U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37–738 2007

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MEETING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, AUGUST 2, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California, 

Vice-Chairwoman 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, 

Ranking Minority Member 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:12 p.m., in room 1310, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gonzalez, Davis of Alabama, 

Ehlers, and McCarthy. 

Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Thomas Hicks, Senior Election Counsel; Janelle Hu, Election Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, 

Election Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; 

Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk; Daniel Favarulo, Staff 

Assistant, Elections; Kyle Anderson, Press Director; Gineen Beach, 

Minority Election Counsel; Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel; 

and Bryan T. Dorsey, Minority Professional Staff. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Subcommittee on Elections will come to order. 

Today’s Elections Subcommittee hearing will focus on the standards, management, and procedures of the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. The EAC is an independent, bipartisan commission 

created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, otherwise known as 

HAVA. The EAC is charged with administering payments to States 

and developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, implementing election administration improvements, adopting voluntary 

voting system guidelines, accrediting voting system test laboratories and certifying voting equipment, and serving as a national 

clearinghouse and resource of information regarding election administration. 

The EAC was originally established to serve as an independent, 

bipartisan agency. However, the EAC is increasingly being criticized for a lack of transparency and partisan decisionmaking. As 

Chair of the Elections Subcommittee, I too have made my concerns 

known about the apparent politicization of this agency, which is 

why we are having this hearing today. 

Through HAVA, the EAC is required to provide thorough, publicly available research on various election administration policy 

initiatives. In particular, HAVA required a study on voter fraud 

and intimidation and a study on the impact of voter identification 

on voter turnout. In fulfilling this duty, the EAC delayed the release of the reports and altered the findings of the report on voter 

fraud. 

While both the Democratic and the Republican election experts 

contracted to conduct the research found, quote, ‘‘widespread but 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
2 

not unanimous agreement that there is little polling fraud,’’ unquote, the EAC issued a voter fraud and intimidation report with 

alternative findings that claimed the pervasiveness of fraud is still 

open to debate. 

Adding to concern about management at the EAC was its refusal 

for months to release the voter identification report, which found 

that voter identification laws can suppress turnout in minority 

communities. 

Despite its concern with the research methodology, EAC eventually released the study in response to intense pressure from the 

media, the public, and Congress. The EAC’s recent handling of the 

voter fraud and intimidation and voter identification studies have 

cast a shadow of partisan influence over the agency. I do commend 

the commissioners for formally requesting the Office of the Inspector General to review the contracting procedures and circumstances 

surrounding the Commission’s discussion and deliberation of the 

two EAC projects. 

However, I am disturbed that it took considerable public outcry 

to prompt this request, and eagerly await the IG report. It is my 

hope that in this hearing we will learn more about how the EAC 

makes decisions, the role of senior staff of the agency in the process. I am concerned that the advice coming out of the commission 

is inconsistent, and is made in a unilateral manner, without the 

input or official action of the four commissioners. 

In addition to this, I would like to explore the role of the Department of Justice as a member of the EAC Advisory Board. As a result of my request for all correspondence and documents related to 

the two studies of concern, it became apparent that the Department of Justice played a significant role in the drafting and redrafting of at least the report on voter fraud and intimidation. 

Those 12 boxes of documents, which the EAC later publicly released, provide much insight into the operations of this agency. The 

EAC has limited authority, in light of its role as a nonpartisan research clearinghouse with minimal rulemaking authority. It also 

has a very limited ability to issue advisory opinions on Federal 

election law. These documents lead me to question if any of the 

EAC’s actions have gone beyond the EAC’s statutory mandate. 

Finally, I wish to explore why Congress has become the last person on the EAC call list when it takes action. The EAC has failed 

to inform Congress of important developments relating to the 

EAC’s statutory responsibilities, such as accrediting our Nation’s 

voting machines. Congress should not learn of the EAC action by 

reading the New York Times. 

The purpose of congressional oversight of the EAC is to ensure 

that our voting system is public and transparent. While administrative requirements are time-consuming, they serve a greater purpose. 

Unfortunately, I wish I could say that the EAC is the only one 

to blame for the lack of communication with Congress. The Committee on House Administration, under the now minority, held only 

three hearings on the EAC since 2005, and only one of those was 

specifically an oversight hearing. We cannot continue to allow an 

agency tasked with overseeing elections to continue on without 

oversight. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
3 

My hope is that this hearing will be the first step in working to 

see that the EAC improves their process and management. In 

2008, we will be facing a Presidential election, and much of the 

focus of our Nation and Congress will be on the EAC. The EAC 

cannot continue down a path that results in reports and recommendations that restrict the right to vote of eligible Americans. 

I am encouraged that over the past few months the EAC has become more proactive in reporting its activities to Congress. I am 

pleased that the commissioners are publicly acknowledging the 

problems the agency has faced. However, these positive steps are 

not the end of the road. There is much work to be done. 

I thank the EAC for cooperating with this committee, and would 

like to stress not only my concern for the need for significant 

changes in the agency, but the concern of this body, and more importantly, the American voters. 

I would now like to invite our Ranking Member, Congressman 

Kevin McCarthy, for any opening statement he may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
4 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 9 37738A.001
5 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 10 37738A.002
6 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I appreciate the Chair for allowing me to make 

an opening statement. I am actually grateful that we are having 

an oversight hearing. And one thing I would like to explain during 

this oversight is for our ability to gather information, EAC has a 

board, has a commission. I would hate for this body to ever try to 

push their will from a political basis of where that commission, 

what they should write, what they should do. 

That is why I like the oversight hearings, so we gather information, we have a greater understanding of what is going on, not one 

that we push a political agenda. 

Madam Chair, I have some materials that are germane to this 

hearing, and I ask for unanimous consent it be entered into the 

record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We always permit such unanimous consent requests, although I am curious what it is. Without objection, it is 

entered. 

