U.S. Election Assistance Commission

EAC Commissioners

Chair Donetta L. Davidson

Commissioner Paul S. DeGregorio

Commissioner Gracia M. Hillman 

EAC Staff

Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director

Juliet Hodgkins, General Counsel 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1225 New York Avenue, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

866–747–1471 (toll free)

HAVAinfo@eac.gov 

www.eac.gov 
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 

Contents

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................3

The Commission..........................................................................................................................................4

The Commissioners......................................................................................................................................4

The Executive Director.................................................................................................................................4

The General Counsel....................................................................................................................................4

The Office of Inspector General....................................................................................................................4

EAC Federal Advisory Committees...............................................................................................................5

. . Board of Advisors..................................................................................................................................6

Standards Board....................................................................................................................................6

. . Technical Guidelines Development Committee......................................................................................6

EAC Operations...........................................................................................................................................7

Keeping the Public Informed and Involved.................................................................................................10

. . Ex Parte Policy....................................................................................................................................11

. . Web Site Activities...............................................................................................................................11

Improving Voting Systems.................................................................................................................................13

2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG)..........................................................................................13

. . History of Voting System Standards (VSS) and Guidelines...................................................................13

Pre-Election Voting System Certification Program.......................................................................................14

. . History of Voting System Certification.................................................................................................15

Assistance to States—Preparing for Election Day...............................................................................................16

Quick Start Management Guides................................................................................................................16

. . Quick Start Guide for New Voting Systems..........................................................................................16

. . Quick Start Guide for Ballot Preparation/Printing and Pre-Election Testing.........................................16

. . Quick Start Guide for Voting System Security......................................................................................17

. . Quick Start Guide for Poll Workers.....................................................................................................17

Recruiting the Next Generation of Poll Workers.........................................................................................18

. . 2006 Help America Vote College Program Grant Recipients................................................................18

HAVA Funds Management.................................................................................................................................22

Recouping HAVA Section 102 Funds..........................................................................................................24

Sources and Uses of HAVA Funds...............................................................................................................25

HAVA Reporting.........................................................................................................................................26
 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Audits........................................................................................................................................................28

. . California Audit History......................................................................................................................29

Clearinghouse Activities....................................................................................................................................31

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act—2004 Survey Results....................................31

. . Improving the Survey Instrument........................................................................................................31

2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey.......................................................................................33

Research Projects Under Way in FY 2006...................................................................................................34

. . Election Management Guidelines.........................................................................................................34

. . Voter Information Web Sites................................................................................................................34

. . Legal Resources Clearinghouse............................................................................................................34

. . Poll Worker Recruitment, Training, and Retention Project...................................................................34

. . College Poll Worker Recruitment, Training, and Retention Project......................................................34

. . Vote Counts and Recounts...................................................................................................................35

. . Voting Fraud and Voter Intimidation...................................................................................................35

. . Provisional Voting and Voter Identification Study................................................................................35

. . Effective Designs for the Administration of Federal Elections...............................................................35

. . Asian and Pacific Islander American Languages Working Group..........................................................35

Goals for 2007..................................................................................................................................................37

The Federal Government’s First Voting System Testing and Certification Program......................................37

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines...........................................................................................................38

Clearinghouse Activities.............................................................................................................................38

Appendix..........................................................................................................................................................39

Commissioners’ Biographies.......................................................................................................................39

. . Donetta L. Davidson, Chair.................................................................................................................39

. . Paul S. DeGregorio..............................................................................................................................40

. . Gracia M. Hillman...............................................................................................................................41

Executive Director’s Biography...................................................................................................................42

. . Thomas Wilkey...................................................................................................................................42

EAC Board of Advisors...............................................................................................................................43

EAC Standards Board.................................................................................................................................45

EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee...................................................................................50

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms...........................................................................................................51
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 

Introduction

Fiscal year (FY) 2006 ushered in two important

deadlines mandated by the Help America Vote Act

(HAVA)—the implementation of statewide voter

registration lists and compliance with Section 301(a)

of HAVA, which sets forth the requirements that all

voting systems used in Federal elections must meet.

Consequently, many jurisdictions purchased new

equipment and devoted more time and resources to

training the staff and poll workers who would be

responsible for operating and maintaining the new

equipment. In addition, election officials worked to educate the approximately one-third of voters throughout the nation who would use the new equipment.

During the 2006 primaries, election officials

experienced the growing pains that come with

introducing new technology. Instances occurred

due to human error, such as voting systems being

programmed incorrectly and forgetting to “zero out”

a system after conducting logic and accuracy testing.

Other challenges in the 2006 elections included not

having the equipment needed to operate a system,

as well as recruiting enough poll workers to serve

voters. The new technology also presented problems

to poll workers who were not familiar with the new

systems, and, in some cases, not enough technicians

were available to provide assistance.

The lessons learned during the primaries were

valuable, and the U.S. Election Assistance

Commission (EAC; the Commission) worked with

election officials to share commonly experienced

challenges to help them develop comprehensive

contingency plans for the November 2006 elections.

EAC published and distributed a series of Quick 

Start Management Guides to help election officials

administer and secure new voting systems. The

guides covered ballot preparation and pre-election

testing procedures, voting system security, and poll

worker training.

In December 2005, the EAC adopted the 2005

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), required

by Section 202 of HAVA. These guidelines, which

are the third iteration of national voting system

standards, significantly increase security requirements

for voting systems and expand access, including

opportunities to vote privately and independently,

for individuals with disabilities. The VVSG provides

a set of specifications and requirements against

which voting systems can be tested to determine

if the systems provide all the basic functionality,

accessibility, and security capabilities required of

these systems.

The EAC sought public input for the VVSG by

holding public hearings in New York City, Pasadena,

CA, and Denver, CO. The EAC also posted the VVSG

on the EAC Web site for 90 days to obtain public

comments and received more than 6,000 comments

on the proposed guidelines. The EAC, in consultation

with the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST), reviewed and considered each

comment in developing the final version.

The VVSG also establishes evaluation criteria for the

national certification of voting systems. In July 2005,

the EAC adopted a two-phase implementation of

the Voting System Testing and Certification Program,

required by Section 231(a)(1) of HAVA. The two

phases consisted of (1) the pre-election phase and

(2) the full program. In July 2006, two laboratories

received pre-election accreditation to test voting

systems under the pre-election phase.

In addition to the Commission’s efforts to improve

voting systems, a top priority in FY 2006 was

working with election officials to address the

nationwide poll worker shortage by recruiting a new

generation of poll workers. The EAC distributed

$300,000 in grants to recruit and train college

poll workers, and the Commission plans to issue a

recruitment and training manual based on feedback

from the grant recipients.

The information in this report outlines the EAC’s

activities in FY 2006 and includes the agency’s goals
 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

for FY 2007. The past year presented a shift in EAC

activities from distributing HAVA funds to monitoring

and auditing the use of those funds. In addition, one

of the Commission’s top priorities was working with

election officials to assist them as they confronted

the realities of meeting the HAVA deadlines and

as they adapted to many other changes in election

administration, including the introduction of new

voting equipment.

The Commission

The EAC is an independent, bipartisan agency

created by HAVA. It assists and guides State and

local election administrators in improving the

administration of elections for Federal office. The

EAC provides assistance by dispersing Federal funds

to States to implement HAVA requirements, auditing

the use of HAVA funds, adopting the VVSG, and

serving as a national clearinghouse and resource of

information regarding election administration. The

EAC also accredits testing laboratories and certifies,

decertifies, and recertifies voting systems.

The Commissioners

The four EAC Commissioners serving in FY 2006

were Paul DeGregorio, chairman; Ray Martinez

III, vice chairman; Donetta Davidson; and Gracia

Hillman. Commissioners, who are nominated by the

President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, may

serve only two consecutive terms. Commissioners

serve staggered terms. No more than two

Commissioners may belong to the same political

party. Martinez resigned in August 2006, and his

seat on the Commission remained vacant for the

remainder of the year.

The Executive Director

Thomas Wilkey was named executive director of

EAC in May 2005 by a unanimous vote of the EAC

Commissioners.

EAC’s executive director serves a 4-year term. The

executive director’s duties include managing EAC’s

daily operations, preparing program goals and longterm plans, managing the development of the VVSG,

reviewing all reports and studies, and overseeing the

appointment of EAC staff members and consultants.

The General Counsel

Juliet Hodgkins was named general counsel of the

EAC in August 2004 by a unanimous vote of the EAC

commissioners. The general counsel serves a 4-year

term and is the chief legal officer for the Commission.

The general counsel provides legal advice and counsel

to the EAC and its staff; provides advice to EAC’s

Federal advisory committees; and ensures that the

EAC meets all Federal, State, and local legal and

regulatory requirements.

The Office of Inspector General

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) became

fully operational in FY 2006. Currently, the OIG is

staffed with one permanent full-time position (the

inspector general) and two contract auditors from the

U.S. Department of the Interior, OIG. The OIG also

contracted with an independent public accounting

firm for additional audit support and with the

Office of Inspector General, U.S. General Services

Administration (GSA), for investigative assistance.

During FY 2006, EAC OIG focused its efforts on

States’ expenditures of HAVA funds. The objectives

of these audits were to determine whether the State

(1) expended HAVA payments in accordance with the

Act and related administrative requirements; and (2)

complied with the HAVA requirements for replacing

punch card or lever voting machines, establishing

an election fund, appropriating a 5-percent match

for requirements payments, and maintaining State

expenditures for elections at a level of not less than

the amount expended in FY 2000. Reviews of New

Jersey, Texas, Georgia, and California were completed

in FY 2006. The reviews are available at www.eac.gov.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 

In August 2006, the EAC appointed Curtis Crider to

be the Commission’s inspector general. Mr. Crider

brings 30 years of experience in the inspector general

community to the Commission.

Mr. Crider is a 1975 graduate of Clemson University,

certified public accountant, and certified internal

auditor. He is a member of the American Institute

of Certified Public Accountants, the Institute of

Internal Auditors, and the Association of Government

Accountants.

The inspector general is responsible for establishing

an office of inspector general, conducting audits and

investigations of the programs and operations of

EAC, and examining the expenditure of HAVA funds

by State and territorial governments. The inspector

general keeps EAC and Congress fully informed

about the findings and activities of the office.

EAC Federal Advisory Committees

HAVA requires a 37-member Board of Advisors and

a 110-member Standards Board to help the EAC

carry out its mandates under the law. HAVA Section

221 calls for establishing a Technical Guidelines

Development Committee (TGDC) to help EAC

develop the VVSG. All these governing boards

provide valuable input and expertise in forming

guidance and policy.

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Organizational Chart

Commissioners

Executive Director

Inspector General Special Assistants

Board of Advisors

Standards Board

Technical Guidelines

Development Committee

Programs and 

Services

Standards and 

Certification Administration Communications Research

General Counsel

• Compliance

• Ethics

• Public Meetings & Hearings

• Legislative Liaison

• NVRA

• Fiscal/Budget 

Management

• Purchasing

• Information 

Technology

• Human Resources

• Travel

• Office 

Management

• Media Coordination

• Web Site 

Management

• Annual Report 

• Clearinghouse

• Publications & Other 

Public Documents

• Foreign Briefings

• FOIA

• Guidance

• Guidelines

• Studies

• Surveys

• NIST Contract

• Voting Systems 

& Equipment 

Standards & 

Certification

• Lab Accreditation

• HAVA Funds: 

Sections 101, 

102, & 251

• Grant Programs

• Program Audits

• Poll Worker 

Initiative

• College

• Other

• Best Practices

FOIA = Freedom of Information Act.

NIST = National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

NVRA = National Voter Registration Act. 
 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Board of Advisors

Membership on the Board of Advisors includes the

following groups, as specified in HAVA (two members

appointed by each): National Governors Association;

National Conference of State Legislatures; National

Association of Secretaries of State; The National

Association of State Election Directors; National

Association of Counties; National Association of

County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks; The

United States Conference of Mayors; Election Center;

International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election

Officials, and Treasurers; the U.S. Commission on

Civil Rights; and the Architectural and Transportation

Barriers Compliance Board.

Other members include representatives from the U.S.

Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section of the

Criminal Division and the Voting Section of the Civil

Rights Division; the director of the U.S. Department

of Defense Federal Voting Assistance Program; four

professionals from the field of science and technology,

one each appointed by the Speaker and the Minority

Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the

Majority and Minority Leaders of the U.S. Senate; and

eight members representing voter interests, with 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 each appointing two members.

In FY 2006, the board reviewed EAC research activities and the VVSG and offered input and guidance.

At its annual meeting, the board passed resolutions

regarding provisional voting, the process for reviewing research projects, and accommodating individuals

with disabilities. All resolutions are available at www.

eac.gov.

Standards Board

The Standards Board consists of 110 members; 55

are State election officials selected by their respective

Chief State Election Official and 55 are local election

officials selected through a process supervised by the

Chief State Election Official. HAVA prohibits any two

members representing the same State to be members

of the same political party.

The board elects nine members to serve as an

executive board, of which not more than five are State

election officials, not more than five are local election

officials, and not more than five are members of the

same political party.

In FY 2006, the board reviewed EAC research activities and the VVSG and offered input and guidance.

At its annual meeting, the board passed resolutions

regarding the Commission’s approach to conducting

research, including the importance of adhering to the

research topics prescribed by HAVA. All resolutions

are available at www.eac.gov.

Technical Guidelines Development 

Committee

HAVA mandates that the TGDC help the EAC develop

the VVSG. These guidelines are voluntary and each

State retains the prerogative to adopt these guidelines.

The chairperson of the TGDC is the director of

NIST. The TGDC is composed of 14 other members

appointed jointly by EAC and the director of

NIST. Members include representatives from the

EAC Standards Board, EAC Board of Advisors,

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board, American National Standards Institute,

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, The

National Association of State Election Directors (two

representatives), and other individuals with technical

and scientific expertise related to voting systems and

voting equipment.

The TGDC held several meetings throughout the

fiscal year, focusing primarily on finalizing the VVSG

and outlining activities related to future iterations of

the VVSG. To view TGDC resolutions and for more

information, visit www.vote.nist.gov.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 

EAC Operations

In FY 2006, the EAC continued its work to adopt

the VVSG and establish the Federal government’s

first laboratory accreditation and voting system

certification programs. By the end of calendar year

2005, all HAVA Title II requirements payments

had been distributed to the States; in FY 2006,

the Commission shifted its focus to the audit and

reporting responsibilities for those funds prescribed

by HAVA, including the expansion of its OIG office

and related activities. EAC staff began reviewing

States’ reports and continued to answer inquiries

about the proper use of HAVA funds.

In FY 2006, EAC’s appropriation was $14,058,000;

the largest portion of the budget—27 percent—

was dedicated to improving voting technology.

These improvement activities were related to the

development and adoption of the VVSG and the

voting system certification program and included

$2,772,000 for NIST to assist EAC with its efforts in

these program areas. EAC also used funding under

this program to produce and distribute to election

officials the Quick Start Management Guides, which

covered important information about introducing a

new voting system, ballot preparation, voting system

security, and poll worker training.

Twenty-six percent of the Commission’s budget was

dedicated to administration and internal operations,

including rent, equipment, salaries and benefits,

public meeting and hearing expenses, and other

administrative costs.

