B. Soaries, Jr. was elected Chairman of the 

Election Assistance Commission at the agency’s first public meeting on March 23, 2004. 

In February 2003, Dr. Soaries was appointed by President Bush to serve as a public director of the 

Federal Home Loan Bank of New York. He was a member of the affordable housing committee of 

the bank. 

From January 12, 1999 to January 15, 2002, Dr. Soaries served as New Jersey's 30th Secretary of 

State. Appointed by former Governor Christine Todd Whitman, he managed one of the premier 

departments of State government and served as a senior advisor to the governor on issues that 

transcended traditional departmental lines. 

Dr. Soaries is also the Senior Pastor of the 7,000 member First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens 

in Somerset, New Jersey. A pioneer of faith-based community development, Dr. Soaries has led 

First Baptist in the construction of a new $17 million church complex and the formation of many

not-for-profit entities to serve the community surrounding the church. 

Highlights of Dr. Soaries’ work include: recruiting families to become foster parents to 300 

abandoned babies; helping 45 children find adoptive parents; constructing 96 new homes for low 

and moderate income residents to own; creating the first faith-based Cisco Technology Academy in 

the country; operating the Central New Jersey STRIVE program for job readiness; serving 

hundreds of youth in an after school center and homework club; forming a youth entrepreneurship 

program and redeveloping commercial real estate. 

Dr. Soaries earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Fordham University; a Master of Divinity

Degree from Princeton Theological Seminary; and a Doctor of Ministry Degree from United 

Theological Seminary. He has also received six honorary Doctorate degrees from institutions of 

higher learning. Additionally, Dr. Soaries has taught courses at Princeton Theological Seminary, 

Drew University Theological School, Kean University and Mercer County College. 

Dr. Soaries has received numerous awards for his leadership and community service. He was 

recently recognized by both houses of the New Jersey Legislature for his religious and community

leadership. 

Dr. Soaries is married to Margaret Donna Soaries and is the father of twin sons, Malcolm and 

Martin. 

 2

 The four EAC commissioners were confirmed by the Senate on December 9, 2003, and appointed by the 

President on December 13, 2003. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 16 
Gracia M. Hillman, Vice Chair 

Appointed to an initial two-year term, Gracia M. Hillman was elected Vice Chair of the Election 

Assistance Commission at the agency’s first public meeting on March 23, 2004. 

Throughout her career, Commissioner Hillman has effectively handled both domestic and 

international issues. Her areas of expertise include nonprofit management, public policy and 

program development, political services, the interests and rights of women and minorities, 

community affairs and election related matters, including voting rights. 

She has traveled extensively throughout the United States meeting with national and local groups 

and businesses; speaking at conferences, conventions and other public forums; and conducting a 

variety of training and development seminars. Through her international work, Commissioner 

Hillman traveled in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Europe. She conducted nonpartisan political 

training in Haiti and Kenya, and participated in UN sponsored conferences in Vienna, Beijing and 

at the United Nations in New York. 

Prior to 2003, Ms. Hillman served as President and CEO of WorldSpace Foundation, a nonprofit 

organization that uses cutting edge digital satellite technology to deliver audio and multimedia 

education programs to Africa and Asia. Ms. Hillman also served the U.S. Department of State as 

its first Senior Coordinator for International Women’s Issues where she was responsible for 

developing agency-wide strategies to ensure that U.S. foreign policy promoted and protected 

women’s rights. She was the State Department’s principal liaison with domestic nongovernmental 

organizations that are concerned with international women’s rights and the role of women in 

development. In 1995, Ms. Hillman was a member of the official U.S. delegation to the United 

Nation’s Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing. 

Her work experience includes having served as Executive Director of the League of Women Voters 

of the U.S., the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the National Coalition on Black Voter 

Participation, which sponsored the popular nonpartisan grassroots program, Operation Big Vote. 

She also held positions as Executive Consultant to the Council on Foundations and Coordinator of 

the Voter Law Policy Project for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. 