[The information follows:] 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
7 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 058 here 37738A.032
8 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 059 here 37738A.033
9 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 060 here 37738A.034
10 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 061 here 37738A.035
11 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 062 here 37738A.036
12 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 063 here 37738A.037
13 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 064 here 37738A.038
14 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 065 here 37738A.039
15 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 066 here 37738A.040
16 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 067 here 37738A.041
17 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 068 here 37738A.042
18 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 069 here 37738A.043
19 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 070 here 37738A.044
20 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 071 here 37738A.045
21 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 072 here 37738A.046
22 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 073 here 37738A.047
23 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 074 here 37738A.048
24 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 075 here 37738A.049
25 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 076 here 37738A.050
26 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 077 here 37738A.051
27 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 078 here 37738A.052
28 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 079 here 37738A.053
29 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 080 here 37738A.054
30 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 081 here 37738A.055
31 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 082 here 37738A.056
32 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 083 here 37738A.057
33 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 084 here 37738A.058
34 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 085 here 37738A.059
35 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 086 here 37738A.060
36 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 087 here 37738A.061
37 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 088 here 37738A.062
38 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 089 here 37738A.063
39 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 090 here 37738A.064
40 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 091 here 37738A.065
41 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 092 here 37738A.066
42 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 093 here 37738A.067
43 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 094 here 37738A.068
44 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 095 here 37738A.069
45 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 096 here 37738A.070
46 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 097 here 37738A.071
47 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 098 here 37738A.072
48 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 099 here 37738A.073
49 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 100 here 37738A.074
50 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 101 here 37738A.075
51 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 102 here 37738A.076
52 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 103 here 37738A.077
53 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 104 here 37738A.078
54 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 105 here 37738A.079
55 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And 

if I have any more time, I would like to yield some to the former 

Chair of the committee, Mr. Vern Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. I have no opening statement at this time, but am 

eagerly looking forward to the results of the hearing. I agree with 

you that it is overdue. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. Other members I think would prefer 

to put their opening statements in the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And we will turn now to our first panel. We have 

both the Chair and the Vice Chair of the EAC. Donetta Davidson, 

the EAC Chair, previously served as Colorado Secretary of State 

for 6 years before being appointed to the EAC by President Bush 

in 2005, and has held elected office as local county clerk and recorder and director of elections for the Colorado Department of 

State. Ms. Davidson was elected president of the National Association of Secretaries of State that same year, and is a former president of the National Association of State Election Directors. 

Rosemary Rodriguez is our EAC Vice Chair. Ms. Rodriguez briefly served as president of the Denver City Council before she was 

appointed in 2007. She was director of Boards and Commissions for 

the Mayor of Denver, Denver city clerk and recorder, and acting director of the Denver Election Commission, where she supervised 

city elections. She has been active in numerous grass-roots civic 

and voter advocacy organizations, including the Colorado Voter Initiative, where she co-chaired a statewide initiative to allow election 

day voter registration, and the Latina Initiative, a project to register Latino voters and provide nonpartisan election information to 

the Latino community. We welcome you both. 

We look forward to hearing your statements. Your complete 

statements will be made a part of our official record. We would ask 

that you summarize your statements in 5 minutes. And that little 

machine there on the desk, it has lights. And when the yellow light 

goes on, it means you have only got 1 minute left. And when the 

red light goes on, it means that your time has expired. And at that 

point we would ask you to summarize as quickly as you can so that 

we can get to our next panel. 

So Ms. Davidson, if you would begin, welcome to our hearing. 

STATEMENT OF DONETTA DAVIDSON, CHAIR, U.S ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; AND ROSEMARY RODRIGUEZ, 

VICE CHAIR, U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Lofgren and 

Ranking Member McCarthy. My name is Donetta Davidson, and 

first of all, I very proudly would like to introduce my two granddaughters, which are visiting D.C. For the very first time——

Ms. LOFGREN. How wonderful. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Brittany and Nicole Berrich. So to get to be here, 

I think it is very special. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would they stand up so that we can recognize 

them? It is embarrassing, but you need to be proud to have your 

family here. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I said, it is an 

honor to be here, and I really appreciate being able for you to give 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
56 

us this opportunity to provide you an update about the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 

Since the 2000 Presidential election, we have seen sweeping 

changes in the way we have conducted elections. The passage of 

the Help America Vote Act expanded opportunities for people with 

disabilities and those with alternative language needs. Provisional 

voting is now required in every State. Thanks to statewide voter 

registration databases, the voter rolls are cleaner, more accurate. 

Modern voting technology has been purchased, thanks to the more 

than $3 billion distributed by HAVA. 

HAVA also created the EAC, which opened its doors officially in 

2004. Since then we have hit the ground running and we have not 

slowed down since. The EAC already has issued updates on voting 

system guidelines, established the Federal Government’s first voting system test program; we have issued two reports on the impact 

of the national Voter Registration Act, a report on military and 

overseas voters, the 2004 election day survey, a Spanish glossary, 

which I brought one, on election terms. 

And we are especially proud of our Election Management Project, 

which underneath that we have issued voting systems security, 

testing, certification, ballot preparation, and training for poll workers. We got started with $1.2 million in 2004, and thanks to Congress recognizing our limitations, they increased the funding in our 

subsequent years. 

Also I want to say in public how proud I am of our staff. They 

have done a lot with very little and done it quite well. 

The other study that we have drawn a lot of fire on is our election crime report. This report was an initial study of voter fraud 

and voter intimidation. These topics are very controversial, and 

opinions are sharply split down partisan lines. We made tough decisions about the data we received from the consultant. If statements were not supported by the data, we did not adopt the statements in our final report. I know you will have questions about 

this report, and I look forward to setting the record straight in a 

public setting. 

As I said, the EAC had to get started very quickly to meet the 

obligations underneath HAVA. Unfortunately, that meant we put 

our establishing the Commission’s policies and procedures on the 

back burner. Our priority was first to get the money to the States 

and help them interpret the laws. 

Now we have work to be done initially internally. As the Chair, 

I have already made some sweeping changes. Bipartisan committees to oversee research and all EAC operations. Contract procurement has been outsourced to another entity. And I have asked, 

along with the other commissioners, for the Inspector General to do 

a review of our procedures and policies. We will take their recommendations very seriously, and we will make the necessary 

changes. No mistake, there is always room for improvement, but 

we have produced results and we have a great potential to continue 

to help election officials throughout the Nation. I do look forward 

to your questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much for your testimony and also 

for staying with our 5-minute rule. And now we would turn to you, 

Ms. Rodriguez. Welcome. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
57 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Mr. 

McCarthy for inviting us here today. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am not sure your microphone is on. There is a 

little button there. There you go. 

STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY RODRIGUEZ 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member 

McCarthy for inviting me to give comments today. As a new member of the Election Assistance Commission, I believe it is an important and necessary agency. Our primary goal must be to ensure 

that every eligible American has the best chance to cast a ballot 

and see it counted. While we must work with election officials to 

ensure that they have the tools to do their job, our first allegiance 

must always be to the voters. Conflicts between these interests are 

exceedingly rare, but when an issue arises that creates tension, we 

have a duty to come down on the side of the voter. 