To meet the HAVA mandates for research and study

and to establish the EAC as a national clearinghouse

of election administration information, 25 percent of

the funding was used to conduct research about poll

worker recruitment and retention, college poll worker

recruitment and retention, voting fraud and voter

intimidation, vote count and recount procedures,

provisional voting, and voter identification. The

results of these research projects will be provided to

the States to assist in their efforts to improve election

administration, to Congress, and to the public.

EAC Funding Breakdown

Improving Voting

Technology 27%

EAC Administration

26%

EAC Advisory

Boards 2%

HAVA Funds

Management 20%

Clearinghouse 25%

Activities also included establishing the Legal

Resources Clearinghouse. This percentage also

included costs for issuing related Federal Register

notices regarding EAC activities.

In FY 2006, the EAC’s HAVA funds management

program expanded due to the shift from distributing

funds to managing and auditing the use of funds

by the States. Funds management represented 20

percent of the Commission’s budget; expenditures

included the OIG’s activities and increased efforts to

collect and publish reporting data from the States.

The EAC applied 2 percent of the budget to fund

meetings for the Standards Board and Board of Advisors to help develop the VVSG, review EAC guidance,

and provide advice regarding research projects.

In FY 2006, the Commissioners cast votes on a wide

variety of issues, and several important votes were

cast during public meetings, such as the adoption of

the VVSG and the election of officers. All votes are

recorded and available to the public at www.eac.gov.

A summary of FY 2006 votes is shown in table format

on the following pages.
 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

2005 Tally Votes

Title Decided 

by Vote of

Date 

Transmitted

Certified 

Date

1. Election Day Survey and Executive Summary 4–0 09/23/05 10/03/05

2. Adopt the Inspector General Program for the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission

4–0 10/11/05 10/26/05

3. Disbursement of HAVA Title II Requirements Payments to the State of 

Montana

4–0 10/12/05 10/18/05

4. Appointment of Roger Laroche as the Acting Inspector General 4–0 10/12/05 10/26/05

5. Disbursement of HAVA Title II Requirements Payments to Hawaii 4–0 10/19/05 10/21/05

6. Federal Register Publication of Changes to Delaware’s HAVA State Plan 4–0 10/20/05 10/21/05

7. Award of Contract GS-25F-0008P, Zimmerman Associates, Records 

Management (EAC Contract No. 05-64)

4–0 10/21/05 10/26/05

8. Contract EAC 05-60, IFES, Recruitment, Retention and Training of Poll 

Workers

4–0 10/21/05 10/26/05

9. Contract GS-23F-8127, KPMG, L.L.P., Indirect Cost Rate Negotiation 

Assistance (EAC Contract No. 05-48)

4–0 10/21/05 10/26/05

10. Award Contract Act No. E4019700, Mark Braden, Source Selection Panelist 

Services

4–0 10/21/05 10/26/05

11. Award Contract EAC 05-62, Publius.org, Public Access Portals 4–0 10/21/05 10/26/05

12. Award of Contract EAC 05-52, University of Utah, Vote Count/Recount 4–0 10/21/05 10/26/05

13. Award of Contract GS-00F-0024M, Humanitas, Inc., Website Maintenance 

(EAC Contract No. 05-49)

4–0 10/21/05 10/26/05

14. Award of Contract EAC 05-61, Cleveland State University, Recruitment, 

Retention and Training of College Poll Workers

4–0 10/21/05 10/26/05

15. Award of Contract EAC 05-55, Center for Governmental Responsibility, 

University of Florida, Legal Resources Clearinghouse

4–0 10/21/05 10/26/05

16. Disbursement of Partial HAVA Title II Requirements Payments to Michigan 4–0 10/31/05 11/01/05

17. Ratification of Personal Services Contract with Tova Wang (EAC 05-66) 4–0 11/03/05 11/08/05

18. Ratification of Personal Services Contract with Job Serebrov (EAC 05-67) 4–0 11/03/05 11/08/05

19. Federal Register Publication of Changes to Michigan’s HAVA State Plan 4–0 11/04/05 11/08/05

20. Ratification of Personal Service Contract with Connie Schmidt (EAC 05-56) 4–0 11/14/05 11/18/05

21. Contract No. 05-54, American Institute of Graphic Art, Effective Designs for 

Election Administration

4–0 11/10/05 11/15/05

22. Ratification of Personal Service Contract with Dr. Britain Williams (EAC 05-57) 4–0 11/14/05 11/18/05

23. Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission and the National Association of State Election Directors 

Regarding the Development of Election Management Guidance

4–0 11/17/05 11/22/05

24. Revision to 2004 Best Practices Tool Kit 4–0 11/15/05 11/18/05

25. Disbursement of HAVA Title II Requirements Payments to Delaware 4–0 12/07/05 12/07/05

26. Grant Period and the Use of HAVA Funds 4–0 12/15/05 12/20/05

27. Appointment of Mr. Wilkey as an EAC Contracting Officer 4–0 12/16/05 12/20/05

28. Disbursement of HAVA Title II Requirements Payments to Michigan 4–0 12/20/05 12/21/05
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 

2005 Consensus Votes

Title Decided by 

Vote of

Certified 

Date

1. Consensus Memorandum to Commissioners for Graphic Design and Printing of the 

Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report and the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines 4–0 12/08/05

2. Approval for Chair To Sign the Statement of Support for the Guard and Reserve 

Submitted by the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and 

Reserve

4–0 12/08/05

3. No-cost Contract Modification—Kennesaw State University 4–0 12/30/05

2006 Tally Votes

1. Federal Register Publication of Changes to West Virginia’s HAVA State Plan 4–0 12/22/05 01/04/06

2. Revisions to the Best Practices Tool Kit 4–0 12/29/05 01/03/06

3. Adoption of Executive Order (December 22, 2005) Regarding Across the 

Board Pay Increase to Government Employees

4–0 12/29/05 01/03/06

4. Appointing Paul DeGregorio as the Designated Federal Officer to the EAC 

Board of Advisors

4–0 01/10/06 01/18/06

5. Appointing Donetta Davidson as the Designated Federal Officer to the 

TGDC

4–0 01/10/06 01/18/06

6. Adopting EAC Contracting Policy 4–0 01/10/06 01/18/06

7. Authorizing Tom Wilkey to Execute Agreement With NIST for FY06 Work 4–0 01/12/06 01/25/06

8. Settlement of EDS Claim 4–0 01/18/06 01/25/06

9. FY 2006 Budget 4–0 01/25/06 02/10/06

10. Federal Register Publication of Changes to Maryland and Puerto Rico 

HAVA State Plans

4–0 02/14/06 02/16/06

11. Intergovernmental Personnel Mobility Agreement for Sandy Steinbach 4–0 03/08/06 03/13/06

12. EAC Policy—Hiring Experts and Consultants 4–0 04/10/06 04/18/06

13. Audit Follow-up 4–0 05/09/06 05/11/06

14. The Quick Start Management Guide 4–0 06/05/06 06/06/06

15. Appointing Gracia Hillman as the Designated Federal Officer to the EAC 

Standards Board 

4–0 06/14/06 06/19/06

16. Federal Register Publication of Changes to the American Samoa HAVA 

State Plan

4–0 06/14/06 06/19/06

17. Approval and Filing of the Amended FACA Charter for the EAC Standards 

Board

4–0 06/26/06 07/07/06

18. Approval and Filing of the Amended FACA Charter for the EAC Board of 

Advisors

4–0 06/26/06 07/07/06

19. Approval and Filing of the Amended FACA Charter for the EAC Technical 

Guidelines Development Committee

4–0 06/26/06 07/07/06

20. Approval of Proposed Employees’ Grade Determinations 4–0 07/07/06 07/17/06

21. Arizona’s Request for Accommodation 2–2 07/06/06 07/31/06

22. Appeal of Disqualification of College Poll Worker Program—Valdosta State 

University

4–0 07/24/06 07/31/06

Title Decided 

by Vote of

Date 

Transmitted

Certified 

Date
10 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Title Decided 

by Vote of

Date 

Transmitted

Certified 

Date

23. Appeal of Disqualification of College Poll Worker Program—Wright State 

University

4–0 07/24/06 07/31/06

24. Approval of HAVA Section 102 Compliance Policy 4–0 07/24/06 07/31/06

25. Recommended Awards for 2006 College Poll Worker Program 4–0 07/27/06 08/02/06

26. Appointment of Curtis Crider as Inspector General 4–0 08/11/06 08/24/06

27. Approval of SysTest Labs, LLC. for Interim Accreditation as an EAC Test 

Laboratory

4–0 08/11/06 08/24/06

28. EAC Policy for Processing Indirect Cost Proposals From the States for HAVA 

Funds

3–0 08/25/06 09/05/06

29. Contract Award to the National Academy of Sciences 3–0 08/28/06 09/05/06

30. Approval of EAC Interim Accreditation for Wyle Labs 3–0 09/12/06 09/15/06

31. Federal Register Publication of Changes to the Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, 

South Carolina, and Virginia HAVA State Plan

3–0 09/13/06 09/15/06

2006 Tally Votes (continued)

Keeping the Public Informed and 

Involved

In FY 2006, one of the EAC’s top priorities was the

adoption of the 2005 VVSG. To ensure that the process was transparent and inclusive, the EAC posted

the draft VVSG on its Web site for 90 days and collected comments from the public, which were made

available as well. The EAC received more than 6,000

comments; each one was reviewed and considered

by EAC in consultation with NIST in developing

the final version. After adopting the final VVSG, the

Commission also posted on its Web site a synopsis of

the changes. The final VVSG, public comments, and

synopsis of changes are available at www.eac.gov.

In FY 2006, the Commissioners traveled to more

than 35 States to gather information from election

officials and the public about election reform, observe

primary elections, learn more about innovative

election administration techniques at the local level,

and attend poll worker training and recruitment

seminars. EAC Commissioners and staff attended

conferences held by the National Association of

Secretaries of State; The National Association of State

Election Directors; the International Association of

Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers;

the National Conference of State Legislatures; and

the National Association of Counties. The purpose

of attending conferences held by professional

organizations was to gather information about

progress being made to meet the HAVA mandates,

answer questions regarding HAVA funding, provide

training on HAVA funds management, discuss EAC

research projects, and get input from election officials

about how the Commission could help them prepare

for the upcoming elections.

In FY 2006, the EAC held nine public hearings about

a wide variety of topics, including implementing new

voting systems and effective election management

techniques, the Commission’s Voting System Testing

and Certification Program, effective ballot design and

polling place signage, voter information Web sites,

vote count and recount procedures, and the National

Voter Registration Act. Participants included State and

local election officials and representatives from government agencies such as the Department of Justice,

the National Institute of Standards and Technology,

and the Federal Voting Assistance Program. Advocacy

groups and organizations such as the National Voting

Rights Institute and Project Vote offered perspectives

on voter participation and voter registration. The

National Organization of State Election Directors, the

National Conference of State Legislatures, and the

National Association of Secretaries of State provided

input on behalf of the organizations’ members. 
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 11

with Commissioners or decision making staff

other than those noticed pursuant to the Federal

Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b))

and those required as part of the EAC certification,

accreditation, audit, or funding programs are

considered to be off the record.

Under the policy, if a Commissioner or staff member

with decision making authority inadvertently

communicates with a prohibited person regarding a

particular matter, the Commissioner or staff member

shall disclose the communication in writing to the

Commission, including the date, time, place, and

subject matter of the communication, and such

disclosure shall be made part of the official record of

the particular matter. The Ex Parte policy is available

at www.eac.gov.

Web Site Activities

During FY 2006, the EAC Web site received more

than 2 million hits, more than 1 million page views,

and an average of more than 10,000 hits per day. Top

page destinations included Register to Vote, the 2004

Election Day Survey, and the Voluntary Voting System

Guidelines. One of the most popular downloads was

the National Voter Registration Form.

Official meeting minutes and agendas, Federal Register

notices, public meeting and hearing schedules, the

VVSG, and more information about election administration and HAVA are available at www.eac.gov.

The EAC also began distributing EAC Newsline, a

monthly newsletter about the Commission’s activities

and election administration reform updates. Those

interested in reading the newsletter can sign up for

EAC Newsline by sending an e-mail to HAVAinfo@

eac.gov.

Ex Parte Policy

In May 2006, in anticipation of the Commission’s role

in certifying voting systems, the EAC Commissioners unanimously adopted an Ex Parte Policy, which

outlines the manner in which Commissioners will

conduct meetings and other communications with

individuals and organizations other than EAC staff

or other Federal government agencies when the individual or organization is engaged in a particular matter with the EAC. The policy plays an important role

in protecting the fairness of the EAC’s proceedings by

ensuring that EAC’s decisions are not influenced by

off-the-record communication between decision makers and individuals or organizations that are interested in the decision. This policy further serves to help

EAC and its staff avoid the appearance of impropriety

and to ensure that all individuals or organizations are

treated fairly and equitably by the Commission.

The policy states that no Commissioner or staff

member with decision making authority shall

communicate ex parte with any prohibited

individual regarding a particular matter before the

Commission. Ex parte communications are off-therecord or nonpublic communications. Meetings
12 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

0

Web Site Activities

National Voter Registration Act Update 03/16/06

National Voter Registration Act

Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines Vol. I

National Voter Registration Act Update 09/12/06

Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines Vol. II

EAC 2005 Annual Report

Full Report of the 2004 Election Day Survey

Quick Start Management Guide for New 

Voting Systems

Summary of the 2004 Election Day Survey

Election Directory for Cancellation Notices

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000

Number of Downloads
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 13

Improving Voting Systems

States are allowed to choose voting systems provided

those systems meet the requirements of Section 301(a)

of HAVA, which sets forth the requirements that all

voting systems used in Federal elections must meet.

2005Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (VVSG)

In December 2005, a major goal of HAVA was

reached with the unanimous adoption of the VVSG,

which significantly increased security requirements

for voting systems and expanded access, including

opportunities for individuals with disabilities to vote

privately and independently.

Before the adoption of the VVSG, the EAC conducted

a thorough and transparent public comment process.

After conducting an initial review of the draft VVSG,

EAC released the two-volume proposed guidelines for

a 90-day public comment period; during this period,

the EAC received more than 6,000 comments. Each

(1) Allow the voter to review selections before casting a

ballot.

(2) Allow the voter to change selections before casting a

final vote.

(3) Notify the voter when more selections are made than

are permitted.

(4) Provide for the production of a permanent paper

record suitable to be used in a manual recount.

(5) Provide voters with disabilities the same opportunity

for access and participation (including privacy and

independence).

(6) Provide accessibility in minority languages for voters

with limited English proficiency as required by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

(7) Provide for an error rate in operating the voting system that is no greater than the error rate set forth in

the 2002 Voting System Standards.

The HAVA 301(a) requirements state that all 

voting systems must be able to perform the 

following functions:

comment was reviewed and considered before final

adoption. The Commission also held public hearings

about the VVSG in New York City, Pasadena, CA, and

Denver, CO.

Volume I of the VVSG, Voting System Performance 

Guidelines, includes new requirements for

accessibility, usability, voting system software

distribution, system setup validation, and wireless

communications. It provides an overview of the

requirements for independent verification systems,

including requirements for a voter-verified paper

audit trail for States that require this feature for

their voting systems. Volume I also includes the

requirement that all voting system vendors submit

software to the National Software Reference Library,

which will allow local election officials to make sure

the voting system software they purchase is the same

software that was certified.