Throughout the 1980's, Ms. Hillman championed many nonpartisan and bi-partisan efforts to 

ensure open access to the voting process for all citizens and the continued voting rights of minority

Americans, including her work on the historic 25 year extension of the national Voting Rights Act. 

Her political experiences include paid and volunteer work on numerous local, state-wide and 

national campaigns, including having served as a Senior Advisor with responsibility for 

Congressional and constituent relations for the 1988 Dukakis for President Campaign. 

Ms. Hillman began her long time commitment to public service and the nonprofit sector in 1970, 

when she worked for a community action program in her home state of Massachusetts. She also 

held management positions in Massachusetts State government. She has served on the boards and 

advisory committees of numerous local and national organizations concerned with public service, 

citizen participation and the development of public policy. Ms. Hillman has one son and currently

resides in Washington, DC. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 17 
Paul S. DeGregorio, Commissioner 

Appointed to an initial two-year term, Paul D. DeGregorio served as the Executive Vice 

President and Chief Operating Officer of the of the International Foundation for Election Systems 

(IFES), a leading institution involved in the promotion of democracy world-wide, where he was 

responsible for the day-to-day operation of this non-profit with over 400 employees in 23 

countries. He also represented IFES at many domestic and international venues focused on 

democracy-building. DeGregorio has provided technical assistance in election administration in 

many countries including: Russia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Ukraine, Romania, Albania, Macedonia, 

Bosnia-Herzegovina, China, Slovakia, Georgia, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, the 

Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria and Japan. At IFES, DeGregorio also provided leadership 

on U.S. election reform initiatives and led a team that supplied technical advice in Florida and 

Missouri for the November 2002 election. 

From 1985 to 1993, DeGregorio served as chief administrator of the election authority of 

Missouri’s largest county. During his tenure as Director of Elections of St. Louis County, a 

jurisdiction of one million people, he instituted major improvements in voter registration, training, 

disability access, counting and management procedures. He was successful in prosecuting voter 

fraud and in drafting legislation to improve the electoral process and was widely-recognized for his 

achievements. 

In 2001 he was appointed by Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt to serve as the Co-Chair of the 

Missouri Election Reform Commission. Working with the commission and Secretary Blunt, 

DeGregorio helped to craft an important election reform law which was passed by the Missouri 

General Assembly in 2002. A member of the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, and 

Election Officials (IACREOT) since 1986, during his tenure as Chairman of the Education and 

Training Committee DeGregorio was credited with initiating the University of Missouri 

Chancellor’s Certificate in Public Administration program for IACREOT members. 

Serving needs in higher education was important in DeGregorio’s career as he served for 8 years as 

Director of Outreach Development for the University of Missouri-St. Louis, where he initiated and 

had oversight for four off-site campuses that served nearly 4000 students. He also served as a 

Research Associate with the University’s Center for International Studies. DeGregorio was a 

Special Assistant in President Ronald Reagan’s administration and served as an assistant to John 

Ashcroft during his first term as Missouri Attorney General. 

A native of St. Louis, Missouri, DeGregorio, 51, received his degree in Political Science from the 

University of Missouri-St. Louis. He is married to Kerry DeGregorio, who is Director of 

Constituent Services for Missouri Congressman Todd Akin. The DeGregorio’s are the proud 

parents of Katie, Annie, Debbie and Emily.

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 18 
Ray Martinez III, Commissioner 

Appointed to an initial four year term, Ray Martinez III was a practicing attorney in Austin, 

Texas, focusing primarily on regulatory and administrative law matters, as well as government 

affairs representation of county governments to the Texas Legislature. Concurrent with his law 

practice, Martinez also served as executive director and legal counsel of the Every Texan 

Foundation, a non-partisan voter registration and education effort dedicated to increasing voter 

participation in Texas. 