I emphasize that the EAC has accomplished much since Congress enabled it, and I commend current commissioners and those 

who preceded me for their diligence and hard work. But to fulfill 

our mandates, we need to do more. 

First, the Commission must become fully transparent and accountable. Any hint of secrecy, political motivation, or political litmus in those who administer elections is anathema to all Americans. Therefore, the EAC must disavow any procedures that suggest a hidden agenda and invite cynicism. At my first commission 

meeting, I recommended that the EAC conduct staff briefings and 

make policy decisions in sunshine, limiting the tally vote to only 

the most routine decisions. And as long as I am a commissioner, 

I will continue to urge it to adopt these and other policies and procedures, and to memorialize them in written documents that are 

available to the public. Only then can the public see the decisions 

the EAC is making, understand the reasons for them, and know 

they are being made to benefit the election process for voters, rather than for partisan gain. 

Second, the Commission must become transparent and accountable in its accounting procedures and research protocols. We have 

already begun this, and my Chair did discuss her request to the Inspector General to conduct a thorough review. I mentioned this review specifically because I know that our handling of the research 

projects created confusion and speculation. We should accept wellfounded criticism on their handling, and take steps to ensure that 

the errors we made do not happen again. We expect the IG’s report 

soon, and I anticipate that the Commission will make its recommendations the keystone of our future work plan. 

Finally, we should better inform our oversight committees and 

all interested Members of Congress of our activities. 

Let me briefly mention two other items. States are establishing 

statewide voter databases required by HAVA. I am hopeful that 

when they are completed we will be able to say with confidence to 

you and to the American people that they are accurate and efficient. That is not a foregone conclusion. The databases are difficult 

to build and maintain, and you may want to invite us back to report on their progress. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
58 

Congressional staff members have asked about provisional ballots. The Congress authorized the use of the provisional ballot to 

make sure that voters were provided with every opportunity that 

their ballot would count. They should never be used as a tool to 

disenfranchise voters, and I believe we should continually monitor 

their usage. 

I am having a series of meetings with voters and voter advocates 

in anticipation of the 2008 election, and it will be my goal to make 

sure that the issues they identify are those considered and addressed by the EAC as the country prepares for 2008. 

In conclusion, the EAC commissioners and staff want to see the 

promise of HAVA fulfilled. We want voters in America to be confident in equipment that we certify. We want election officials to 

adopt our guidelines because they are thorough and reasonable. We 

want the States to implement voter databases that guarantee voter 

access, not impede it. And finally, we want to see Americans believe and trust the results of our elections. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Davidson and Ms. Rodriguez follows:] 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
59 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 21 37738A.003
60 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 22 37738A.004
61 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 23 37738A.005
62 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 24 37738A.006
63 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 25 37738A.007
64 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 26 37738A.008
65 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 27 37738A.009
66 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 28 37738A.010
67 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 29 37738A.011
68 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 30 37738A.012
69 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 31 37738A.013
70 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 32 37738A.014
71 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 33 37738A.015
72 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 34 37738A.016
73 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 35 37738A.017
74 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 36 37738A.018
75 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 37 37738A.019
76 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 38 37738A.020
77 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 39 37738A.021
78 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 40 37738A.022
79 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 41 37738A.023
80 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 42 37738A.024
81 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 43 37738A.025
82 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 44 37738A.026
83 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 45 37738A.027
84 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 46 37738A.028
85 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you both very much for that testimony. We 

will now engage in questions that we may have under the 5-minute 

rule, and I am going to turn first to our Ranking Member, Mr. 

McCarthy, for any questions he may have. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I would gladly let you go first. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Trying to be bipartisan and gracious here. You 

want to stop me? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairwoman. To Chairwoman Davidson, can you explain exactly what kind of research Ms. Wang 

and Mr. Serebrov were conducted to do for the EAC? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Thank you. The research that was conducted, we 

asked in the contract for two major things. Definitely it is a very 

important subject, and we want to make sure that it is addressed 

right. We asked for a definition of voter fraud and voter intimidation, because they both, if there is a crime, voter intimidation is 

just as important as voter fraud. So we wanted to make sure that 

we had a definition that included both of those subjects. 

The other thing that we really wanted is a road map of how we 

proceed forward, because we feel that in getting a determination of 

what is out there, the data will support whatever is there, because 

we won’t have to make any conclusions. The data will provide that 

for us. We really feel—and we took their suggestions. 

There was a couple, three really, is surveilling the States on to 

find out how many complaints have been filed, investigated and resolved. Also do the same with election crime units and also law enforcements, because we feel if we have good data from all of those 

individuals, as I said, the documentation will support any type of 

problems that is there. We won’t have to make any conclusions at 

the EAC. The data can do that for the report. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Now, there has been some talk out there or discussion about the voter fraud and voter intimidation study being 

partisan. Knowing your Commission is bipartisan, Republicans and 

Democrats, how did the Republicans and Democrats vote when it 

came to adopting the final fraud report? What was the vote? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. The fraud report was unanimous, and to issue the 

fraud report as has been issued, and that you can see; it was a 

unanimous decision by all three. And it was done at a public meeting in December. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So Republicans and Democrats all voted unanimously for it? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. That is correct. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. The EAC has been accused of political motivation when it adopted and issued its fraud report. If you got that 

same draft delivered by the same consultants today would you vote 

to accept it? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Absolutely. I would vote to accept the one that we 

did. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Exactly what you did prior? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. That is right. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. Voter fraud is a highly partisan issue. Did 

you or your staff try to manipulate the Wang or Serebrov studies 

so they would have a partisan slant? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Absolutely not. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
86 

Mr. MCCARTHY. What are some of—you talked of some of the 

changes you have made. Maybe you can elaborate, because knowing the birth of the EAC and where we have come, and the bipartisanship and continual improvement, what do you think are some 

of the improvements that you have made that we should focus on? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. We are evolving. And since the last reports that 

you have actually—you know, the controversy in the December report—we have started putting out all of the reports on a virtual 

Web site to our committees, the Standard Board, and the Advisory 

Board for them to give comments to. And that is public information. At the same time, anybody can review that. It is put in a register and made aware that—the Federal Register—and made 

aware that we will be taking comments. So we hopefully are far 

more transparent. 

Our contracts, before they are finalized and the individuals are 

paid, there are comments made, and our contractors are expected 

to look at those comments and come back. So we are trying to be 

far more transparent in the processes we are doing in the future. 