Volume II of the VVSG, National Certification Testing 

Guidelines, describes the components of the national

certification testing process for voting systems, which

will be performed by independent voting system

test labs accredited by EAC. EAC is mandated by

HAVA to develop a national program to accredit test

laboratories and certify, decertify, and recertify voting

systems. The VVSG and the comments received

from the public about the guidelines are available at 

www.eac.gov.

History of Voting System Standards (VSS) 

and Guidelines

The first set of national voting system standards was

created in 1990 by the Federal Election Commission

(FEC). In 2002, FEC updated the standards and

HAVA mandated that the EAC develop a new

iteration of the standards—which would be known as

VVSG—to address advancements in information and

computer technologies. The law also stated that EAC

assume responsibility for certifying voting systems

and accrediting testing laboratories approved by NIST.
14 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

HAVA mandated a 9-month

period for the TGDC to develop

the initial set of VVSG. The

TGDC, working with NIST,

technology experts, accessibility

experts, and election officials,

completed the first draft and

delivered it to EAC in May 2005.

In addition to providing technical

support to the TGDC, NIST

also reviewed the 2002 Voting

System Standards (2002 VSS) to

identify issues to be addressed

in the 2005 guidelines, drafted

core functional requirements,

categorized requirements into

related groups of functionality, identified security

gaps, provided recommendations for implementing

a voter-verifiable paper audit trail, and provided

usability requirements. NIST also updated the VVSG’s

conformance clause and glossary.

Pre-Election Voting System 

Certification Program

Section 231(a)(1) of HAVA directs the EAC to provide

for the certification, decertification, and recertification

of voting systems and the accreditation of testing

laboratories, marking the first time the Federal

government will be responsible for these activities.

In July 2006, the EAC Commissioners adopted the

Voting System Testing and Certification Program,

which consisted of two phases: (1) the pre-election

phase and (2) the full program. The first phase of the

program, which was implemented in July, addressed

critical modifications to voting systems required by

the States to effectively administer the November

2006 General Election. The program applies to voting

system manufacturers who (1) have voting systems

that State and local election officials intend to use

in the 2006 General Election and (2) had such systems previously qualified to the VSS by NASED. The

pre-election phase will terminate

when the EAC implements the

program’s second phase, scheduled to begin in January 2007.

The purpose of the pre-election

phase of the program is to provide

voting system manufacturers

with a means to obtain a Federal

Certification of voting system

modifications during the vital

period immediately before the

November 2006 General Election.

(Many States require a national

certification as a condition of

State certification.) Historically,

the 3- to 4-month period immediately preceding

a general election produces a number of emergent

situations that require the prompt modification of

voting systems. These changes are often required

by State or local election officials and must be made

before Election Day. To this end, the pre-election

phase of the EAC’s Certification Program is designed

to meet the immediate needs of election officials from

the date NASED terminates its qualification program

until after the November 2006 General Election. The

pre-election requirements of the EAC Certification

Program are narrowly tailored to meet these needs.

SysTest Labs and Wyle Laboratories were granted

interim accreditation to test modifications to voting

systems under the EAC’s pre-election phase. Visit

www.eac.gov for more information about the EAC’s

interim accreditation program and about these labs.

In addition to administering the pre-election phase

of the certification program, EAC staff will continue

to research, develop, and draft the manual for the

final phase of the program. The manual will provide the procedural requirements of the EAC Voting

System Testing and Certification Program. Although

participation in the full program will be voluntary,

adherence to the program’s procedural requirements

is mandatory for participants. The procedural require-
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 15

ments of this manual supersede any prior voting system certification requirements issued by the EAC.

The new program will provide information and procedures to manufacturers for testing and certifying

voting systems consistent with the requirements of

HAVA. The program will also support State certification programs, provide information and support to

State election officials, and provide increased quality

control in voting system manufacturing and increased

voter confidence in voting systems.

Key elements of the full program will include

manufacturer registration requirements, certification

and decertification procedures, and procedures

for interpreting the VVSG. The program will also

include a quality management component that will

provide mechanisms to instill more accountability

and transparency into the process. For instance,

the program will provide EAC with the authority to

inspect voting system manufacturing facilities, to

provide a means for receiving voting system anomaly

reports from local election officials, and to inspect

and retest fielded voting systems.

Under the full certification program, all

manufacturers seeking EAC certification for their

voting systems must submit the system for full, endto-end testing. EAC will not certify a system based on

previous NASED qualifications or State certifications.

History of Voting System Certification

NASED, a nonpartisan, volunteer organization

consisting of election directors, began testing voting

systems against FEC standards in 1994. NASED

did not receive Federal or State funds or support

to administer this program. The implementation of

EAC’s certification program will represent the first

time the Federal government has ever tested voting

systems. Approximately 39 States currently require

national certification for voting systems used in their

jurisdictions.
16 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Quick Start Guide for Ballot Preparation/ 

Printing and Pre-Election Testing

Ballot preparation and logic

and accuracy testing are

essential steps to ensure

Election Day runs smoothly.

The guide offers tips on

preparing and printing

ballots, which includes

confirming that ballots

conform to all applicable

State laws as well as requiring

a multilayered ballot proofing

process at each stage of

the design and production

process. The guide also

covers pre-election testing for

hardware and software logic

and accuracy.

In FY 2006, many States purchased new voting

systems and began the process of preparing to

introduce these new systems to voters. The process

presented challenges for election officials, which

resulted in problems in many States at polling places

during the primary elections held in 2006. The new

equipment required more technological support

and a new, multifaceted approach to preparing

for Election Day. Many of the poll workers were

not familiar with the new voting systems or the

technology associated with those systems, and

extensive contingency plans were not in place to

address technology failures.

The EAC Commissioners observed primary elections

in more than 10 States and attended poll worker

training sessions to gather information about

challenges as well as successes. Their goal was to

share what they had observed with election officials

throughout the Nation as these officials prepared for

the November 2006 General Election.

Quick Start Management Guides

The culmination of the Commissioners’ observations

and ongoing efforts of the Commission to assist

election officials resulted in a series of Quick Start

Management Guides, which provided an overview

about how to effectively manage and administer

an election. The guides—sent to election officials

throughout the Nation—covered introducing a new

voting system, ballot preparation, voting system

security, and poll worker training. All Quick Start

guides are available at www.eac.gov.

Assistance to States–

Preparing for Election Day

Quick Start Guide for 

New Voting Systems

The guide provides a

snapshot of processes

and procedures election

officials should use when

introducing a new voting

system. It covers receiving

and testing of equipment;

implementation tips, such as

conducting a mock election

and developing contingency

plans; and programming.

The guide also offers Election

Day management strategies,

including opening the polls,

processing voters, and

closing the polls.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 17

Quick Start Guide for 

Voting System Security

The introduction of new

equipment also ushered in

concerns regarding voting

system security. To address

some of those concerns

and to help election

officials implement effective

management procedures, the

guide highlights priority items

essential to securing these

systems. It addresses software

security, advising officials

to be sure that the software

installed on the systems is the

exact version that has been

certified. The guide advises officials to not install any

software other than the voting system software on the

vote tabulating computer; to verify that the voting

system is not connected to any network outside the

control of the election office; and to consider any

results transmitted electronically to be unofficial and

verify them against results contained on the media

that are physically transported to the central office.

Also included in the guide are recommendations

regarding password maintenance, physical security,

personnel security, and procedures to secure the

equipment.

Quick Start Guide for 

Poll Workers

One of the most challenging

tasks for election officials is

recruiting and training poll

workers. The guide contains

information about identifying

potential poll workers,

effective training programs

and techniques, as well as

procedures to implement on

Election Day.

Preparing for Election Day 

Election equipment is only half of the equation when it

comes to conducting a safe, secure, and accurate election.

The EAC recommends taking the following steps to be

prepared on Election Day. Details matter.

• Develop chain-of-custody procedures, use tamperevident seals, and implement inventory control/asset

management processes to ensure that voting units

and associated equipment are securely controlled and

accounted for at all times.

• Develop a procedure for monitoring each person who

has access to the voting system, including the election

office staff, vendor personnel, and visitors. Control

access of vendor personnel to the system. It is essential

that the vendor never be allowed access to the voting

system without a member of the election office staff

present.

• Follow State guidelines for conducting logic and

accuracy testing on voting machines before each

election.

• Encourage poll managers to periodically verify the

number of voters processed against the number of votes

recorded (via public counter) on the voting devices

and to compare that number with the total number of

signatures recorded in the poll book.

• Establish procedures to securely transport election

results from optical scanners to vote-tabulation

computers if the optical scanners are not located in the

same location where voter tabulation takes place.

• Consider any results transmitted electronically from the

precinct to the central office to be unofficial and verify

them against the results that are physically transported

to the central office.
18 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Recruiting the Next Generation of 

Poll Workers

Title V of HAVA requires the EAC to establish the

Help America Vote College Program. This program

has two major purposes:

• To encourage students enrolled at institutions

of higher education (including community

colleges) to assist State and local governments

in the administration of elections by serving as

nonpartisan poll workers or assistants.

• To encourage State and local governments to use the

services of the students participating in the program.

In FY 2006, under the Help America Vote College

Program, the EAC awarded a total of $300,000

in grants to develop programs to recruit and train

college students to serve as nonpartisan poll workers

and poll assistants. The funds were used to encourage

students enrolled at institutions of higher education

(including community colleges) to assist in the

administration of elections.

Out of 55 applicants, 19 grantees were selected by

six panels of independent reviewers from a variety

of backgrounds and experience related to elections

and higher education. The grantees were chosen

based on their innovative approaches to engaging

college students and their ability to ensure that these

students would improve the process of election

administration, including serving as poll workers on

Election Day.

The choice of these grantees produced an FY 2006

program that was diverse in geography, type of institution, and style of organization. According to the

plans of these grant recipients, major cities, rural areas, and a number of communities with polling places composed largely of Hispanic, African-American,

or Native American populations would be served.

To further assist the grantees’ efforts, EAC provided

a draft of the Guidebook to Recruiting College Poll 

Workers, which had been produced through research

partially paid with FY 2005 funds designated for

the Help America Vote College Program. EAC plans

to use feedback provided by the grantees to make

changes before publishing the first version of the guide.

The first reports from the grantees, filed in October

2006, covered activity from the award of the grant

through September 30, 2006. Because this was

the beginning of the fall semester at colleges and

universities, very little or no activity was reported for

this period of time. EAC anticipates that the bulk of

the activity will be disclosed in the next report, which

is due March 31, 2007, and will cover activity from

October 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.

2006 Help America Vote College Program Grant Recipients

1. American University (AU) $16,000

AU’s Center for Democracy and Election Management

(CDEM) planned to recruit approximately 100

AU students to work at polling places throughout

Washington, DC, in the November 7, 2006

General Election. CDEM’s extensive marketing and

communication efforts were to include an innovative

slogan and logo for the project (to appear on t-shirts,

on posters, and in advertisements in the student

newspaper) and to use a variety of other outlets to

reach students on campus. Robert Pastor, director

of CDEM, was to launch a fall lecture series on

U.S. election issues during the first week of classes.

Additional speakers to be invited included EAC

Commissioners and U.S. Representative Eleanor

Holmes Norton. The D.C. Board of Elections was

to organize poll worker training on AU’s campus in

advance of November 7. CDEM planned to hold a

separate informational session for student participants

to review different kinds of material—such as the right

to vote and the importance of voting—in order to put

their experience into an educational context. 
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 19

aspects of the program. Products developed were to

include a “before” and “after” internal poll of students’

knowledge of different voting procedures, which will

measure the success of poll worker training outreach.

5. Hattiesburg Alumnae Chapter 

of the Delta Sigma Theta (DST) $10,000

The Hattiesburg, MS Alumnae Chapter of the Delta

Sigma Theta planned to recruit and train college poll

workers to serve in disadvantaged polling places

in Hattiesburg. Rallies and organizational efforts to

recruit students were to be emphasized. The DST

chapter has focused its efforts on involving residents

displaced by the Hurricane Katrina disaster. They

planned to roll out their program with a concentrated

“free media” campaign and a training/informational

session that would focus on civic engagement and

public service. The sorority planned to set a goal for

each member to recruit three other students to serve

as poll workers on election day.

6. Illinois Central College (ICC) $15,169

Illinois Central College planned to recruit and train 50

college students to be poll workers and assistants in

Peoria County, IL. The program planned to focus on

technology savvy students. The recruitment approach

was to be primarily a peer-to-peer approach. The

program planned to survey students after Election

Day about their experience as a poll worker, and to

share the data with local elections officials. Students

also were to have a forum in which to share their

experiences with their peers after they completed their

poll worker service.

7. Indiana University (IU) $19,910

Indiana University planned to implement a sevenpoint plan as part of a statewide effort to recruit

college student poll workers: (1) create relationships

through the University’s American Democracy Project;

(2) recruit campus-based recruiters/trainers to serve

as “campus champions”; (3) train campus champions

in the Indiana Secretary of State’s curriculum

development program; (4) work with local election

officials; (5) recruit students as poll workers in their

‘home’ counties; (6) follow up with student poll

workers; and (7) encourage information flow among

the program, campus champions, and local election

officials to ensure feedback. 

2. California State University, 

Long Beach (CSU-LB) $16,992

California State University at Long Beach planned to

recruit and train 400 students to serve as poll workers

in Los Angeles County, CA. Working with Associated

Students, Incorporated (the student government

organization at CSU) and Los Angeles County,

activities were to include recruitment, professor

involvement, training, poll worker involvement,

and troubleshooters (for student issues related to

the project). The project planned to develop media

materials based on EAC guidance and other items and

a public service announcement for use on the college

TV stations that would encourage attendance at any

one of five poll worker training meetings.

3. Citizens Union Foundation (CU) 

of the City of New York $19,000

The Citizens Union Foundation of the City of New

York planned to recruit and train 500 college poll

workers for the upcoming primary and general

elections to be conducted by the New York City

Board of Elections (NY BOE). The program focused

on the students’ technical savvy and language

assistance talents, which the NY BOE needed.

Technical recruiting tools were to include a Web site

functionality, online social networking, and Web

advertising. Traditional methods of outreach were to

focus on entertainment venues that appeal to college

students and established partnerships with events such

as Summer Stage and Shakespeare in the Park. CU will

work with the City University of New York’s Baruch

College, School of Public Affairs, to institutionalize the

recruitment of poll workers on campus. CU planned

to contribute $8,000 of its own funds to complete the

project ($28,000 estimated to complete).

4. Elgin Community College (ECC) $12,000

Elgin Community College planned to recruit 100

students to be trained and to serve as poll workers and

14 to be bilingual poll workers for Kane County, IL.

The program also planned to recruit and train 140 poll

assistants, who will help set up the polling stations.

Students were to earn student development credit

for participation as a poll worker and, depending

on their service, would have their tuition waived by

the school. Training classes were to include a civic

education component and incorporate a curriculum

focused on multicultural, disability, and technology
20 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

. . .