Mr. Martinez began his law practice after serving as Deputy Assistant to the President for 

Intergovernmental Affairs at the White House. In this position, Martinez was responsible for 

assisting former President Bill Clinton with various policy issues involving the nation’s governors 

and other statewide elected officials. Before serving as Deputy Assistant to the President, Martinez 

was Regional Director for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Dallas, where he 

served as the Department’s principal liaison with federal, State and local officials in a five-state 

region. 

From 1995 through the end of President Clinton’s first term, Martinez served in the White House 

as a Special Assistant to the President, frequently traveling with the President and assisting with 

various policy matters affecting a 13-state Western region of the country. Mr. Martinez’ Federal 

government service began in 1993 when he was appointed as White House Liaison to the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to his service in the Federal government, 

Martinez worked as a legislative liaison for the Texas Attorney General’s office, and as the 

legislative director for State Representative Sylvester Turner of Houston. 

A native of Alice, Texas, Martinez, 39, received his law degree from the University of Houston 

Law Center and his bachelor’s degree from Southwestern University. He currently resides in 

Arlington, Virginia with his wife, Beth Stanley Martinez, a clinical social worker, and their two 

children. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 19 
Appendix B – Title II Requirements Payments to States 

*Payments to be distributed by GSA in June 2004. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 20 
Appendix C – Pages 20-21

HAVA Title II Requirements Payments Processed by the EAC as of July 12, 2004 

State Fiscal Year 2003 

Funds* 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Funds* 

Total Payment(s) to 

State* 

1 Arkansas $7,729,205 $13,869,365 $21,598,5702 California $94,559,169 $0 $94,559,1693 Colorado $12,362,309 $22,183,056 $34,545,3654 Connecticut $9,919,624 $17,799,877 $27,719,5015 District of Columbia $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,8036 Florida $47,416,833 $0 $47,416,8337 Georgia $23,170,602 $41,577,569 $64,748,170 8 Idaho $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,8039 Indiana $17,372,175 $31,172,812 $48,544,987

10 Iowa $8,495,310 $15,244,073 $23,739,38311 Kansas $7,661,648 $0 $7,661,64812 Kentucky $11,773,250 $21,126,042 $32,899,29213 Louisiana $12,549,220 $0 $12,549,22014 Maryland $15,201,214 $27,277,216 $42,478,43015 Missouri $16,073,033 $28,841,617 $44,914,65016 Montana $4,150,000 $0 $4,150,00017 Nebraska $4,920,376 $0 $4,920,37618 New Hampshire $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,80319 New Mexico $5,110,126 $9,169,664 $14,279,79020 North Carolina $23,431,708 $0 $23,431,708

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 21 
21 North Dakota $4,150,000 $0 $4,150,000

22 Ohio $32,562,331 $58,430,186 $90,992,517 23 Oregon $9,961,818 $0 $9,961,81824 Pennsylvania $35,992,863 $64,585,967 $100,578,82925 Tennessee $16,545,934 $0 $16,545,93426 Texas $57,504,778 $0 $57,504,77827 Vermont $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,80328 West Virginia $5,476,493 $9,827,076 $15,303,56929 Wisconsin $15,410,741 $0 $15,410,74130 Wyoming $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803

Total $520,250,760 $398,338,535 $918,589,293

* Figures rounded to nearest dollar. 

HAVA Title II Requirements Payments - Funds Available 

Fiscal Year 2003 Fiscal Year 2004 Total 

Amount(s) Appropriated $830,000,000 $1,498,200,000 $2,328,200,000 Federal Rescission $0 -$8,839,380 -$8,839,380 Amount to be Disbursed $830,000,000 $1,489,360,620 $2,319,360,620 Amount Disbursed to Date $520,250,760 $398,338,535 $918,589,293 Remaining to be Disbursed $309,749,240 $1,091,022,085 $1,400,771,327 * Figures rounded to nearest dollar. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 22 
Appendix D – Pages 22-34

Election Assistance Commission Board of AdvisorsNational Conference of State Legislatures (2) Sheldon Silver Speaker, New York Assembly Albany, NY 