And as we move forward, obviously we feel that is very important. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Just one last follow-up question. I was told that 

someone heard Ms. Wang on the radio yesterday, that no one from 

the EAC contacted her after she submitted her work. According to 

the contract she signed, was the EAC obligated to get her approval 

or input before issuing the final report? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. You know, I think if my memory serves me correct, there was e-mails between our staff and Ms. Wang on the 

issue and before the report was issued. I think if you go back and 

review some of those documentations, you will find that there was 

conversation there with Ms. Wang on the issue. I don’t have that 

exactly in front of me, but I would be more than willing to provide 

you those documentations, if you would, like later on. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield 

back my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. I will proceed at this point under my 

5 minutes. I have questions, really, that are procedural about how 

the Commission conducts its business and the Administrative Procedures Act, and how familiar the commissioners are. It is my understanding under the Administrative Procedures Act that in a 

case such as the voter fraud and intimidation report, that the administrative agency is not at liberty to rewrite it. They are at liberty to provide information in disagreement to the report that has 

been contracted. Is that your—how familiar are each of you and the 

other commissioners with the Administrative Procedures Act? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. I can start, and then I will—probably we are—

we do rely on our staff a great deal. We rely on our attorneys in 

the office. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, HAVA does 

require some of our initial things that we do that we actually, some 

of our studies, if it is guidelines, that we actually have to go back 

to our Standards Board and Advisory Board, and that is not in the 

Administrative Procedures Act. It goes a step beyond. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, but in this case that was not within that penumbra. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. And we have only done one guideline in our agency. But I would say we always know that we have to put everyVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:43 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 037738 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A738.XXX A738

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
87 

thing in the Federal Register. I think that we are pretty familiar 

with it, but to be honest with you, I wouldn’t say that I am perfect. 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. May I, Madam Chair? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Of course. 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. I believe that we would be unanimous when we 

said that we are not fully embracing all of the things that we 

should be doing, all of the steps that we should be taking with respect to several layers of Federal regulations. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. And I think we are prepared to do that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that is good news. I have made some criticisms known, but I mean the point of this hearing is to see how 

we can improve; correct? 

I want to ask a question. I serve on the House Judiciary Committee along with Mr. Davis, and we have been reviewing a great 

volume of material relative to the Department of Justice and its 

various activities. And in reviewing from that committee, but also 

all of the e-mails, it does appear that the Department of Justice 

took a very strong role in reviewing and editing EAC public reports. 

Is it the EAC policy to have Department of Justice officials review, comment on, and exert editorial control over research material and drafts of EAC reports? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. The Justice Department is, according to section, 

I believe it is 214 of HAVA, has two members that serve on our 

Advisory Board. And so therefore those individuals, as well as advocacy groups, election officials, all give comments to us. 

There was a briefing that took place at the—I believe it was a 

May meeting. And so there was comments taken at that time from 

everybody. And I, you know, personally, I want you to know that 

I already met with them twice when I first got here. 

I had a meeting with Hans von Spakovsky and Mr. Tanner at 

lunch with Ray Martinez, and it was when I first was appointed. 

The second time was a lunch in February, I believe it was, with 

Mr. Von Spakovsky. So I have not talked with them other than two 

times. So I really feel there wasn’t any pressure at all from their 

agency. And I would say that just through the committee is the 

only thing that they had ever done. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I just want to say the e-mails certainly show, 

not your personal participation, but—and I want to make that 

clear. But there was really—the Department of Justice was playing 

a very strong role in what ordinarily you would think the commissioners themselves would be approving. And that is one question 

I had. 

I want to let Ms. Rodriguez also answer, because my time is almost up. And I will turn to the other members. 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. I wasn’t here then, but——

Ms. LOFGREN. That is okay. 

Ms. RODRIGUEZ. But in reviewing the documents, it does seem to 

me there is quite a bit of interaction. A lot of it is appropriate, because they do serve on our advisory boards. And I would wonder 

if that is appropriate, because they are also the agency that conducts our enforcement actions. So we, again, it is one of the things 

we need to talk about seriously within the agency. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
88 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. I am going to turn now to Mr. Ehlers for 

his 5 minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I wanted to 

submit my opening statement into the record, as I said earlier. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

[The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
89 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 055 here 37738A.029
90 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 056 here 37738A.030
91 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 057 here 37738A.031
92 

Mr. EHLERS. I just want to highlight one point on that, in that 

we had invited one of the top, if not the top election officials in the 

Nation, here as one of our witnesses. Mr. Chris Thomas of Michigan, highly regarded, has been the head of their agency. And the 

committee said we are only entitled to one minority witness, which 

I know is customary in all committees other than this committee, 

but has not been the custom here. 

So I just wanted to protest. He did submit his written testimony, 

but we have always had the camaraderie, since this is a small committee, to allow the minority extra witnesses. And I am disappointed that was not permitted this time. I just wanted to get 

it in the record to say that, and the rest can go in the record. 

[The statement of Mr. Thomas follows:] 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
93 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 107 here 37738A.080
94 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 108 here 37738A.081
95 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 109 here 37738A.082
96 

Mr. EHLERS. I appreciate the EAC. I think it is one of the better 

things we did. I would in some instances wish you had more authority in terms of getting HAVA working right. And I know when 

we put this together a few years ago it was such an intricate and 

delicate dance between all the parties, the local elected officials, 

State elected officials, manufacturers, users, every county, city 

clerk in the Nation. I think we came out with a decent product. But 

I wish we had—well, actually I tried to do it at the time, I just was 

outvoted, but we should have done a much better job of establishing standards first, giving everyone a chance to be involved in 

that, and then giving the manufacturers a chance to really meet 

the standards. I think we could have avoided most of the difficulties that have developed, and I wish the EAC, and I know the other 

advisory groups, had been able to play a better role in that. That 

is water over the dam. I think things are beginning to work 

smoothly now, and I appreciate that. 

I am concerned about the reports that were referred to. From everything I hear, that it was appropriate for you not to put your 

stamp on them. And I guess in the next panel we will have time 

to get into more detail on that. But since you are a new agency, 

I urge you to exercise extreme caution, foresight, and thoughtfulness in how you approach these issues. 