8. Lander University $11,000

Lander University planned to recruit and train 76

college students to be poll workers—2 per polling

precinct—for Greenwood County, SC. The students

were to help bridge the technology divide as the

November 2006 General Election was expected to be

the first time many people would be using electronic

machines. The recruitment approach was to be

multifaceted: having students wear t-shirts every

Tuesday before Election Day, using local print media,

and creating a brochure. Students would also be

required to participate in a post-election meeting in

which they would submit a written account of their

experience as a poll worker.

9. Maricopa County Community 

College (MCCC), Mesa District $17,486

Maricopa County Community College planned to

focus on specific departments that would provide

a particular kind of poll worker for elections in

Maricopa County, AZ—for example, specific outreach

was to be made to political science, Spanish, and

computer science majors to volunteer. The program

planned to emphasize the civic engagement experience

through the varied community colleges in Maricopa

County, focus on college-based media exposure, and

develop informational literature that would be used on

all campuses.

10. Northern Kentucky University (NKU) 

Research Foundation $12,000

The Northern Kentucky University Research Foundation planned to recruit college students to serve as

poll workers in Kentucky and southern Ohio. NKU

planned to work with election officials from both jurisdictions to ease any gaps in staffing the polls. A “Step

Up to the Plate” media campaign was to be used to

recruit students. Unique media and design efforts were

to showcase the advertising efforts of the institution.

11. Project Vote—

New Castle County, DE $16,875

Project Vote in New Castle County, DE, planned to

recruit and train 40 to 60 college students to be poll

workers for New Castle County by partnering with the

Delaware College of Art & Design, Delaware Technical

Community College (Stanton and Wilmington

campuses), Golden-Beacom College, University

of Delaware at Newark, Delaware State University

(Wilmington campus), Widner University School

of Law, and Wilmington College. The recruitment

approach was to be multifaceted, including peer-topeer engagement, working with student governments,

class presentations, and using Internet sites such as

“facebook” and MySpace.com.

12. Project Vote—Saginaw City, MI $16,875

Project Vote in Saginaw, MI, planned to recruit and

train 40 to 50 college students to be poll workers

for the city of Saginaw by partnering with the

Delta College, Saginaw Valley State University, and

Davenport University. The recruitment approach

was to be multifaceted, including peer-to-peer

engagement, working with student governments,

class presentations, and using Internet sites such as

“facebook” and MySpace.com.

13. Research Foundation of the State 

University of New York (SUNY) $13,678

The Research Foundation of the State University

of New York, on behalf of and in conjunction with

SUNY Cortland, sought the award to recruit and train

50 college students to be poll workers for Cortland

County, NY. The program planned to focus on

sophomores and juniors because they are most likely

to be available for elections in the immediate future.

The recruitment approach was to be multifaceted,

having students wear sweatshirts, placing table tents

on dining room tables, placing announcements in

campus media, and having class announcements.

Students were to be interviewed after Election Day

to encourage an open-ended discussion of their

experiences as poll workers.

14. United Tribes Technical 

College (UTTC) $18,000

United Tribes Technical College planned to recruit and

train students at Native American-serving institutions

as college poll workers for North Dakota (part of a

tri-State effort involving Native Americans in Montana,

North Dakota, and South Dakota) to fill the need for

Native American poll workers on reservations. The

program was to incorporate reservation-based poll

worker training. Educational videos, developed in

part with a 2004 Help America Vote College Program

grant, were to be reproduced and used as part of a

remote training process. UTTC planned to build on

the successes of the 2004 program and help inform

nontraditionally aged students to serve their polling

places, often in remote or rural locations.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 21

15. University of Baltimore (UB) $18,996

The University of Baltimore’s Schaefer Center and

Center for Citizenship and Applied Politics planned to

recruit college poll workers for the city of Baltimore,

MD, and participating Maryland counties. The

program was to use a Web site and immediate press

push to notify students of the program. Student

election judge recruiters were to be selected and

trained. A program leadership team was to develop

links among students, faculty, and local and State

election officials. The program was to include a civics

training component and an extensive post-service

evaluation process that would indicate how EAC

factors, training, recruitment, and motivational efforts

affected college poll workers.

16. University of 

Central Florida (UCF) $15,288

The University of Central Florida planned to recruit

college poll workers and poll assistants for Orange

County, FL. Its Institute of Politics and Government

was to use a new assessment of the entire poll

worker and poll assistant roles that must be filled by

registered voters in Orange County and those that

can be filled by individuals who are not registered in

Orange County to assign students recruited through

the program. The project was broken into different

phases that were to focus on planning, recruitment,

results, and research. The program planned to use

Web-based and interpersonal recruitment by student

leaders, run public service announcements on studentrun radio, and encourage involvement through the

“Help Central Florida Vote” initiative. UCF planned

to use its relationship with Valencia Community

College to incorporate the support of the community

college network. The program also was to conduct a

post-poll worker assessment, with a complete report

indicating strengths and weaknesses of the program to

be presented to EAC.

17. University of Texas 

at El Paso (UTEP) $20,000

The University of Texas at El Paso planned to recruit

and train 40 college students to be poll workers for El

Paso County, TX, with an emphasis on students who

are bilingual in Spanish and English. The recruitment

approach was to be multifaceted, including peerto-peer engagement, classroom presentations, and

informational booths. A “Join the Boarder Poll Crew”

effort was to use the EAC-developed college poll

worker materials. El Paso County committed to train

representatives from the university’s Center for Civic

Engagement who would, in turn, train the student

poll workers. Four students were to be trained on

qualitative observation methods to help determine

the number of bilingual poll workers required to

serve the needs of the Spanish-speaking voters in the

community.

18. University of Virginia (UVA) 

Center for Politics $14,699

The University of Virginia planned to develop

and expand a partnership among UVA, the city of

Charlottesville, and Albemarle County, VA. The

program was to include outreach to Piedmont

Community College. Staffers from the Center for

Politics were to recruit and train 90 students to

serve in Charlottesville and 30 students to serve in

Albemarle County. Methods of recruitment were to

include MySpace.com and other technological and

traditional ways of recruitment. The program planned

to employ student-workers to increase student buy-in

throughout the process. The students were to gain

ownership of the process, in part, through a special

‘swearing in’ ceremony on ‘The Lawn’ at UVA.

19. Western Connecticut 

State University (WCSU) $16,032

Western Connecticut State University planned to

recruit and train technology savvy college students

to be poll workers for the city of Danbury, CT, with

an emphasis on recruiting students who are studying

political science, justice and law administration, and

humanistic studies. The recruitment approach was to

be multifaceted, including classroom announcements

and a table at the 2006 Clubs Carnival. The program

planned to use the EAC-developed college poll

worker materials. Students in the program were to be

encouraged to create an ePortfolio (an online journal

and profile page) and wear poll worker t-shirts every

Tuesday before Election Day.
22 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

HAVA Funds Management

Congress appropriated more than $3 billion to be

distributed to the States to implement HAVA; most

of that money goes toward requirements payments,

also known as Title II, Section 251 payments. These

funds are provided primarily to help States meet the

uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology

and administration requirements of Title III of HAVA.

These requirements include voting system standards,

provisional voting, voting information requirements,

a computerized statewide voter registration list, and

identification requirements for first-time voters who

register to vote by mail.

Of the $2,319,360,620 in funds appropriated in

FY 2003 and FY 2004 for Title II requirements

payments, EAC disbursed the final $58,265,883 to

four States in FY 2006.

By the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year, every

State and territory had received its entire share of

the funds appropriated in FY 2003 and FY 2004 for

requirements payments.

Because no additional appropriations have been made

for requirements payments, EAC will not disburse

more requirements payments until after recouping

the portion of HAVA Title I, Section 102, funds that

were not used by the statutory deadline to replace

all punch card and lever machine voting systems in

qualifying States. In accordance with HAVA Sections

102(d) and104(c), EAC will redistribute these returned funds to the States as requirements payments.

During the past 2 years, EAC has answered hundreds

of questions from election administrators around

the country regarding the appropriate use of HAVA

funds. To provide all election administrators with

information regarding the types of questions that

EAC has received and the answers that it has given,

the Commission compiled a list of frequently asked

questions to assist election officials with the reporting

requirements and to clarify the rules regarding the

proper use of HAVA funds. The document, available

at www.eac.gov, covers topics such as accounting

procedures, rules regarding equipment, income from

HAVA funds, matching funds, and cost sharing.

Requirements Payments Processed by EAC in FY 2006

Date Approved State FY 2003 Funds* FY 2004 Funds* Total*

10/18/05 Montana $0** $7,446,803 $7,446,803

10/21/05 Hawaii $0** $7,446,803 $7,446,803

11/01/05 Michigan $0** $17,615,000*** $17,615,000

12/07/05 Delaware $0** $7,446,803 $7,446,803

12/21/05 Michigan $0** $18,310,474*** $18,310,474

Total $0 $58,265,883 $58,265,883

* Figures rounded to nearest dollar.

** State had already received its FY 2003 requirements payment.

*** State previously received a partial FY 2004 payment based on a partial 5-percent match.

HAVA Requirements Payments—Funds Available for Distribution

as of December 21, 2005

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 $830,000,000 $1,489,360,620 $2,319,360,620 

Remaining to be disbursed $0 $0 $0 

* Figures rounded to nearest dollar.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 23

All HAVA Title II Requirements Payments Processed by EAC

as of December 21, 2005

State or Territory FY 2003 Funds* FY 2004 Funds* Total Payment(s) to State*

Alabama $12,835,092 $23,031,421 $35,866,513 

Alaska $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

American Samoa $830,000 $1,489,361 $2,319,361 

Arizona $14,523,463 $26,061,052 $40,584,515 

Arkansas $7,729,205 $13,869,365 $21,598,570 

California $94,559,169 $169,677,955 $264,237,124 

Colorado $12,362,309 $22,183,056 $34,545,365 

Connecticut $9,919,624 $17,799,877 $27,719,501 

Delaware $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

District of Columbia $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

Florida $47,416,833 $85,085,258 $132,502,091 

Georgia $23,170,602 $41,577,568 $64,748,170 

Guam $830,000 $1,489,361 $2,319,361 

Hawaii $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

Idaho $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

Illinois $35,283,025 $63,312,227 $98,595,252 

Indiana $17,372,175 $31,172,812 $48,544,987 

Iowa $8,495,310 $15,244,073 $23,739,383 

Kansas $7,661,648 $13,748,141 $21,409,789 

Kentucky $11,773,250 $21,126,042 $32,899,292 

Louisiana $12,549,220 $22,518,452 $35,067,672 

Maine $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

Maryland $15,201,214 $27,277,216 $42,478,430 

Massachusetts $18,688,102 $33,534,124 $52,222,225 

Michigan $28,256,578 $50,703,896 $78,960,474 

Minnesota $14,020,413 $25,158,375 $39,178,788 

Mississippi $8,022,516 $14,395,687 $22,418,203 

Missouri $16,073,033 $28,841,617 $44,914,650 

Montana $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

Nebraska $4,920,376 $8,829,173 $13,749,549 

Nevada $5,785,410 $10,381,400 $16,166,810 

New Hampshire $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

New Jersey $24,358,479 $43,709,107 $68,067,586 

New Mexico $5,110,126 $9,169,664 $14,279,790 

New York $54,900,465 $98,513,965 $153,414,430

North Carolina $23,431,708 $42,046,100 $65,477,808 

North Dakota $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

Ohio $32,562,331 $58,430,186 $90,992,517 

Oklahoma $9,898,202 $17,761,436 $27,659,638 

Oregon $9,961,818 $17,875,589 $27,837,406 

Pennsylvania $35,992,863 $64,585,966 $100,578,829 

Puerto Rico $830,000 $1,489,361 $2,319,361

Rhode Island $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

South Carolina $11,602,190 $20,819,090 $32,421,280 

South Dakota $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803

Tennessee $16,545,934 $29,690,196 $46,236,130 

Texas $57,504,778 $103,187,171 $160,691,949 

Utah $5,892,900 $10,574,281 $16,467,182 

Vermont $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

Virgin Islands $830,000 $1,489,361 $2,319,361

Virginia $20,572,984 $36,916,377 $57,489,361 

Washington $16,889,420 $30,306,551 $47,195,971 

West Virginia $5,476,493 $9,827,076 $15,303,569 

Wisconsin $15,410,741 $27,653,194 $43,063,935 

Wyoming $4,150,000 $7,446,803 $11,596,803 

Total $830,000,000 $1,489,360,620 $2,319,360,620 

* Figures rounded to nearest dollar.
24 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Recouping HAVA Section 102 Funds

Section 102 of HAVA provided funds to States for the

replacement of punch card or lever voting machines

with voting systems that meet HAVA Section 301

voting system standards (42 U.S.C. §15302). Prior

to the establishment of the EAC, General Services

Administration (GSA) distributed some of these

funds to the States. The EAC, however, is the Federal

agency responsible for auditing and overseeing the

use of HAVA Section 102 funds.

HAVA initially mandated that the Section 102 funds

be used to replace voting systems in time for the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office in

November 2004. The statute, however, allowed States

to file for a waiver of that deadline for good cause.

States that filed for a waiver had until the first election

for Federal office held on or after January 1, 2006

(42 U.S.C. §15302(a)(3) (A) & (B)). Of the 30 States

receiving Section 102 funds, 23 requested this waiver.

HAVA allows no additional extension of the deadline.

The chart below shows the applicable deadline for

every State that received Section 102 funds.

HAVA Section 102(d) requires States that have not

replaced all of their punch card and lever machine

voting systems by the applicable deadline to repay

a portion of the Section 102 funds equal to the percentage of noncompliant precincts. This percentage

is established by taking the total number of qualifying precincts that have not fully replaced their punch

card and lever machines in accordance with HAVA

(42 U.S.C. §15302 (a) & (b)) and dividing that number by the total number of qualifying precincts in the

State. (See 42 U.S.C. §15302(d).)

State Total Qualified Precincts Section 102 Funds Received Deadline

Alabama 16 $51,076 11/02/04

Arizona 490 $1,564,188 11/02/04

Arkansas 805 $2,569,738 05/23/06

California 17,957 $57,322,707 04/11/06

Colorado 682 $2,177,095 08/08/06

Florida 3,628 $11,581,377 11/02/04

Georgia 1,485 $4,740,448 11/02/04

Illinois 10,590 $33,805,617 03/21/06

Indiana 2,983 $9,522,394 05/02/06

Kentucky 147 $469,256 05/16/06

Louisiana 2,303 $7,351,684 11/07/06

Maryland 513 $1,637,609 11/02/04

Massachusetts 476 $1,519,497 09/19/06

Michigan 2,046 $6,531,284 08/08/06

Mississippi 557 $1,778,067 06/06/06

Missouri 3,594 $11,472,841 08/08/06

New Jersey 2,724 $8,695,609 06/06/06

New York 15,539 $49,603,917 09/12/06

North Carolina 280 $893,822 05/02/06

Ohio 9,607 $30,667,664 05/02/06

Oregon 571 $1,822,758 11/02/04

Pennsylvania 7,179 $22,916,952 05/16/06

South Carolina 679 $2,167,518 11/02/04

Tennessee 775 $2,473,971 08/03/06

Texas 1,964 $6,269,521 03/07/06

Utah 1,794 $5,726,844 06/27/06

Virginia 1,418 $4,526,569 06/13/06

Washington 2,130 $6,799,430 09/19/06

West Virginia 736 $2,349,474 05/09/06

Wisconsin 410 $1,308,810 09/12/06

HAVA Section 102 Funds
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 25

In FY 2006, EAC established a process by which

States are required to certify the total number of

qualified precincts1 that have replaced all punch

card or lever machines by the applicable deadline.