Christopher Rants Iowa Speaker of the House Des Moines, IA 

National Governors Association (2) Vacant VacantNational Association of Secretaries of State (2) Mary Kiffmeyer Secretary of State St. Paul, MN 

Dan A. Gwadosky Secretary of State Augusta, ME 

National Association of State Election Directors (2) Christopher Thomas Director of Elections State of Michigan Lansing, MI 

Thomas Wilkey Former Executive Director New York State Board of Elections Rensselaer, NY 

National Association of Counties (2) Wendy Noren Boone County Clerk Columbia, MO 

Helen Purcell Maricopa County Recorder Phoenix, AZ 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 23 
National Association of County Recorders, Election Administrators and Clerks (2) 

Beverly Kaufman Harris County Clerk Houston, TX 

David Orr Cook County Clerk Chicago, IL 

United States Commission on Civil Rights (2) Vacant VacantThe Election Center (2) Doug Lewis Executive Director The Election Center Houston, TX 

Ernie Hawkins Former Registrar of Voters Sacramento County Elk Grove, CA 

United States Conference of Mayors (2) Vacant VacantNational Association of County Recorders, Election Administrators and Clerks (2) Tony J. Sirvello, III IACREOT Executive Director Houston, TX

Sharon Turner Buie Director of Elections Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners Kansas City, MO 

Architectural and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board (2) James R. Harding ACCESS Board Member Tallahassee, FL 

James Elekes ACCESS Board Member North Plainfield, NJ 

Chief, Office of Public Integrity, United States Department of Justice Noel Hillman Chief, Public Integrity Section Washington, DC 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 24 
Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice 

Hans von Spakovsky Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program United States Department of Defense Polli Brunelli Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program Washington, DC House Speaker appointed JC WattsWashington, D.C. House Minority Leader appointed Willie L. Brown, Jr. San Francisco, CA Senate Majority Leader appointed Wesley R. Kliner, Jr. McDonald, TN 

Senate Minority Leader appointed Thomas H. Shortbull President, Oglala Lakota College Kyle, SD 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 25 
House Administration Committee Chairman appointed 

Jim Carnes Deputy Director Ohio Department of Natural Resources St. Clairesville, OH 

Catherine L. Hanaway Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives Jefferson City, MO 

House Administration Committee Ranking Minority Member appointed Joseph F. Crangle, Esq. Attorney, Colucci & Gallaher, P.C. Buffalo, NY 

Hilary O. Shelton Director, Washington Bureau, NAACP Washington, DC 

Senate Rules and Administration Committee Chairman appointed Sue Sautermeister Municipal Election Commissioner City of Ridgeland Ridgeland, MS 

Tamara Somerville Independent Consultant/Lobbyist Vancouver, WA 

Senate Rules and Administration Committee Ranking Minority Member appointed James C. Dickson Vice President for Governmental Affairs American Association of People with Disabilities Washington, DC 

Robin Carnahan Attorney at Law St. Louis, MO 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 26 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Standards Board Members 

ALABAMA Nancy L. Worley Secretary of State Montgomery, AL 

Luke Cooley Judge of Probate, Houston County Dothan, AL 

Alaska Laura A. Glaiser Director, Division of Elections State of Alaska Juneau, AK

Shelly Growden Regional III Supervisor Division of Elections State of Alaska Fairbanks, AK 

American Samoa Soliai T. Fuimaono Chief Election Officer Pago Pago, AS 

Filivaa M. Mageo Election Administrator Pago Pago, AS

Arizona Jan Brewer Secretary of State Phoenix, AZ

Mitch Etter Assistant Elections Director Phoenix, AZ

Arkansas Charlie Daniels Secretary of State Little Rock, AR

Mary Lou Slinkard Benton County Clerk Bentonville, AR

California Kevin Shelley Secretary of State Sacramento, CA

Bradley J. Clark Alameda County Registrar of Voters Oakland, CA 

Colorado Donetta Davidson Secretary of State Denver, CO 80202

Russ G. Ragsdale City/County of Broomfield Clerk and Recorder Broomfield, CO

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 27 
Connecticut 

Susan Bysiewicz Secretary of State Hartford, CT 

Rae Tramontano New Haven Registrar of Voters New Haven, CT

Delaware Frank B. Calio Commissioner of Elections Dover, DE 

Howard G. Sholl, Jr. Deputy Administrative Director, Dept. of Elections for New Castle County Wilmington, DE 