I don’t know the details of how the report was ordered, how it 

was structured, how it was supervised. But from everything I have 

heard, it is a very poor sample of a report. And I just want to give 

each of you an opportunity to respond to my impressions. If I am 

wrong, let me know. If I am right, I would appreciate affirmation. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. I can start. You know, I believe there was a lot 

of good things in the report. It gave us a road map as to what we 

really, really want to go forward. We just felt like when interviews 

of 24 individuals that was taken, that that wasn’t enough to make 

a determination and put that into place. In my opinion, you have 

got to really do a deep study before you can make a statement of 

whether there is voter fraud or voter intimidation; and whether 24 

people, we felt was just not enough to place our findings on and 

make a determination on. 

But there are good things. There is a way to move forward. And 

we think that is very important is how we move forward. So as I 

said earlier, the data stands for itself. And that is what we wanted 

to do. We feel that voter intimidation, anything that is a crime, 

voter intimidation, voter fraud, definitely needs to be reviewed, because we need to make people aware of what the problems are, and 

Congress, own States, everything. I think it is for the best the 

Democrats, the Republicans, the voters, that they feel that there is 

confidence and that their vote is counted and they are not intimidated from the polls. 

So I really think that as we move forward we will see a great 

deal more. But 24 people is not enough to make a determination 

on is our feeling. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, you need more than that. Also I am curious 

whether any Members of Congress were asked to recommend individuals who should be interviewed or if any Members of Congress 

were asked to submit samples or information about dishonest election practices that they were aware of in their community, their 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
97 

State, et cetera, because most of us have been contacted quite a bit 

and can give examples. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. I don’t believe they were, but in the future, obviously, as we move forward, knowing that Congress is interested, as 

well as election officials, maybe that is another area we should add 

to our survey is to see how Congress Members—because in reading 

the Chairwoman’s comments, obviously she is very concerned about 

in her area of issues. And so obviously the more input we have 

from everybody, the better off we are. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I would turn 

now to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and welcome to Chairwoman Davidson and Vice Chairwoman Rodriguez. 

And I appreciate the meeting that we had in my office a month or 

two ago. Time really does fly when you are having so much fun. 

But I do have a couple questions. The first one is to the Chairwoman. You indicated that Mr. Spakovsky from DOJ is a member 

of an advisory committee of sorts. Is that right? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. He was at the time that he was with the Justice 

Department. He no longer is serving there. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But I am talking the time in question here. How 

many members of this Advisory Committee or Board do you have? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. There is—I was going to say 48, but 47. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And how many submitted comments or had some 

input in the nature that Mr. Spakovsky had regarding voter fraud 

allegations and the necessity to maybe readdress it in the draft report? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. There was even a resolution that was done at 

that May meeting concerning the issues. All of the commissioners 

were present at that meeting, and people came up to us individually. Submitted in writing, I don’t know how many submitted anything in writing. 

We also had an Advisory Board meeting in February, and there 

was discussion about the report at that time, and a resolution was 

proposed to make the report open. This was after our fraud report 

was adopted, and then they wanted to make the initial report——

Mr. GONZALEZ. I think I am trying to get at, at that point in time 

who was the most active member of this particular Advisory Committee that communicated with you to a greater degree than anyone else, whether it was by e-mail, letter, discussions? Would it 

have been Mr. Spakovsky? I always mess up his name, but I am 

somewhat familiar with him. I remember him in the Department 

of Justice and some of the experiences the Texas delegation had. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Personally, the election officials are the ones that 

I talked to more than anybody else. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. In January 2007, and while he was serving, it 

says here—this is an article by Jerry Ebert—one final note that is 

set forth in the EAC documents, while serving at the FEC, von 

Spakovsky wrote an e-mail to Commissioner Donetta Davidson in 

January 2007, enclosing documents that she might be able to use 

on voter ID. One was an article that he wrote for the Federalist 

Society, entitled ‘‘Increasing the Security of Elections: The Effect of 

Identification Requirements on Turnout of Minority Voters.’’


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
98 

On the first page of the article he wrote, quote, ‘‘Voter fraud is 

well documented and existing in the United States.’’ In the next 

paragraph he writes, ‘‘Investigations in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 

found thousands of fraudulent and suspicious votes in that city in 

a State where John Kerry won by only 11,394 votes in the 2004 

election,’’ end quote. 

And who among the authorities cited by von Spakovsky for those 

two statements? His own law journal article that he published 

under the name Publius. That is why we are so suspicious of the 

process. 

I also would remind individuals that it wasn’t that long ago, in 

the spring, when all these allegations were coming up in the context of the firings of the United States Attorneys General. One of 

those that received some complaints, obviously was not removed, 

disciplined or whatever, was the U.S. Attorney from Milwaukee. 

And this individual went on record and basically says that he 

played down the voter fraud complaints, saying that he and a local 

Democratic prosecutor joined in investigating such allegations, and 

he says we tried to address it in a serious and detailed way, but 

in a way that did not impact any election. I think we did that. It 

has been addressed. 

I am just saying that it seems like this individual had an inordinate amount of contact with the Commission, had an inordinate 

amount of influence in the final draft. And it definitely was redrafted. I mean there is no doubt. I think we have been able to 

compare final draft versus the draft language when it came to 

voter fraud. That is our concern. I mean the whole debate over the 

firings of those attorneys general really does revolve around a particular subject, and that is voter fraud. So we see this rearing its 

head in every venue. And we just don’t want it to impact what your 

work should be. 

And one last aspect of voter fraud. I always thought of this of 

people that shouldn’t be voting. Do you have anything that might 

gauge the number of multiple voting registrants, people that may 

be registered in more than one State and get to vote in both 

States? Because I think we had something recently. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and by unanimous consent an additional 30 seconds is granted. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Just to respond. I am just curious about that. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. I do not have any data. I can tell you it would 

take research to get you that. But on the other hand, back to the 

conversations with Mr. von Spakovsky, definitely, as you see, we 

adopted the voter fraud in December. Those were given to me in 

February of this last year. It was after. But at the end of the day, 

no matter who said what to me or gave me any type of documentation, I make my own decisions. I firmly want to state that and 

make it very clear. I make my decisions at the end of the day. 

Right, wrong, indifferent, nobody has that control. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Davidson, let me perhaps put in context for you some of the frustration that my friend from Texas just displayed, because I feel a lot 

of it too. Ms. Lofgren mentioned that she and I—the Chairwoman 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
99 

mentioned that she and I serve on the Judiciary Committee together. And at this point there is a very familiar feel to some of 

the newspaper articles that I read in preparing for today’s hearing. 

There is a very familiar feel as I listen to some of these questions. 

The Chairwoman and I have gone through several months now of 

hearings in committee about U.S. Attorneys who were pressured, 

I think that is the best word, ‘‘pressured’’ to bring voter fraud cases 

against Democratic voting activists. 