This certification process means that no punch

card or lever voting systems were used in the

qualified precinct.2 The replacement systems must

(1) not use punch cards or levers, (2) meet the

requirements of HAVA Section 301 (42 U.S.C.

§15481), and (3) comply with all other relevant

Federal statutory requirements (noted in 42 U.S.C.

§15545). Certifications were sent to the Chief State

Election Official of every State that received Section

102 funds. If States cannot certify the proper and

timely use of the Section 102 funds, HAVA requires

that the funds be returned for EAC to disburse as

requirements payments (42 U.S.C. §§ 15304 &

15401). The Commission has approved a compliance

policy for this process, including an appeal process,

and the Commission has created a uniform review

process for State Section 102 certifications.

The certification process is ongoing and is expected

to be completed by early summer 2007. EAC cannot

redistribute returned funds as requirements payments

until all States that are required to repay the Section

102 funds have done so. To receive requirements payments, all States will have to follow the steps outlined

in HAVA Section 253, including filing a revised State

plan that discloses how the State will use the funds

and appropriating the necessary 5-percent match.

Sources and Uses of HAVA Funds

EAC oversees three sources of funding provided

by HAVA to improve the administration of Federal

elections and to meet the requirements of Title III

of HAVA (specifically to implement provisional

voting, to meet voting system standards, to develop

and implement a computerized statewide voter

registration list, to post required voting information

at the polls, and to implement voter identification

requirements for first-time voters who register by mail

to vote). Those sources are Section 101, Section 102,

and Section 251 funds.

The funds received by a State under Section 101 can

be used for the following purposes:

• Complying with the requirements under Title III.

• Improving the administration of elections for

Federal office.

• Educating voters about voting procedures, voting

rights, and voting technology.

• Training election officials, poll workers, and

election volunteers.

• Developing the State plan for requirements

payments to be submitted under part 1 of subtitle

D of Title II.

• Improving, acquiring, leasing, modifying, or

replacing voting systems and technology and

methods for casting and counting votes.

• Improving the accessibility and quantity of polling

places, including providing physical access for

individuals with disabilities; providing nonvisual

access for individuals with visual impairments;

and providing assistance to Native Americans,

Alaska Native citizens, and individuals with limited

proficiency in the English language.

• Establishing toll-free telephone hotlines that voters

may use to report possible voting fraud and voting

rights violations; obtain general election information; and access detailed automated information on

their own voter registration status, specific polling

place locations, and other relevant information.

Section 102 funds can be used only for the purposes

of replacing punch card and lever voting systems with

voting systems that comply with Section 301(a) of

HAVA.

Section 251 funds can be used to implement any of

the Title III requirements, including procuring or up1

 Those precincts that used punch card or lever machines to administer the regularly scheduled general election for 

Federal office held in November 2000.

2

 Replaced punch card or lever voting systems may not be transferred for use in a different precinct. 
26 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

grading voting systems to comply with Section 301

voting system standards; implementing provisional

voting; posting required voting information in the

polling place; developing and implementing a computerized statewide voter registration list; and implementing identification requirements for first-time voters who register by mail on or after January 1, 2003,

to vote. In addition, States and local governments

can use HAVA funds to improve the administration of

elections for Federal office when the State has notified EAC that one of the following two conditions is

met: (1) the State has met the requirements of Title

III or (2) the State intends to use an amount not to

exceed the amount of the minimum payment that the

State either did or could have received under the Section 252 formula for that purpose.

The uses of Section 251 funds (and Title I funds,

when used to meet the requirements of Title III)

must be accounted for in the State’s plan as originally

submitted or later amended. The State may not make

any material changes to the administration of the

State plan, including material changes in the use of

251 funds (and Title I funds as specified above), until

after the following has occurred:

• The State has developed the change with the

involvement of a committee of stakeholders, in

accordance with Section 255(a).

• The State has published the change for a 30-

day public comment period, in accordance with

Section 256.

• EAC has published the change in the Federal Register for 30 days, in accordance with Section 255(b).

The State plan publication schedule follows on the

next page.

HAVA Reporting

States are required to report annually to EAC on the

use of the following HAVA funds:

• HAVA Title I, Section 101 (all States).

• HAVA Title II, Section 102 (only the 30 States that

received these funds).

• HAVA Title II, Section 251, requirements payments

(all States).

The reporting schedule and contents for the HAVA

Title II requirements payments are set by HAVA Section 258. The requirements for the HAVA Title I

funds are based on directions originally issued by the

GSA, OMB Circular A-102, and consideration of the

information Congress sought for the Title II requirements payments.

As States filed their reports in FY 2006, EAC noted

the basic financial information from the reports

and attempted a preliminary analysis of how States

reported they were using the funds to meet the HAVA

mandates.

Unfortunately, many States did not submit narratives

that clearly explained what programs were supported

by the expenditure of HAVA funds. Many States did

not appropriately report the interest earned on the

funds. Furthermore, many State reports on the Title

II requirements payments did not show the State’s 5-

percent match, which was necessary to receive those

payments, or the expenditures from those funds.

EAC determined that the Commission would have to

seek additional information from the States to obtain

a better picture of how States used HAVA funds

during the periods covered by the reports filed in FY

2006 and the previous 2 fiscal years. The previous

years’ reports included the first reports on Title I,

Section 101 and 102 funds that were filed with the

GSA and transferred in the summer of 2004 to the

newly established EAC, and the first reports on Title

II requirements payments and second reports on the

Title I funds, which were filed with EAC in February

and March 2005.

Prior to FY 2006, insufficient funding and severe

limits on the number of full-time employees

prevented EAC from conducting a thorough review of

these reports without adversely affecting programs of

the highest priority, such as providing HAVA Title II

requirements payments. In FY 2006, EAC developed

a uniform review policy for the reports from the

States and hired a temporary contract employee to
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 27

State Plan Publication Schedule

State or 

Territory

Additional 

Publication 

Dates*

Most Recent 

Publication 

Date*

Number of 

Revisions

Alabama 0

Alaska 04/07/05 1

American 

Samoa

06/29/06 1

Arizona 0

Arkansas 12/22/04 1

California 09/30/04 1

Colorado 0

Connecticut 0

Delaware 10/27/05 1

District of 

Columbia

0

Florida 09/30/04 1

Georgia 0

Guam 0

Hawaii 0

Idaho 0

Illinois 12/22/04 09/28/06 2

Indiana 09/28/06 1

Iowa 06/29/05 1

Kansas 09/30/04 1

Kentucky 0

Louisiana 09/28/06 1

Maine 0

Maryland 02/27/06 1

Massachusetts 0

Michigan 11/16/05 1

Minnesota 0

Mississippi 06/29/05 1

Missouri 0

Montana 08/25/05 1

Nebraska 12/22/04 1

Nevada 09/30/04 08/25/05 2

New Hampshire 0

New Jersey 0

New Mexico 0

New York 0

North Carolina 06/29/05 1

North Dakota 12/22/04 1

Ohio 04/07/05 1

Oklahoma 03/11/05 1

Oregon 0

Pennsylvania 09/30/04 09/30/05 2

Puerto Rico 01/24/05 02/27/06 2

Rhode Island 0

South Carolina 09/30/04; 

08/25/05

09/28/06 3

South Dakota 03/11/05 1

Tennessee 09/30/04 1

Texas 03/11/05 1

Utah 0

Vermont 0

Virgin Islands 0

Virginia 09/12/05 09/28/06 2

Washington 0

West Virginia 02/01/06 1

Wisconsin 0

Wyoming 0

State or 

Territory

Additional 

Publication 

Dates*

Most Recent 

Publication 

Date*

Number of 

Revisions

*Material changes to State plans are effective only after they have been published in the Federal Register for 30 days.

Note: Original publication date for all States and territories was March 24, 2004.

conduct the review. The purpose of the uniform

review policy was to ensure that—

• All States are treated fairly and consistently in the

review process.

• States are provided an opportunity to correct

reporting deficiencies or anomalies.

• Correct and complete information on the use of

HAVA funds is available to EAC’s inspector general,

Congress, the public, and other interested persons.

• EAC identifies common reporting problems so the

Commission may address such problems through

education and by posting “Reporting Tips” for

States on its Web site.

EAC began this uniform review of the reports in 

FY 2006 but will not complete it until FY 2007. The

review includes an initial assessment of the financial

reports and narratives filed by the States during the

last 3 years (covering the States’ use of HAVA Title I

funds and Title II requirements payments in 2003,

2004, and 2005). The review will determine if all

needed information has been included. When a State

has provided sufficient information, EAC will assess

the State’s report to determine if the State has used the

Federal funds in compliance with HAVA and with its

State plan.
28 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

* Reports are due if the State has received funds under the HAVA title and section noted and has not previously 

reported the expenditure of all such funds (including interest earned and, in the case of Title II, Section 251 payments, 

the 5-percent match).

When a State has submitted a report that is

incomplete or has not filed a report, EAC contacts the

State to secure the needed information and/or reports.

After completing the review of the State reports and

any State responses to EAC requests for corrections

and clarifications, EAC will produce a report detailing

how States report using the funds. EAC anticipates

releasing its first report in the spring of 2007,

summarizing the States’ use of HAVA Title I funds

(during calendar years 2003 through 2005) and Title

II requirements payments (during June 2004 through

September 2005). Any possible compliance issues

will be assessed by the Commission and referred to

the EAC inspector general or to the Department of

Justice for enforcement, if appropriate.

Beginning with the State reports filed in FY 2007,

EAC plans to routinely update the published

analysis of how States used the funds after States

have been offered the opportunity to correct or

clarify their reports. Also, beginning in FY 2007, on

an “as needed” basis, EAC will update its training

program and the information on the EAC Web site

to provide reporting tips that may be useful to States

in preparing future financial reports and supporting

narrative statements.

Audits

In addition to EAC’s role in distributing HAVA funds,

the Commission is responsible for monitoring the

fiscally responsible use of HAVA funding by the

States. The EAC seeks to ensure funds distributed

under HAVA are being used for the purposes

mandated by HAVA to ultimately improve the

administration of Federal elections. To fulfill this

responsibility, the EAC conducts periodic fiscal

Schedule of HAVA Reports Due to EAC in FY 2006*

Due Date HAVA Title 

& Section CFDA # Coverage Dates Report Form and Contents

02/28/06 Title I, 

Section 101

39.011 01/01/05–

12/31/05

Standard Form 269 with the following attached:

• A detailed list of expenditures by program, function, or 

task (including dollar amount) made with respect to each 

category of activities described for the permissible use of 

funds in HAVA Section 101(b).

• The number and type of articles of voting equipment 

obtained with the funds.

• An analysis and description of the activities funded and how 

such activities conform to the submitted State plan.

02/28/06 Title I, 

Section 102

39.011 01/01/05–

12/31/05

Standard Form 269 with the following attached:

• A detailed list of expenditures (including dollar amount) 

made for the replacement of punch card and lever voting 

systems in accordance with HAVA Section 102(a)(2).

• The number and type of articles of voting equipment 

obtained with the funds.

• An analysis and description of how the expenditures conform 

to the submitted State plan.

03/30/06 Title II, 

Section 251

90.401 10/01/04–

09/30/05

Standard Form 269 with the following attached:

• A list of expenditures made with respect to each category of 

activities described for the use of funds in HAVA Section 251.

• The number and type of articles of voting equipment 

obtained with the funds.

• An analysis and description of the activities funded to meet 

HAVA requirements and how such activities conform to the 

submitted State plan.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 29

audits of State HAVA fund expenditures and issues

final resolutions regarding proper use. With the

establishment of an Office of Inspector General, the

EAC now has a robust audit program in place to

ensure appropriate oversight of Federal funding given

to States through HAVA. In addition to resolving

issues identified during audits, the EAC plans to

offer additional training to provide States with more

tailored information regarding the appropriate uses

and management of HAVA funds.

In 2005, the Commissioners unanimously adopted

a general policy for conducting special audits that

applied to all States. After adopting the audit policy,

Commissioners also unanimously voted to conduct a

special audit of California’s use of Federal funding for

election reforms under HAVA. The Commissioners

scheduled the special audit on the basis of an

internal audit, conducted by the California State

auditor, which identified numerous deficiencies in

the administration of HAVA funds by the California

Office of Secretary of State. The special audit focused

on approximately $27 million disbursed to the State

under Title I, Section 101, of HAVA. In FY 2006, the

EAC received the findings from the first audit ordered

by the Commission regarding California’s HAVA

Section 101 funds.

California Audit History 

In FY 2003, the GSA disbursed $27,340,830 to the

State of California, pursuant to HAVA, Title I, Section

101, for activities to improve the administration of

Federal elections. The California Bureau of State

Audits (BSA) conducted an audit of HAVA Section

101 funds expended or obligated by the California

Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) as of June

30, 2004.3 The audit was conducted to determine

whether the SOS properly used HAVA funds. The

audit also evaluated SOS policies and procedures

for administering HAVA funds. BSA’s audit found

problems with the administration of HAVA funds by

the SOS and potentially misspent HAVA funds. The

BSA audit covered about 25 percent of HAVA Section

101 expenditures totaling approximately $3.4 million

as of June 30, 2004.

Following these findings, the EAC voted to conduct

a more comprehensive audit of HAVA funds by the

Commission. Since the EAC Office of Inspector

General was not yet established, the EAC contracted

with the Department of the Interior OIG to audit

more expenditures than previously covered. The

audit covered all HAVA Title I, Section 101 funds

expended or obligated by the State of California,

SOS, as of December 31, 2004, and also reviewed

obligations made before but paid after December

31, 2004, for a total of $8,733,552 in reviewed

expenditures. In total, the OIG questioned

$3,860,361 in HAVA expenditures, consisting of

$777,502 in cost exceptions and $3,082,859 in

unsupported costs.

After conducting field work during June and July

2005, the OIG issued a final audit report on October

11, 2005.4 The SOS provided comments to the OIG

on November 30, 2005. As the awarding agency, the

EAC is responsible for determining the resolution of

all questioned costs. The audit was provided by the

OIG to EAC for resolution on December 19, 2005.

The EAC Programs and Services staff evaluated the

working papers provided by the BSA to propose a

resolution to the audit. In resolving questioned costs,

EAC considered not only whether the State followed

proper procurement procedures, but also whether the

expenditures actually served to further the goals of

HAVA.

EAC reviewed the OIG’s questioned costs and identified three methods of resolution regarding these and

all future questioned costs: (1) expenditures that were

identified as permissible under HAVA but did not follow appropriate procedures do not have to be repaid;

3 Office of the Secretary of State: Clear and Appropriate Direction Is Lacking in Its Implementation of the Federal 

Help America Vote Act, issued December 2004 (Report No. 2004-139).

4 Audit of Expenditures by the California Secretary of State’s Office Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002

(Report No. W-RR-OIG-0005-2005).
30 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

(2) expenditures that may have been permissible under HAVA but lacked adequate documentation must

be repaid to the State election fund, which was created in accordance with HAVA Section 254(b)(1); and

(3) expenditures that were clearly not permissible

under HAVA must be repaid to the U.S. Treasury.