District of ColumbiaAlice P. Miller Executive Director DC Board of Elections and Ethics Washington, DC 

Jonda McFarlane Board Member Washington, DC 

Florida Dawn Kimmel Roberts Director of the Division of Elections Florida Department of State Tallahassee, FL

Bill Cowles Supervisor of Elections, Orange County Orlando, FL

Georgia Kathy Rogers Director of Election Administration Atlanta, GA 

Lynn Bailey Executive Director, Richmond County Board of Elections Augusta, GA 

Guam Gerald A. Taitano Executive Director Hagatna, GU 

Vacant

Hawaii Scott Nago Section Head, Counting Center Operations Honolulu, HI

Glen Takahashi Election Administrator City and County of Honolulu Office of the City ClerkHonolulu, HI 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 28 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Idaho Timothy A. Hurst Chief Deputy, Secretary of State Boise, ID

Dan English Kootenai County Clerk Coeur d'Alene, ID 

Illinois Daniel W. White Executive Director, State Board of Elections Springfield, IL 

Richard Cowen Chicago Board of Election Commissioners Chicago, IL 

Indiana Todd Rokita Secretary of State Indianapolis, IN 

Lynne Spevak LaPorte County Clerk LaPorte, IN 

IowaChet Culver Iowa Secretary of State Des Moines, IA 

Renee McClellan Hardin County Auditor Eldora, IA 

Kansas Ron Thornburgh Kansas Secretary of State Topeka, KS 

Donald Merriman Saline County Clerk Salina, KS 

KentuckySarah Ball Johnson Executive Director State Board of Elections Frankfort, KY 

Don Blevins Fayette County Clerk Lexington, KY 

Louisiana Merietta Spencer-Norton General Counsel Louisiana Department of State Baton Rouge, LA 

Louie Bernard Clerk of Court, Natchitoches Parish Natchitoches, LA 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 29 
Maine 

Julie L. Flynn Deputy Secretary of State Augusta, ME 

Ethelyn S. Marthia Town Clerk Kennebunk Kennebunk, ME 

Maryland Linda H. Lamone Administrator of Elections Annapolis, MD 

Kim A. AtkinsVoter Registration Manager, Harford County Board of Elections Bel Air, MD

Massachusetts William Francis Galvin Secretary of the Commonwealth Boston, MA 

William Campbell City Clerk, City of Woburn Woburn, MA 

Michigan Terri Lynn Land Secretary of State Michigan Secretary of State, Lansing, MI 

Tonni Bartholomew Troy City ClerkTroy, MI 

Minnesota Mary Kiffmeyer Secretary of State St. Paul, MN 

Gary Poser Elections & License Bureau Supervisor Anoka, MN 

Mississippi Eric ClarkSecretary of State Jackson, MS

Marilyn Avery Election Commissioner, Hinds County Jackson, MS

Missouri Terry M. Jarrett General Counsel Missouri Secretary of State Jefferson City, MO 

Mary BerryDeKalb County Clerk Maysville, MO 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 30 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Montana Bob Brown Secretary of State Helena, MT 

Vickie Zeier Missoula County Clerk and Recorder / Treasurer Missoula, MT 

Nebraska John Gale Secretary of State Lincoln, NE 

Robert Zoucha Boone County Clerk Albion, NE 

Nevada Dean Heller Secretary of State Carson City, NV 

Harvard L. Lomax Clark County Registrar of Voters North Las Vegas, NV 

New Hampshire William Gardner Secretary of State Concord, NH 

C. Donald Stritch Town Moderator of Auburn Auburn, NH 

New JerseyPeter C. HarveyAttorney General Trenton, NJ 

Joanne Armbruster Atlantic County Superintendent of ElectionsAtlantic City, NJ

New Mexico Rebecca Vigil-Giron Secretary of State Santa Fe, NM 

David Kunko Chaues County Clerk Roswell, NM 

New York John Haggerty, Jr. Deputy Executive Director Task Force on Election Modernization Forest Hills, NY 