The Chairwoman and I have heard testimony about the former 

U.S. Attorney in part of Missouri, Mr. Graves, who was apparently 

terminated because he was not zealous enough or aggressive 

enough in bringing voter fraud cases against activists associated 

with the Democratic Party. 

We have heard testimony about the former U.S. Attorney in Seattle, Washington, who at one point was such a rising star he was 

offered a Federal district judgeship, but who was terminated because he wasn’t aggressive enough in bringing voter fraud cases 

against Democratic activists. 

I will put it in context of another matter Mr. Gonzalez is very 

familiar with: the controversy over the redistricting, the very unusual mid-decade redistricting of the congressional lines in Texas. 

A redistricting by the admission of all parties involved occurred because some felt there weren’t enough Republicans in Congress from 

Texas. 

Career lawyers of the Department of Justice reached a conclusion 

that there were enormous problems under the Voting Rights Act 

with the redistricting. Political appointees, possibly including this 

individual, Mr. von Spakovsky, disagreed with the judgment of the 

career lawyers, superimposed their own opinion. 

I am from Alabama, next to Georgia. Georgia passed a draconian 

voter ID law, one of the most draconian and most limiting voter ID 

laws in the country. My State allows 22 forms of voter. ID Georgia 

allowed three, and required people pay some kind of a fee to get 

an ID if they didn’t have one. 

Career lawyers at the Department of Justice looked at those requirements, felt that they were violative of the Voting Rights Act. 

Political appointees at the Department of Justice reached a different conclusion. 

So when you weave all of these things together, and I certainly 

accept your good faith and appreciate the good work that you do, 

but when you weave all those events together you have a pattern 

of a very aggressive ideological administration that has a particular mindset about voter fraud. And that would be okay if it was 

the political arm of the White House, in my opinion. 

You know, if it was the Office of Political Affairs or the RNC, I 

would just take that as one of the many disagreements we have. 

But when it is the Department of Justice, that is bothersome to 

me. 

And one other contextual point you should be aware of. Same 

committee the Chairwoman and I serve on, Judiciary, had an oversight hearing involving the civil rights division at the Department 

of Justice. The chief deputy to the civil rights chief testified, and 

I asked her, how many voter intimidation cases have been brought 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
100 

by the Department of Justice in the last 6 years? And her answer 

was she did not know of a single one. 

Now, we can quibble about the accuracy of any survey or the 

methodology of any survey that was employed. I don’t think that 

any serious person in this room or any other room would assert 

that there has been no instance of voter intimidation in the United 

States in the last 6 years, or that there have been no credible allegations of voter intimidation made to the Department of Justice. 

So what I would, I suppose, ask you to comment on is the fact 

that for whatever reason voter intimidation, efforts to prevent people from exercising the right to vote does not seem to be a particular priority. And second of all—of the Department of Justice. 

And second of all, can you comment on the fact that voter fraud 

appears to be something of a political weapon in the hands of this 

administration? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. I will try to go back to the experience that I have 

from the State of Colorado. I will tell you any type of voter crime 

is hard to get a conviction on. Doesn’t matter what kind. When we 

take it to the district attorneys in the State of Colorado, whether 

it was even a voter registration voter crime, people voting more 

than once, somebody at the intimidation, whatever the efforts were, 

they always told us that they were far too busy with crimes of murders and issues like that to take on voter registration or voter—

voting twice or intimidation. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Let me stop you on that point, though. 

I understand your experience in Colorado, but frankly the experience of a number of these U.S. Attorneys is that the Department 

of Justice was very interested in cases around voter fraud, that 

they made it a priority. In fact, the Attorney General has testified 

to our Judiciary Committee that these cases, however you and I 

may rank them on the scale, were extremely important. 

There was not that same sensitivity around voter intimidation. 

There appears to be a very high, I would submit, unwarranted 

level of engagement on the part of the Department of Justice 

around voter fraud issues. And that, Ms. Chairwoman, if I am allowed 10 seconds, I would say that leads to my conclusion that 

voter fraud appears to be to some in this administration a political 

weapon instead of a legitimate assessment of whether elements of 

a crime have been committed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. And we have 

actually, each one of us had our chance to ask our questions or 

make our statements. So we will thank you again for being here. 

And if we have any additional questions we will keep the record 

open so any member, through the Chair, can provide questions to 

you. And we would ask that they be responded to as promptly as 

possible. We will now ask our second—yes. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. May I ask also can we submit additional information to you at any time? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Of course. We will keep the record, under the 

rules, open for 5 days. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So please get whatever information you wish us to 

see, if you can, within that time frame. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Thank you. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
101 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will call our next panel forward if we could, 

please. Let me introduce our three panelists. First we have Jon 

Greenbaum, the director of the Voting Rights Project for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Prior to joining the 

Lawyers’ Committee, Mr. Greenbaum was a trial attorney in the 

voting section of the United States Department of Justice for 7 

years, as well as a litigation associate in the Los Angeles office of 

the international law firm Dewey Ballantine. Mr. Greenbaum graduated in 1989 from the University of California at Berkeley, with 

a bachelor of arts degree in legal studies and history, and he received his law degree from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1993. 

We have Professor David Super, who is a professor of administrative law from the University of Maryland School of Law. Prior 

to teaching at the University of Maryland, Mr. Super taught administrative law as a visiting professor at Washington & Lee University, as well as Yale Law School. In addition, he taught administrative law as a visiting lecturer or adjunct professor at Columbia 

Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, Howard University Law School, and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, 

and Princeton University. Professor Super graduated from Princeton University magna cum laude in 1980, and in 1983 graduated 

from Harvard Law School. 

And finally, we have Professor Robert Montjoy. Dr. Robert 

Montjoy teaches political science at the University of New Orleans. 

He specializes in electoral policy and administration, and frequently his academic research appears in books and in a variety of 

journals, including Public Administration Review, Policy Studies 

Review, Publius, and Public Opinion Quarterly. Dr. Montjoy also is 

a current member of the board of directors of the Elections Center, 

the largest organization of election officials in the United States, 

and a past member of the National Advisory Board for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program of the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. 

We welcome the three of you. We, as with our prior panel, we 

ask that you summarize your written testimony in 5 minutes. Your 

full statement will be part of the official record. 