In the case of California, the State must submit

quarterly expense reports detailing expenditures of

HAVA Section 101 funds so the EAC may monitor

the progress being made to implement appropriate

internal controls and to follow appropriate

procurement procedures. Quarterly reports will be

required for 1 year. The EAC reserves the right to

require additional quarterly reports until the EAC

deems that HAVA funds are consistently being used in

an appropriate manner in compliance with HAVA and

applicable rules and regulations. This documentation

must include, but not be limited to, a summary of

expenses incurred during the quarter; new contracts

that obligate HAVA funds; invoices submitted for

payment; timesheets for employees whose time is

charged to HAVA funds; and requests for proposals

released for HAVA-related projects.

The first report submitted by the California SOS

covered the first two quarters of calendar year 2006

and was submitted by July 31, 2006. All subsequent

reports must be submitted within 1 month of the

close of the reporting period.

In the Final Audit Resolution, the EAC determined

that the State of California had to repay a total of

$3,021,114. Based on information provided during

the appeal process, the final repayment amount

was determined to be $2,917,583. This amount is

detailed in the chart on this page.

Of this total repayment amount, $2,381,461 must be

repaid to the State election fund and $536,122 must

be repaid to the U.S. Treasury. States cannot fund the

repayment by using the State’s 5-percent match for

requirements payments or the State’s maintenanceof-effort funding. The EAC requires a certification

by the State budget office verifying repayment has

been made to the State election fund, including any

supporting documentation.

As part of an audit resolution, in addition to

requiring the States’ repayment of funds, the EAC

will require additional reporting by States with

deficiencies in managing Federal funds to ensure that

proper internal controls and procedures have been

established as corrective actions to prevent future

misuses of HAVA funds.

Cost 

Category

Total 

Repayment 

Amount

Repayment Details

Election 

Fund

Federal 

Government

Consultant 

services $958,700 $915,394 $43,306

Personal 

services 

contracts $1,025,690 $937,269 $88,421

Printing, 

postage, 

and 

shipping $308,462 $74 $308,388

County grants $77 $77

Administrative 

indirect 

costs $108,077 $108,077

Interagency 

costs $25,616 $25,616

Office 

equipment $487 $487

Travel $294 $294

Other $440 $425 $15

County grants $69,812 $69,812

Consultant 

services $419,928 $419,928.00

Total $2,917,583 $2,381,461 $536,122

Final Audit Resolution for the 

State of California
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 31

Clearinghouse Activities

HAVA instructs the EAC to collect data about election

administration issues and share the data with election

officials to help them make decisions at the local

level. In FY 2006, the EAC initiated several research

projects based upon recommendations and input

from the Commission’s advisory boards, election

officials and initiatives mandated by HAVA.

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act–2004 Survey 

Results

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1973ff) protects the voting rights of members of the Uniformed

Services (on active duty), members of the Merchant

Marine and their eligible dependents, Commissioned

Corps of the Public Health Service, Commissioned

Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. citizens residing outside the

United States. UOCAVA requires States/territories to

allow these citizens to register and vote in elections

for Federal office using absentee procedures.

HAVA mandates that for each regularly scheduled

general election for Federal office, EAC shall collect

comprehensive data from the States on all of the

ballots sent and received by UOCAVA voters. In

2004, EAC developed a survey instrument and

distributed it to the States to collect statistics on

balloting by UOCAVA voters from the November

2, 2004, presidential election. During the lengthy

process of collecting the data, it was determined that

many States and local jurisdictions did not track the

specific data required by HAVA; they also stored the

requested statistics in various formats, resulting in

some gaps in the UOCAVA data collected by EAC.

It should be noted, however, that the information

collected provided valuable information about

UOCAVA voters and that EAC will continue working

with States to improve efforts at the Federal, State,

and local levels to collect more information for the

2006 General Election. Such information will help

facilitate the process of improving the transmission

and reciept of the ballots from UOCAVA voters and

will help serve their special needs.

The interpretation of the survey and any conclusions

regarding the results of this survey should be

approached with caution. As the footnote on the table

(see next page) indicates, at the time of the survey,

several States did not divide their UOCAVA voters

from the general group of absentee voters because

of the manner in which local election authorities

collected the data.

Improving the Survey Instrument

Efforts aimed at educating States and their local

election authorities about HAVA requirements

regarding UOCAVA was an integral part of the

process in designing the 2006 survey instrument.

EAC took into consideration the tremendous variation in how States and their local election authorities

handle mailing and processing their ballots, as well

as the need for EAC to help States and local election

authorities develop policies and procedures that will

make them compliant with HAVA.

In the early spring of 2006, EAC conducted a

working group meeting of State and local elections

officials and other experts to fine-tune the UOCAVA

and the Election Administration and Voting survey

instruments. Representatives from the elections

community, along with various organizations that

use UOCAVA survey data, shared their suggestions

for improving the format and administration of the

surveys. EAC also received input from its Board of

Advisors and Standards Board.

Ultimately, in addition to making language

improvements, the EAC combined the UOCAVA

questions into its 2006 Election Administration and

Voting Survey, making it easier for election officials to

provide the information required by HAVA.
32 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Results of 2004 UOCAVA Survey

State or Territory

UOCAVA 

Absentee 

Ballots Sent*

UOCAVA 

Absentee 

Ballots 

Returned*

Alabama 8,005 4,234

Alaska 14,574 9,839

American Samoa 326 284

Arizona 12,046 8,282

Arkansas 5,173 2,539

California 62,468 No data

Colorado 10,339 6,669

Connecticut 6,045 4,489

District of Columbia 2,532 1,722

Delaware 1,811 1,273

Florida 122,194 93,524

Georgia 16,690 13,216

Guam No Response No Response

Hawaii 3,862 2,492

Idaho 4,275 3,874

Illinois 30,556 26,639

Indiana 8,980 6,811

Iowa 5,343 4,920

Kansas 6,564 5,084

Kentucky 6,234 4,912

Louisiana 12,899 8,631

Maine 3,410 2,649

Maryland 12,916 11,306

Massachusetts 125,031 111,017

Michigan 13,583 9,916

Minnesota 12,322 8,757

Mississippi 2,779 1,683

Missouri 15,477 9,006

State or Territory

UOCAVA 

Absentee 

Ballots Sent*

UOCAVA 

Absentee 

Ballots 

Returned*

Montana 4,721 3,490

Nebraska 3,867 2,775

Nevada 5,699 4,420

New Hampshire 4,516 3,727

New Jersey 14,256 8,475

New Mexico 519 348

New York 55,183 43,699

North Carolina 18,063 11,996

North Dakota 1,587 1,117

Ohio 14,527 11,768

Oklahoma 7,682 5,737

Oregon 18,752 14,307

Pennsylvania 36,051 30,042

Puerto Rico No Response No Response

Rhode Island 21,498 19,046

South Carolina 168,814 157,990

South Dakota 3,823 3,288

Tennessee 19,635 16,609

Texas 88,847 66,374

Utah 4,598 3,817

Vermont 1,733 1,340

Virgin Islands No Response No Response

Virginia 29,646 24,463

Washington 37,198 30,446

West Virginia 4,712 3,745

Wisconsin 10,275 7,146

Wyoming 3,123 2,594

*Some State numbers may reflect total absentee ballots sent and received (UOCAVA and Non-UOCAVA).
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 33

2006 Election Administration and 

Voting Survey

Section 241 of HAVA requires the EAC to study and

report on election activities, practices, policies, and

procedures, including methods of voter registration,

methods of conducting provisional voting, poll

worker recruitment and training, and other matters

the Commission determines are appropriate. In

addition, HAVA Section 802 transferred to the EAC

the FEC’s responsibility of biennially administering

a survey on the impact of the National Voter

Registration Act (NVRA). Furthermore, HAVA Section

703(a) requires States to submit a report to the

EAC on the combined number of absentee ballots

transmitted to absent uniformed services voters and

overseas voters for the election and the combined

number of such ballots that were returned by such

voters and cast in the election.

In FY 2004, EAC inaugurated an Election Day Survey

to be administered to all States and territories and

designed to capture key Election Day data. The 2006

EAC Administration and Voting Survey will employ

an online Web survey instrument to collect these

key data for the November 2006 elections. Topics to

be covered include information related to registered

voters, ballots cast and counted, voter registration

and identification procedures, and information

related to UOCAVA voters. The 2006 survey,

intended to be a comprehensive data collection

instrument, includes a series of general election

administration questions covering voter registration,

ballots cast and counted, turnout source, absentee

FL

NM

DE 70%

MD 88%

TX

OK

KS

NE

SD

MT ND

WY

CO

UT

ID

AZ

NV

WA

CA

OR

KY

ME

NY

PA

MI

VT 77%

NH 83%

MA 89%

RI 89%

CT 74%

VA

WV

OH IL IN

NC

TN

SC

MS AL

AR

LA

MO

IA

MN

WI

NJ 59%

GA

Alaska 68 % Hawaii 65%

DC 68%

American Samoa

87%

79%

77%

94%

66%

83%

79%

67%

61% 53%

85%

49%

75%

75%

67%

69%

(NA)

78%

83%

65% 

77%

72%

86%

83%

91%

76%

82%

74% 70%

71%

70%

73%

92%

87% 76%

58% 79%

81%

83%

79%

78%

*Percentages are rounded.

NA = data not available.

Results of 2004 UOCAVA Survey 

Percent* of Absentee Ballots Returned
34 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

ballots, provisional ballots, drop-off rates, overvotes

and undervotes, voting equipment, poll workers,

and polling places. The information collected for

UOCAVA and NVRA will also be included in the

2006 EAC Administration and Voting Survey. The

survey results will be available by June 2007 at www.

eac.gov.

Research Projects Under Way in 

FY 2006

In FY 2006, the EAC embarked on several research

projects regarding a wide range of election

administration topics. The following research projects

currently under way were driven by the requirements

of HAVA and also were in response to research

requests from election officials. Upon completion, all

projects will be available at www.eac.gov.

Election Management Guidelines

On December 13, 2005, EAC adopted the 2005

VVSG. To complement the VVSG, the EAC is

creating a set of election management procedures

that will expand on the Quick Start Management 

Guides distributed in FY 2006 and will include

more information about the components of election

management. EAC is collaborating with a working

group of experienced State and local election

officials to provide subject matter expertise and to

help develop the guidelines. The project focuses on

developing procedures related to the use of voting

equipment and procedures for all other aspects of

the election administration process. The first set of

election management guidelines will be completed in

FY 2007, and will be available to all election officials

if they wish to incorporate these procedures at the

State and local levels.

Voter Information Web Sites 

Section 245(a)(2)(C) instructs EAC to investigate

the possible impact new communications or

Internet technology systems used in the electoral

process could have on voter participation rates,

voter education, and public accessibility. EAC

issued a contract to collect data about existing voter

information Web sites and to convene a meeting with

election officials, technology experts, and advocacy

groups to gather input. The contractor will then

provide EAC with a set of best practices regarding

voter information Web sites. In early 2007, based

on these findings, EAC will issue a collection of

recommendations to election officials that will include

information about how to set up and maintain

effective voter information Web sites.

Legal Resources Clearinghouse

The legal resources clearinghouse, which will be

Web-based, will house a database containing statutes,

regulations, and rules, as well as State and Federal

court decisions that impact the administration of

elections for Federal office under HAVA and/or the

NVRA. It will provide election officials, State legislators, government officials, and the general public with

a central location to conduct election administration

research. The legal resources clearinghouse will be

available at www.eac.gov in early 2007.

Poll Worker Recruitment, Training, and 

Retention Project

In response to the HAVA mandate to study methods

of recruiting, training, and improving the performance

of poll workers and the nationwide shortage of poll

workers, the EAC contracted for the development

of a poll worker recruitment, training, and retention

manual. Following a year-long process of research and

evaluation, interviewing and writing, the contractor

developed a manual that will be pilot-tested in three

jurisdictions. The results of these pilots will be incorporated into a comprehensive 200-page manual, which

will include numerous best practices models and

“how-to” guides and will be published in early 2007.

College Poll Worker Recruitment, 

Training, and Retention Project

In its continued support of HAVA sections 501

and 502, EAC undertook a project that collected

information on State requirements for poll workers,

including college students, to create a manual with
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 35

best practice models and “how-to” guides and will

pilot test the manual in three jurisdictions. The

findings will be incorporated into a 75-page college

poll worker recruitment, training, and retention

manual, scheduled to be published in early 2007.

Vote Counts and Recounts

Section 241(b)(13) of HAVA allows EAC to study

the laws and procedures used by each State that

govern recounts of ballots cast in elections for Federal

office, contests of determinations regarding whether

votes are counted in such elections, and standards

that define what will constitute a vote on each type

of voting equipment used in the State to conduct

elections for Federal office. Consequently, EAC has

issued a contract to conduct research to develop best

practices on vote count and recount procedures.

The EAC will distribute a set of best practices, based

upon this research, for both vote count and recount

procedures as well as a summary of State legal

requirements for what constitutes a vote, for vote

counting, and for contested Federal elections.

Voting Fraud and Voter Intimidation

Section 241 of HAVA calls on the EAC to research

and study various issues related to the administration

of elections. During FY 2006, EAC began projects to

research several of the listed topics, including voting

fraud and voter intimidation. Consultants and EAC

staff were charged with (1) researching the current

state of information on the topic of voting fraud

and voter intimidation, (2) developing a uniform

definition of voting fraud and voter intimidation,

and (3) proposing recommended strategies for

further research on this subject. The initial study

will not be a comprehensive review of existing

voting fraud and voter intimidation actions, laws, or

prosecutions; it will provide a working definition of

“voting fraud” and “voter intimidation” and identify

a research methodology to conduct a comprehensive,

nationwide study of these topics.

Provisional Voting and Voter 

Identification Study

EAC undertook, through a contract, a study of provisional voting and voter identification requirements.

In 2006 the contractor provided EAC results from

this study, including summaries of case law and

States’ procedures and requirements related to voter

identification and provisional voting. During FY 2007

EAC will publish key findings from this study.

Effective Designs for the Administration 

of Federal Elections

Referencing Section 302(b) of HAVA, which requires

the public posting of voting information at each

polling place and Section 241(b), which recommends

the study of ballot designs for elections for Federal

offices, EAC awarded a contract for the development

of effective ballot designs and polling place signage.

During the year, a contractor conducted numerous

interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders

from around the country. Using the input from

election officials, literacy and disability experts, and

voters, the contractor created sample ballots and

polling place signs. In consultation with State election

officials, the new ballot design and polling place signs

were piloted during the November 2006 General

Election. Best practices for ballot design and polling

place signage, along with actual design templates, will

be made available at www.eac.gov by mid-2007.

Asian and Pacific Islander American 

Languages Working Group

Section 241 of HAVA allows the EAC to carry

out studies and other activities with the goal of

promoting effective administration of Federal

elections. Effective administration methods are to

be the most convenient, accessible, and easy to use

for voters, including voters with limited proficiency

in the English language. Two of the election

administration issues, (5) and (14), described for

study in Section 241(b), directly refer to voters

with limited proficiency in the English language.

The former describes “methods of ensuring the

accessibility of voting, registration, polling places,
36 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

and voting equipment to all voters,” including voters

with limited proficiency in the English language. The

latter describes the “technical feasibility of providing

voting materials in eight or more languages for voters

who speak those languages and who have limited

English proficiency.”