Edward J. Szczesniak Onondaga County Commissioner of Elections Syracuse, NY

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 31 
North Carolina 

Johnnie F. McLean Deputy Director Raleigh, NC 

Kathie Chastain Cooper Director of Elections, Forsyth County Winston-Salem, NC

North Dakota I. James Silrum Deputy Secretary of State 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 108 Bismarck, ND 58505-0500

Michael M. Montplaisir County Auditor 211 9th Street South P.O. Box 2806 Fargo, ND 58108-2806

Ohio J. Kenneth Blackwell Ohio Secretary of State Columbus, OH 

Michael Sciortino Director, Mahoning County Board of Elections Youngstown, OH

Oklahoma Carol Slater Assistant Secretary, State Election Board Oklahoma City, OK 

Clint Parr Vice Chairman Tulsa County Election Board Tulsa, OK

Oregon John Lindback Director, State of Oregon Elections DivisionSalem, OR 

John Kauffman Director, Multnomah County Elections Portland, OR 

Pennsylvania Pedro A. Cortés Secretary of the Commonwealth Harrisburg, PA 

Regis Young Butler County Election Director Butler, PA

Puerto Rico Nestor J. Colón Berlingeri First Vice President State Elections Commission San Juan, PR 

Juan M. Toledo-Diaz Second Vice President State Elections Commission San Juan, PR 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 32 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Rhode Island Jan Ruggiero Director of Elections Providence, RI 

Marian Clarke Chair Town of Jamestown Board of Canvassers Jamestown, RI

South Carolina Marci Andino Executive Director State Election Commission Columbia, SC 

Hoyt Campbell Director Darlington County Registration and Elections Darlington, SC 

South Dakota Kea Warne State Election Supervisor Pierre, SD 

Sue Roust Minnehaha County Auditor Sioux Falls, SD

Tennessee Brook Thompson State Coordinator of Elections Nashville, TN 

Joe Enoch Dyer County Election Commissioner Dyersburg, TN 

Texas Geoffrey S. Connor Secretary of State Austin, TX 

Dana DeBeauvoir Travis County Clerk Austin, TX 

Utah Amy NaccaratoDirector of Elections Salt Lake City, UT 

Dennis Ewing Tooele County Clerk Tooele, UT

Vermont Deborah L. Markowitz Secretary of State Montpelier, VT 

Annette L. Cappy Town Clerk - Town of Brattleboro Brattleboro, VT 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 33 
Virginia 

Jean R. Jensen Secretary, State Board of Elections Richmond, VA 

Allen Harrison, Jr. Chair, Arlington County Electoral Board Arlington, VA 

Virgin Islands Corinne Halyard Plaskett Deputy Supervisor of Elections Kingshill St. Croix, VI 

Natalie Thomas Deputy Chairperson Board of Elections St. Thomas, VI 

Washington Nick Handy Director of Elections State of Washington Olympia, WA 

Bob Terwilliger Snohomish County Auditor Everett, WA 

West Virginia Cindy Smith Team Leader of Elections Secretary of State's Office Charleston, WV 

Debbie Wilfong Clerk of the Upshur County Commission Buckhannon, WV 

Wisconsin Kevin J. Kennedy Executive Director, State Elections Board Madison, WI

Sandi Wesolowski City of Franklin Clerk Franklin, WI 

Wyoming Peggy Nighswonger State Elections Director Cheyenne, WY 

Julie Freese Fremont County Clerk Lander, WY 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Presentation to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

July 15, 2004, Page 34