STATEMENTS OF JON GREENBAUM, VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT 

DIRECTOR, LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 

UNDER LAW; DAVID SUPER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW; AND ROBERT 

MONTJOY, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I would turn first to Mr. Greenbaum for your 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF JON GREENBAUM 

Mr. GREENBAUM. I want to begin by thanking Chair Lofgren, 

Ranking Member McCarthy, and the members of the Subcommittee 

on Elections for convening this oversight hearing of the United 

States Election Assistance Commission, and inviting myself and 

others to testify. 

As we have been reminded over the past several months, congressional oversight can serve an important role by exposing facts 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
102 

about government practices, and can serve as a catalyst for changing those practices when they need to be changed. I hope and expect that today’s hearing will have this impact. 

My organization, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under 

Law, has been at the forefront of protecting and enhancing the 

right to vote since President John Kennedy and Attorney General 

Robert Kennedy convened the meeting of lawyers that led to our 

creation in 1963. 

Consistent with our work, we have participated in and closely observed the EAC since it began operating in December of 2003. My 

executive director, Barbara Arnwine, serves on the EAC board of 

advisors, and I participated on the working group for the voter 

fraud and intimidation study that I will discuss below. 

The EAC has in large measure failed to fill its core mission to 

protect voters’ rights. Our greatest concerns about the EAC are its 

lack of transparency and standards for making decisions and its 

failure to accept the analyses of expert consultants it has hired at 

taxpayer dollars when those analyses clash with the views of some 

EAC commissioners and staff. These issues have undermined the 

credibility of the EAC in the eyes of many. 

Because the EAC is a relatively new and small agency, we hope 

that this hearing, other ongoing congressional inquiries, and internal and external scrutiny will have the effect of transforming the 

EAC into an effective agency whose work is respected. 

Two dramatic examples of how the EAC has failed the American 

people are its handling of the voter intimidation and fraud study, 

and the voter identification study. As part of the Help America 

Vote Act, Congress required the EAC to commission these studies. 

For both studies, the EAC chose and hired consultants to perform 

the studies, and the consultants provided their work to the EAC in 

the summer of 2006. Even though the studies contained facts pertinent to the debate in the House of Representatives last fall over 

whether photo identification for voters should be required for Federal elections, namely, the studies showed there is little evidence 

of polling-place fraud by voters, and that voter identification disproportionately affects certain racial and ethnic groups. The EAC 

was silent about these studies for several months afterward. 

With respect to the voter intimidation and voter fraud study, 

EAC staff materially changed the study without the input of the 

consultants, and only released the consultants’ draft after months 

of criticism. 

With respect to the voter identification study, the EAC voted not 

to adopt a study that cost taxpayers more than half a million dollars. I was particularly disappointed about the voter intimidation 

and voter fraud study because of my involvement. For that study, 

the EAC chose two consultants, one with a conservative background, one with a liberal background, to ensure balance. In consultation with the EAC’s research director, the consultants sought 

to do a comprehensive review of the case law and literature on the 

subject, and interviewed more than 20 mutually agreed-upon voting experts. Both consultants participated in all interviews. The 

consultants summarized the results of their research and provided 

that summary, as well as all of the research, to a mutually agreedupon and undeniably balanced working group. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
103 

The working group met in May 2006, and we discussed the consultants’ research and analysis, as well as suggested avenues of research for future studies on the subject. One of the key facts the 

consultants determined, based on all their research, was that there 

was little evidence of voter fraud at the polling place. Only one 

member of the working group, Indiana Secretary of State Todd 

Rokita, whose State had enacted a government-issued photo identification law for voters the year before, had a serious objection to 

that finding. And he was not able to provide evidence backing his 

position. 

When the EAC issued the final study in December 2006, I was 

shocked to see that the study had now concluded that there is a 

great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud in elections, as 

well as what constitutes the most common acts of fraud or intimidation. E-mails have revealed that consultants submitted their 

version in July 2006, and without any input from the consultants, 

EAC staff essentially rewrote the study, materially changed in several respects that I can discuss in response to questions. E-mails 

have also revealed that during the time of the rewrite, EAC staff 

agreed to permit political appointees and career staff of the Department of Justice to review and comment on the rewrite. 

The right to vote is our most fundamental right, as it is preservative of all rights. By failing to conduct its business in a clear and 

open manner, and undermining the analysis of experts it has hired 

with taxpayer dollars because it disagrees with their conclusions, 

the EAC has failed in its mandate as a governmental agency to 

protect that fundamental right. 

Despite the failure to live up to the promise that Congress envisioned for the EAC, there is time to turn the EAC around and put 

it to work on behalf of all eligible American voters. I look forward 

to providing you with any assistance I can to help achieve that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much for that testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Greenbaum follows:] 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
104 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 129 37738A.083
105 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 130 37738A.084
106 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 131 37738A.085
107 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 132 37738A.086
108 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 133 37738A.087
109 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 134 37738A.088
110 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 135 37738A.089
111 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SUPER 

Mr. SUPER. Thank you very much, Chairman Lofgren, Representative McCarthy, and members of the subcommittee. As you noted, 

I teach administrative law, and that will be the focus of my comments. 

As an administrative law professor, I study many administrative 

agencies, and as a new agency I think the EAC can learn a great 

deal from other agencies’ experience, in particular as an agency 

that is new, that does not have an established record or reputation, 

and one that is dealing with some of the most sensitive and partisan, as well as most important issues before the country; that the 

EAC would do well to follow those agencies that have made a priority, perhaps even an obsession, about transparency and openness. 

And there are a number of specific things that I would urge that 

the EAC do. 

First, the research activities, because they are such an important 

part of what the EAC does, should be wholly transparent. The statute in this regard I think is very helpful. Section 207(2) of HAVA 

specifically directs that any report that is commissioned by EAC be 

provided to Congress and the President. It does not provide any authority for editing that. Naturally the EAC is free to comment on 

those reports, to criticize them. If they wish to itemize the portions 

of those reports that they think are weak, that is entirely appropriate, indeed consistent with the mission of promoting a full dialogue. But the statute I think is very clear that that is not something that can be done. When agencies in administrations of either 

party in the past have attempted to edit research that they have 

received, the consequences have often been very severe. The research itself becomes devalued, as it is regarded as being tainted 

by partisan influence and other studies completely unconnected 

with that incident become suspect because the suspicion is that the 

agency wouldn’t have let it through had it not met the agency’s political litmus test. And again I am not referring to administrations 

of either party. Alas, administrations of both parties have made 

that mistake. 

The sensible thing to do when you get a bad report, I lack the 

expertise to know whether the ones we are discussing here are 

good or bad, but if you do get a report you think is bad, you should 

release it and release your own statement as to what you want 

done. The EAC has authority and resources to contract for followup reports and research that perhaps can get at some of the things 

that they might be concerned about. 