Under Title I, States can use the funds provided

under a payment in this section to improve the

accessibility and quantity of polling places. HAVA

also requires that voting systems provide alternative

language accessibility pursuant to the requirements

of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42

U.S.C. 1973aa-1a).

In continuing the work started in FY 2005 for voters

with limited English proficiency with the Spanish

language working group, the EAC convened a

working group of key individuals and organizations

that understand issues central to how Asian and

Pacific Islander Americans (APIA) interact with the

entire voting process to provide guidance to the

EAC as the Commission focuses on research under

Sections 311, 312, and 241 of HAVA, as well as the

Commission’s NVRA responsibilities. The working

group limited its focus to the Asian languages covered

under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act—Chinese,

Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog, and Japanese. NVRA

forms in these languages will be available for the 2008

Federal elections.

The working group will serve as a guiding panel for

how works currently in progress impact Asian and

Pacific Islander American communities. The group

will assess the prospects of several language-specific

projects that include the readability and usability of

the National Mail Voter Registration form and the

review of potential lists of translated election terms.

The group will help the EAC identify best practices

relating to methods of effective administration of

Federal elections impacting the APIA languagespeaking communities.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 37

Goals for 2007

Fiscal year 2006 was one of change, challenge, and

progress for election officials throughout the Nation.

These officials faced the enormous task of complying

with HAVA, which resulted in implementing new

equipment and new procedures that impacted every

aspect of election administration. Even with all

the new procedures and voting machines in place,

election officials discovered that one fact did not

change—details matter in elections. Regardless of

whether voters were filling in an oval or touching

a screen, enough poll workers had to be available

to serve voters, and those poll workers had to be

properly trained. Officials had to develop thorough

checklists to ensure that no detail—no matter how

small—was overlooked. Most important, contingency

plans had to be in place in the event of paper jams,

power surges, or other unforeseen circumstances. In

light of some of the management challenges faced

in FY 2006, the EAC issued Quick Start Management 

Guides to election officials, but in FY 2007, the

Commission will expand on that effort by releasing

a comprehensive set of management guidelines that

will cover everything from equipment storage and

set-up to acceptance testing and poll worker training.

The Federal Government’s First 

Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program

In FY 2007, EAC will launch its Voting System

Testing and Certification Program, marking the first

time the Federal government will provide for the

certification, decertification, and recertification of

voting system hardware and software used during the

Federal election process. It will also provide for the

accreditation of testing laboratories.

The new program will provide information and

procedures to manufacturers for the testing and

certification of voting systems consistent with

the requirements of HAVA. The program will

also support State certification programs, provide

information and support to State elections officials,

and provide increased quality control in voting

system manufacturing and increased voter confidence

in voting systems.

Under the new program, NIST will assist EAC

through the National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which will provide

recommendations to EAC for final determination

regarding the accreditation of laboratories used to test

voting systems.

Although participation in EAC’s Voting System

Testing and Certification Program is voluntary, States

and manufacturers will be encouraged to send their

systems through the new program to ensure an

added layer of security and protection against voting

irregularities. States and voting system manufacturers

that choose to participate in the program must

comply with the program’s mandatory procedural

requirements, which will include random reviews

and spot checks of voting systems currently used in

the field through EAC’s Quality Monitoring Program

to ensure that those systems match the records of

systems certified by EAC.

Voting systems that do not meet the requirements of

the VVSG risk being decertified and will be removed

from EAC’s list of certified voting systems. In

addition, laboratories will be held accountable under

the accreditation requirements and international lab

standards and could risk losing accreditation by both

EAC and NVLAP if a violation of those standards

occurs.

The new program is scheduled for implementation

beginning in January 2007. EAC anticipates that

approximately 40 States will participate in the

program.
38 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

The TGDC and NIST will continue their work to

provide the EAC with the next set of iterations

for the 2005 VVSG. Research is currently being

conducted regarding security issues, such as wireless

and software. More information will be gathered

about forms of independent verification, and a set of

uniform test suites is being developed. The TGDC

is scheduled to deliver to the EAC in July 2007

an update to the VVSG. The EAC will then begin

its work to update the VVSG to ensure that these

national guidelines are updated regularly.

Clearinghouse Activities

In FY 2007, EAC will conduct a number of HAVAmandated studies on the following topics: the impact

of free absentee ballot return postage on voter

participation; electronic voting and UOCAVA voters;

the feasibility of various alternative voting methods;

the voting experiences of first-time voters who

register by mail; and the feasibility and advisability

of identifying voters by Social Security numbers.

The EAC will also conduct research on governmentsponsored voter hotlines and conduct additional

research on States’ ongoing implementation of the

HAVA-required statewide voter registration lists.

The results of these studies will be available at www.

eac.gov and will help provide valuable information

to key stakeholders seeking to improve the

administration of Federal elections.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 39

Appendix

Commissioners’ Biographies

Donetta L. Davidson, Chair

Ms. Donetta L. Davidson was nominated by

President George W.

Bush and confirmed

by unanimous consent

of the U.S. Senate on

July 28, 2005, to serve

on the U.S. Election

Assistance Commission

(EAC). Her term of

service extends through

December 12, 2007.

Ms. Davidson, formerly Colorado’s secretary of state,

comes to EAC with experience in almost every area of

election administration, from county clerk to secretary

of state.

Ms. Davidson began her career in election administration when she was elected in 1978 as the Bent

County clerk and recorder in Las Animas, Colorado,

a position she held until 1986. Later that year, she

was appointed director of elections for the Colorado

Department of State, where she supervised county

clerks in all election matters and assisted with recall

issues for municipal, special district, and school

district elections.

In 1994, she was elected Arapahoe County clerk and

recorder and was reelected to a second term in 1998.

The next year, Bill Owens, governor of Colorado,

appointed Ms. Davidson as the Colorado secretary of

state, and she was elected in 2000 and reelected in

2002 for a 4-year term.

She has served on the Federal Election Commission

Advisory Panel and the board of directors of the Help

America Vote Foundation. In 2005, Ms. Davidson

was elected president of the National Association of

Secretaries of State, and she is the former president of

the National Association of State Elections Directors

(NASED). Prior to her EAC appointment, Ms. Davidson served on EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC).

In 2005, Government Technology magazine named Ms.

Davidson one of its “Top 25: Dreamers, Doers, and

Drivers” in recognition of her innovative approach to

improve government services. She was also the 1993

recipient of the Henry Toll Fellowship of Council of

State Governments.

Ms. Davidson has devoted much of her professional

life to election administration, but her first love is her

family. Ms. Davidson was born into a military family

in Liberal, KS, and became a Coloradoan shortly

thereafter when her family moved first to Two Buttes

then to Las Animas where they settled. Whenever

possible Ms. Davidson spends time with her family—

son Todd, daughter and son-in-law Trudie and Todd

Berich, and granddaughters Brittany and Nicole.
40 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Paul S. DeGregorio

Paul S. DeGregorio

was nominated by

President George W.

Bush and confirmed

by unanimous consent

of the U.S. Senate on

December 9, 2003,

to serve an initial 2-

year term on the U.S.

Election Assistance

Commission (EAC).

Mr. DeGregorio was

elected chairman of the

EAC for 2006, after serving as the Commission’s vice

chairman in 2005.

Mr. DeGregorio is nationally renowned in the elections field. His areas of expertise include U.S. election

administration, democracy building, and international elections. In 2004, he received the NASS Freedom

Award from the National Association of Secretaries of

State in recognition of his accomplishments.

As a commissioner, Mr. DeGregorio has focused his

efforts on EAC’s mandates to distribute $2.3 billion to the States, establish voluntary voting system

guidelines, develop best practices in election administration, provide guidance to election officials, and

conduct studies on election reform issues. All these

efforts represented the first time in U.S. history that

the Federal government provided such significant

assistance to the States to improve the conduct of

elections and strengthen the American democracy.

Prior to his appointment with EAC, Mr. DeGregorio

was executive vice president and chief operating

officer of the International Foundation for Election

Systems (IFES), a leading institution involved in the

promotion of democracy worldwide. He was responsible for the organization’s day-to-day operation,

overseeing more than 400 employees in 23 countries.

He has provided technical assistance in election

administration in more than 15 countries. In 2003,

Mr. DeGregorio was made an honorary lifetime

member of the Association of Election Officials from

Central and Eastern Europe and the Association of

Election Officials of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

From 1985 to 1993, Mr. DeGregorio served as

director of elections for St. Louis County, Missouri’s

largest jurisdiction. During his tenure, he instituted

major improvements in voter registration, training,

accessibility, counting, and management procedures.

He was recognized for his efforts in prosecuting voter

fraud and drafting legislation to improve the electoral

process. He served as co-chair of the Missouri

Election Reform Commission in 2001.

A member of the International Association of

Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers

(IACREOT) since 1986, during his tenure as chairman of the Education and Training Committee, Mr.

DeGregorio was credited with initiating the University

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

Mr. DeGregorio served for 8 years as director of

outreach development for the University of MissouriSt. Louis, where he initiated and oversaw four offsite

campuses serving nearly 4,000 students. He also

served as a research associate with the University’s

Center for International Studies. Mr. 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.

Mr. DeGregorio received his degree in political

science from the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

He is married to Kerry DeGregorio and has four

daughters—Katie (Proffer), Annie, Debbie, and

Emily—as well as son-in-law Chris Proffer and one

granddaughter, Victoria Ruby Proffer.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 41

Gracia M. Hillman

Gracia M. Hillman

was nominated by

President George W.

Bush and confirmed

by unanimous consent

of the U.S. Senate on

December 9, 2003,

to serve an initial 2-

year term on the U.S.

Election Assistance

Commission (EAC). Ms.

Hillman served as chair

of the EAC in 2005, after serving as the Commission’s

first vice chair in 2004.

A Massachusetts native who first entered community

service in 1970, Ms. Hillman has effectively

handled both domestic and international issues

throughout her career. Her areas of expertise

include nonprofit management, public policy and

program development, and the interests and rights

of women and minorities, including voting rights.

She has traveled extensively throughout the United

States, meeting with national and local groups and

businesses. Through her international work, Ms.

Hillman has traveled in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean,

and Europe. She conducted nonpartisan political

training in Haiti and Kenya and participated in

United Nations-sponsored conferences in Vienna,

Beijing, and New York City.

Prior to her appointment with EAC, Ms. Hillman

served as president and chief executive officer of

WorldSpace Foundation, a nonprofit organization

that uses digital satellite technology to deliver educational programming to Africa and Asia. She also

served as the U.S. Department of State’s first senior

coordinator for International Women’s Issues, developing agency-wide strategies to ensure U.S. foreign

policy promoted and protected women’s rights.

Her work experience includes having served as

executive director of the League of Women Voters of

the United States, the Congressional Black Caucus

Foundation, and the National Coalition on Black

Voter Participation. 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 1980s, Ms. Hillman championed

nonpartisan and bipartisan efforts to ensure open

access to the voting process for all citizens and the

continued voting rights of minority Americans,

including work on the historic 25-year extension

of the National Voting Rights Act. Her political

experience includes paid and volunteer positions

on numerous campaigns, including a role as senior

advisor on congressional and constituent relations for

the 1988 Dukakis for President Campaign.

Ms. Hillman and her son are residents of the District

of Columbia.
42 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Executive Director’s Biography

Thomas Wilkey

Tom Wilkey thought he had successfully retired when

he stepped down as the executive director of the New

York State Board of Elections in 2003. After all, he

had observed his 34th year in election administration,

working on everything from developing voting

system standards to working to craft the most

sweeping election reform in our Nation’s history.

Mr. Wilkey was the perfect candidate to become the

first permanent executive director of the U.S. Election

Assistance Commission (EAC), the new Federal entity

created by the law he helped craft, the Help America

Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002.

Mr. Wilkey joined the Erie County Board of Elections

(Buffalo, NY) in November 1968 as an elections clerk.

He subsequently rose to the position of senior election deputy prior to joining the New York State Board

of Elections in 1979 as public information officer.

In 1985, he was promoted to the newly created

position of director of election operations, which

was formed to administer oversight of New York’s

57 county boards. His responsibilities soon grew to

include the creation and supervision of New York’s

voting systems certification program.

Mr. Wilkey was appointed the second executive

director of the New York State Board of Elections in

June of 1992, a position he held until August 2003.

Mr. Wilkey was associated with the Federal Election

Commission (FEC) for many years. In 1983, he

served on the Voting Systems Standards Committee,

which drafted and reviewed the FEC’s Voting System

Standards, a voluntary testing, qualification, and

certification process used for all voting systems in the

United States.

In 1992, Mr. Wilkey was appointed to the FEC’s

Advisory Panel, which consisted of 20 State, county,

and local election administrators. It advised the FEC

on clearinghouse projects and allocation of funds for

election administration projects.

An early proponent of the creation of the National

Association of State Election Directors (NASED), Mr.

Wilkey has served as its secretary, treasurer, and vice

president and was elected president for 1996–97.

In January 1997, Mr. Wilkey was named chair of

NASED’s Independent Test Authority Accreditation

Board, which approved laboratories and technical

groups for the testing of voting systems under

NASED’s national accreditation program. He was

reappointed as chair in February 2000.

Following the 2000 General Election, Mr. Wilkey was

named to several national commissions to study election reform, including those representing the National

Association of Secretaries of State, National Association of Counties, Council of State Governments, and

the Election Center. Beginning in May 2001, Mr.

Wilkey was asked by the FEC to help draft revised

Federal Voting System Standards, due for completion

in April 2002. In addition, Mr. Wilkey was actively

involved with the development of the Help America

Vote Act of 2002, which Congress passed and the

President signed into law in October 2002.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 43

National Conference of State Legislatures Edward Sandoval New Mexico State Representative Albuquerque NMNational Conference of State Legislatures Michael Buckingham South Dakota State Representative Rapid City SDNational Governors Association Chris Nelson Secretary of State Pierre SDNational Governors Association Mary E. Herrera Secretary of State Albuquerque NMNational Association of Secretaries of State Sam Reed Secretary of State Olympia WANational Association of Secretaries of State Deborah L. Markowitz Secretary of State Montpelier VTNational Association of State Election Directors Christopher Thomas Director of Elections, State of Michigan Lansing MINational Association of State Election Directors Linda H. Lamone Administrator of Elections Annapolis MDNational Association of Counties Wendy Noren Boone County Clerk Columbia MONational Association of Counties Helen Purcell Maricopa County Recorder Phoenix AZNational Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks Beverly Kaufman Harris County Clerk Houston TXNational Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks David Orr Cook County Clerk Chicago ILU.S. Commission on Civil Rights Abigail Thernstrom Vice Chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Lexington MAU.S. Commission on Civil Rights Ashley Taylor Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Richmond VAElection Center Doug Lewis Executive Director, Election Center Houston TXElection Center Ernie Hawkins Former Registrar of Voters, Sacramento County Elk Grove CAUnited States Conference of Mayors TBAUnited States Conference of Mayors TBAInternational Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers Tony J. Sirvello, III IACREOT Executive Director Houston TXInternational Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers

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

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

Tricia Charlene Mason Board Member Cheyenne WY

Appointed by First Name Last Name Title City State

EAC Board of Advisors
44 U.S. Election Assistance Commission Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Philip Gaylon Pearce Board Member College Station TX Chief, Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice Craig Donsanto Director, Election Crimes Branch, U.S. Department of Justice Washington DC Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice Cameron Quinn Counsel to the Assistant Attorrney General, U.S. Department of Defense Washington DC Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Defense Polli Brunelli Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Defense Washington DC House Speaker Tom Fuentes Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute Lake Forest CA House Minority Leader Barbara Arnwine Executive Director, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Washington DC Senate Majority Leader Wesley R. Kliner, Jr. Business Attorney McDonald TN

Senate Minority Leader Thomas H. Short Bull President, Oglala Lakota College Kyle SDHouse Administration—Chair Terri Hegarty City Clerk, City of Grand Rapids Grand Rapids MIHouse Administration—Chair Keith Cunningham Director, Allen County Board of Elections Lima OHHouse Administration—Ranking Minority Member Joseph F. Crangle Attorney, Colucci & Gallaher, P.C. Buffalo NYHouse Administration—Ranking Minority Member Spencer Overton, Esq. George Washington University Law School Washington DCSenate Rules and Administration—Chair Sue Sautermeister Municipal Election Commissioner, City of Ridgeland Ridgeland MSSenate Rules and Administration—Chair Ann Watts Lauderdale County Election Commissioner Meridian MSSenate Rules and Administration—Ranking Minority Member James C. Dickson V.P. for Governmental Affairs, American Association of People With Disabilities Washington DCSenate Rules and Administration—Ranking Minority Member Robin Carnahan Secretary of State Jefferson City MO

EAC Board of Advisors (continued)

Appointed by First Name Last Name Title City State

The following officials served in fiscal year 2006: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Deputy Director James E. Carnes; U.S. Access Board Member James Elekes; The Danner Company Vice President Francis Guess; U.S. Access Board Member James R. Harding; U.S. Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division Chief Noel Hillman; Trenton, NJ Mayor Douglas Palmer; Iowa Speaker of the House Christopher Rants; Washington Bureau, NAACP Director Hilary O. Shelton; New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver; Independent Consultant/Lobbyist Tamara Somerville; New Mexico Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron; former Member of Congress from Oklahoma J.C. Watts; and Alfred A. Knopf Publishers Vice President Victoria Wilson.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 45

EAC Standards Board

Alabama State Beth Chapman Secretary of State Montgomery ALAlabama Local Luke Cooley Judge of Probate, Houston County Dothan ALAlaska State Whitney Brewster Director, Division of Elections Juneau AKAlaska Local Shelly Growden Regional III Supervisor, Division of Elections, State of Alaska Fairbanks AKAmerican Samoa State Soliai T. Fuimaono Chief Election Officer Pago Pago ASAmerican Samoa Local Taufete’e John Faumuina HAVA Manager Pago Pago ASArizona State Kevin Tyne Deputy Secretary of State Phoenix AZArizona Local Reynaldo Valenzuela Assistant Elections Director Phoenix AZArkansas State Charlie Daniels Secretary of State Little Rock ARArkansas Local Mary Lou Slinkard Benton County Clerk Bentonville ARCalifornia State Vacant CACalifornia Local Stephen Weir County Clerk, Contra Costa County Martinez CAColorado State Mike Coffman Secretary of State Denver COColorado Local Russ Ragsdale City and County of Broomfield Clerk and Recorder Broomfield COConnecticut State Michael Kozik Managing Attorney Hanford CTConnecticut Local Sandra Hutton Municipal Town Clerk Middletown CTDelaware State Frank B. Calio Commissioner of Elections Dover DEDelaware Local Howard G. Sholl, Jr. Deputy Administrative Director Wilmington DEDistrict of Columbia State Alice P. Miller Executive Director Washington DCDistrict of Columbia Local Jonda McFarlane Board Member Washington DCFlorida State Dawn Kimmel Roberts Director, Division of Elections Tallahassee FLFlorida Local Bill Cowles Supervisor of Elections, Orange County Orlando FL

State or Territory Designee First Name Last Name Title City State
46 U.S. Election Assistance Commission Georgia State Cliff Tatum Assistant Director of Legal Affairs Atlanta GA Georgia Local Lynn Bailey Executive Director, Richmond County Board of Elections Augusta GA Guam State Gerald A. Taitano Executive Director Hagatna GU Guam Local Vacant GU Hawaii State Scott Nago Section Head, Counting Center Operations Honolulu HI Hawaii Local Glen Takahashi Election Administrator, City and County of Honolulu Honolulu HI Idaho State Timothy A. Hurst Chief Deputy, Office of the Secretary of State Boise ID Idaho Local Dan English Kootenai County Clerk Coeur d’Alene ID Illinois State Daniel W. White Executive Director Springfield IL Illinois Local Richard Cowen Chicago Board of Election Commissioners Chicago IL

Indiana State Todd Rokita Secretary of State Indianapolis INIndiana Local Shannon Weisheit Warrick Circuit Clerk Boonville INIowa State Sandy Steinbach Director of Elections Des Moines IAIowa Local Renee McClellan Hardin County Auditor Eldora IAKansas State Ron Thornburgh Secretary of State Topeka KSKansas Local Donald Merriman Saline County Clerk Salina KSKentucky State Sarah Johnson Executive Director, State Board of Elections Frankfort KYKentucky Local Don Blevins Fayette County Clerk Lexington KYLouisiana State Jay Dardenne General Counsel Baton Rouge LALouisiana Local Louie Bernard Clerk of Court Natchitoches LAMaine State Julie L. Flynn Deputy Secretary of State Augusta MEMaine Local Clairma Matherne City Clerk Bidderford MEMaryland State Nikki Trella Election Reform Director Annapolis MDMaryland Local Kim A. Atkins Voter Registration Manager Forest Hill MD

EAC Standards Board (continued)

State or Territory Designee First Name Last Name Title City State
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 47

Massachusetts State William F. Gavin Secretary of the Commonwealth Boston MAMassachusetts Local William Campbell City Clerk Woburn MAMichigan State Thomas Luitje Department Analyst, Bureau of Elections, Department of State Lansing MIMichigan Local Tonni Bartholomew Troy City Clerk Troy MIMinnesota State Mark Ritchie Secretary of State St. Paul MNMinnesota Local Sharon K. Anderson Cass County Auditor-Treasurer Walker MNMississippi State Jay Eads Assistant Secretary of State Jackson MSMississippi Local Marilyn Avery Election Commissioner Jackson MSMissouri State Leslye Winslow Deputy Secretary of State Jefferson City MOMissouri Local Richard T. Struckhoff County Clerk, Greene County Springfield MOMontana State Elaine Graveley Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Helena MT Montana Local Vickie Zeier Missoula County Clerk and Recorder/Treasurer Missoula MT Nebraska State John Gale Secretary of State Lincoln NENebraska Local David Dowling Cedar County Clerk and Election Commissioner Hartington NENevada State Ross Miller Secretary of State Carson City NVNevada Local Harvard L. Lomax Clark County Registrar of Voters North Las Vegas NVNew Hampshire State Anthony Stevens Assistant Secretary of State Concord NHNew Hampshire Local Carol Johnson Deputy City Clerk Manchester NHNew Jersey State Maria Del Valle-Koch Deputy Director, Division of Elections Trenton NJNew Jersey Local Joanne Armbruster Atlantic County Superintendent of Elections Atlantic City NJNew Mexico State Mary Herrera Secretary of State Santa Fe NMNew Mexico Local David Kunko Chief Deputy Clerk, Chaves County Roswell NMNew York State John Haggerty, Jr. Executive Director Albany NYNew York Local Edward J. Szczesniak Onondaga County Commission of Elections Syracuse NY

EAC Standards Board (continued)

State or Territory Designee First Name Last Name Title City State
48 U.S. Election Assistance Commission North Carolina State Johnnie F. McLean Deputy Director, State Board of Elections Raleigh NC North Carolina Local Deborah J. Bedford Director of Elections, Rutherford County Spindale NC North Dakota State I. James Silrum Deputy Secretary of State Bismark ND North Dakota Local Michael M. Montplaisir Cass County Auditor Fargo ND Ohio State Jennifer Brunner Ohio Secretary of State Columbus OH Ohio Local Steve Harsman Director Vandalia OH Oklahoma State Vacant OK Oklahoma Local Vacant OK Oregon State John Lindback Director of Elections Salem OR Oregon Local Annette Newingham Chief Deputy County Clerk Eugene OR

Pennsylvania State Pedro A. Cortés Secretary of the Commonwealth Harrisburg PAPennsylvania Local Regis Young Butler County Election Director Butler PAPuerto Rico State Nestor J. Colón Berlingeri First Vice President San Juan PRPuerto Rico Local Juan M. Toledo-Diaz Second Vice President San Juan PRRhode Island State Jan Ruggiero Director of Elections Providence RIRhode Island Local Marian Clarke Chair, Jamestown Board of Canvassers Jamestown RISouth Carolina State Marci Andino Executive Director, State Election Commission Columbia SCSouth Carolina Local Marilyn Bowers Executive Director, Charleston County Board of Elections Charleston SCSouth Dakota State Kea Warne State Election Supervisor Pierre SDSouth Dakota Local Sue Roust Minnehaha County Auditor Sioux Falls SDTennessee State Brook Thompson State Coordinator of Elections Nashville TNTennessee Local Joe Enoch Dyer County Election Commissioner Dyersburg TNTexas State Vacant TXTexas Local Dana DeBeauvoir Travis County Clerk Austin TX

EAC Standards Board (continued)

State or Territory Designee First Name Last Name Title City State
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 49

Utah State Michael Cragun Director of Elections Salt Lake City UTUtah Local Robert Pero Carbon County Clerk Price UTVermont State Kathleen DeWolfe Director of Elections and Campaign Finance Montpelier VTVermont Local Annette L. Cappy Town Clerk, Town of Brattleboro Brattleboro VTVirgin Islands State Corinne Halyard Plaskett Deputy Supervisor of Elections Kingshill St. Croix VIVirgin Islands Local Natalie Thomas Deputy Supervisor St. Thomas VIVirginia State Jean R. Jensen Secretary, State Board of Elections Richmond VA Virginia Local Allen Harrison, Jr. Chair, Arlington County Electoral Board Arlington VA Washington State Nick Handy Director of Elections Olympia WAWashington Local Pat McCarthy Pierce County Auditor Tacoma WAWest Virginia State Benjamin R. Beakes Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary of State Charleston WVWest Virginia Local Gary W. Williams Boone County Clerk Madison WVWisconsin State Kevin Kennedy Executive Director, State Board of Elections Madison WIWisconsin Local Sandra L. Wesolowski Franklin County Clerk Franklin WIWyoming State Peggy Nighswonger State Elections Director Cheyenne WYWyoming Local Julie Freese Fremont County Clerk Lander WY

EAC Standards Board (continued)

The following officials served in fiscal year 2006: California Assistant Secretary of State Bradley J. Clark (retired), Sacramento, CA; Forsyth County Director of Elections Kathie Chastain Cooper, Winston-Salem, NC; Tooele County Clerk Dennis Ewing, Tooele, UT; Alaska Division of Elections Director Laura A. Glasier, Juneau, AK; Deputy Chief of Staff Markus Green, Office of the New Jersey Attorney General, Trenton, NJ; Multnomah County Elections Director John Kauffman, Portland, OR; Maryland Administrator of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Annapolis, MD; American Samoa Election Administrator Filivaa M. Mageo, Pago Pago, AS; Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Conny McCormack; Los Angeles, CA; Michigan Department of State, Bureau of Elections, Election Liaison Division, Manager Susan McRill, Lansing, MI; Georgia Director of Elections Administration Kathy Rogers, Atlanta, GA; LaPorte County Clerk Lynne Spevak, LaPorte, IN; Snohomish County Auditor Bob Terwilliger, Everett, WA. 

State or Territory Designee First Name Last Name Title City State
5

0 U.S. Election Assistance Commission Appointed by First Name Last Name Title City State EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee Director of NIST Dr. William A. Jeffrey Committee Chair Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg MD Standards Board John A. Gale Nebraska Secretary of State Lincoln NE Standards Board Alice Miller Director of Elections, District of Columbia Washington DC Board of Advisors Sharon Turner-Buie Director of Elections, Kansas City Kansas City MO Board of Advisors Helen Purcell Maricopa County, AZ Recorder Phoenix AZ Access Board Tricia Mason National Officer, Little People of America Cheyenne WY Access Board Philip G. Pearce Ready Access Services, LLC College Station TX ANSI Dr. David Wagner Professor, University of California-Berkeley Berkeley CA IEEE H. Stephen Berger TEM Consulting, LP—Chair, IEEE SEC 38 (Voting Syst. Stds.), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Georgetown TX

NASED Dr. Britain Williams Retired professor, Kennesaw State, University of Georgia Tucker GANASED Paul Miller Voting Systems Manager, Wahsington State Olympia WAOther Tech/Sci Dr. Ronald Rivest Professor, MIT, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Cambridge MAOther Tech/Sci Dr. Daniel Schutzer Director and SVP, Enterprise Technology Office, Citigroup New York NYOther Tech/Sci Patrick Gannon President & CEO, OASIS Billerica MAOther Tech/Sci Whitney Quesenbery President, Usability Professionals’ Association High Bridge NJ

The following officials served in fiscal year 2006: Former Bureau Chief Paul Craft, Voting Systems Certification, Florida Division of Elections; U.S. Access Board Member James Elekes; U.S. Access Board Member James R. Harding; ANSI Vice President of Public Policy and Governmental Affairs David Karmol. ANSI = American National Standards Institute.IEEE = Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology.NASED = The National Association of State Election Directors.
Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report 51

2002 VSS 2002 Voting System Standards

ANSI American National Standards Institute

APIA Asian and Pacific Islander Americans

AU American University

BSA Bureau of State Audits (California)

CDEM Center for Democracy and Election Management

CSU-LB California State University, Long Beach

CUF Citizens Union Foundation

DST Delta Sigma Theta

EAC U.S. Election Assistance Commission

ECC Elgin Community College

FEC Federal Election Commission

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

FY fiscal year

GSA U.S. General Services Administration

HAVA Help America Vote Act

IACREOT International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers

ICC Illinois Central College

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IFES International Foundation for Election Systems

IU Indiana University

MCCC Maricopa County Community College

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

NASED National Association of State Election Directors

NASS The National Association of Secretaries of State

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NKU Northern Kentucky University

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

NVRA National Voter Registration Act

NY BOE New York City Board of Elections

OIG Office of Inspector General

SOS Office of the Secretary of State (California)

SUNY State University of New York

TGDC Technical Guidelines Development Committee

UB University of Baltimore

UCF University of Central Florida

UOCAVA Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

UTEP University of Texas at El Paso

UTTC United Tribes Technical College

UVA University of Virginia

VSS Voting System Standards

VVSG Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

WCSU Western Connecticut State University

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms
U.S. Election Assistance Commission

EAC Commissioners

Chair Donetta L. Davidson

Commissioner Paul S. DeGregorio

Commissioner Gracia M. Hillman 

EAC Staff

Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director

Juliet Hodgkins, General Counsel 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1225 New York Avenue, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

866–747–1471 (toll free)

HAVAinfo@eac.gov 

www.eac.gov