Secondly, the agency’s research contracting needs to be beyond 

reproach. One possibility is to hire researchers who have long 

records and are regarded as nonpartisan; another possibility is to 

pursue bipartisan teams. My understanding is the EAC at times 

has gone in either of those directions. What clearly should not be 

appropriate is to allow officials that are connected with any partisan organization, be it this Congress in either side of the aisle or 

an administration, which inevitably is of one party or the other, to 

have an influence in or criticism of the selection of researchers or 

the product that they issue. 

I think it is unfortunate that political officials of the Department 

of Justice were serving on the board. As I read the statute, it 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
112 

names a number of sorts of officials that are partisan, such as 

State legislators or Governors. And in each of those areas it calls 

for two of them, the obvious intent being one be a Democrat and 

one be a Republican. There are only three officials listed in that 

statute that are not identified by partisan status, and those are all 

career officials of the Federal Government who were thought to be 

nonpartisan. It is unfortunate that one or more of those slots may 

have been assumed by a partisan appointee, and the commission 

should have endeavored to prevent that and certainly should have 

endeavored to keep such persons from influencing its research. 

Those boards have important roles to play, but screening the agency’s research does not appear from my reading of the statute to be 

one of them. 

Finally, it is very important to follow the statutory procedures for 

decisions. Among groups of friends consensus is obviously better 

than voting. But in public agencies the statute is emphatically 

clear that there must be three votes for all actions of the agency, 

and that there must be public meetings at which those votes take 

place. If anything happened of any consequence in the name of the 

agency, there should be a record of a public meeting and at least 

three votes to support it. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Super follows:] 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
113 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 140 37738A.090
114 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 141 37738A.091
115 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 142 37738A.092
116 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 143 37738A.093
117 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 144 37738A.094
118 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 145 37738A.095
119 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 146 37738A.096
120 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 147 37738A.097
121 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 148 37738A.098
122 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 149 37738A.099
123 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 150 37738A.100
124 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 151 37738A.101
125 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you very much, Professor. And now we 

turn to Professor Montjoy. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT MONTJOY 

Mr. MONTJOY. Thank you very much, Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy, and other members of the committee. I appreciate you having me here, and I want to talk to you about the 

importance of the Election Assistance Commission and particularly 

its information role. I am a professor of political science at the University of New Orleans. I am Director of the Master Public Administration Program there. I am also a registered Democrat, but I try 

to take my party hat off when I study election administration. 

Growing up in the South before the passage of the 1965 Voting 

Rights Act, I saw the effects of fraud and intimidation on voters. 

And as a result I became interested in the fair and accurate administration of elections, a subject of which I have pursued throughout 

my career. Most of my experience in elections comes from Alabama, 

where I spent 25 years teaching and doing outreach, statewide outreach, at Auburn University. 

My message today is simple. The U.S. election system is under 

great stress because of increased complexity and rapid change. A 

change in one part can have unanticipated consequences in another. The EAC plays an essential role in providing vital information for that system. It has built and must continue to build expertise that Congress and policymakers and administrators at the 

State and local levels can rely on. 

I also believe that the EAC contributes significantly to the 

professionalization of election administration. As officials learn 

about best practices, for example, from other jurisdictions they 

begin to identify with other election officials committed to ethical, 

technical and administrative standards. Because the EAC’s information role is important the process by which it produces and releases information is also important. This is especially so in highly 

contentious areas where beliefs are strongly held. 

The case of the study on fraud and intimidation is illustrative. 

Fraud and intimidation are vitally important issues because they 

are a threat to democracy. They are also extraordinarily difficult to 

research because much of the alleged behavior is hidden. 

The EAC commissioned a bipartisan team of consultants to define the terms, collect existing knowledge from published sources 

and interviews, and suggest the most promising directions for further research. This was essentially the first step in a research design. The consultants collected and submitted a great deal of useful 

information. They also submitted a report summarizing their findings. The EAC, rather than publishing their summary, used this 

information and information collected by its own staff to produce 

and publish its own report. 

Now, I believe there is no question that the EAC has the right 

to use the information that was submitted to it. It is pretty clear 

in the contract that was signed. However, an article in the New 

York Times that has already been mentioned raised a question of 

whether the original report was modified for political considerations. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
126 

The other side of the coin of course is that an agency has to take 

responsibility for its own product, in this case information. Just 

take the one example from the Times article. It says, though the 

original report said that among experts there is widespread but not 

unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud, the 

final version of the report released to the public concluded in its 

executive summary that there is a great deal of debate about the 

pervasiveness of fraud. 

Now, the consultant’s statement was taken from the section of 

their report that summarized the interviews with 24 or 25 participants. But later in the section where they are summarizing existing research they wrote, there is tremendous disagreement about 

the extent to which polling fraud; e.g., double voting, intentional 

felon voting, noncitizen voting, is a serious problem. So faced with 

this inconsistency the EAC chose to report the disagreement. 

Now, in academic circles withholding judgment in the absence of 

clear evidence in one direction or another is a standard research 

practice. And this study, as I understand it, was the first step in 

an ongoing process which I think is a critically important process. 

Now the EAC has changed its procedures to put research online. 

So I think it has a clear process by which it will air the research 

while at the same time holding its imprimatur for the things that 

it thinks is correct. 

Given that the EAC is a young agency still working at its organizational routines, I would like to add a recommendation for a formal peer review process, including some academic researchers, and 

I would suggest that the review process apply both to the design 

phase of a project as well as to the acceptance phase. The information role is very important. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Montjoy follows:] 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
127 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 156 here 37738A.102
128 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 157 here 37738A.103
129 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 158 here 37738A.104
130 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 159 here 37738A.105
131 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 160 here 37738A.106
132 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 161 here 37738A.107
133 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 162 here 37738A.108
134 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 163 here 37738A.109
135 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. I will turn now to our ranking member, Mr. McCarthy, for his questions. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I think you 

can go first. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will then. Let me ask Professor Super, we received—as you know, we received a great volume of information 

from the EAC and it has now been made publicly available. I don’t 

know if you have had a chance to look at the letter from the EAC’s 

General Counsel to the Kentucky State Board of Elections regarding the National Voter Registration Act? 

Mr. SUPER. I have. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The General Counsel concluded that the NVRA allows voters to be removed from the statewide voter registration 

databases based upon electronic information that the voter registered to vote in another jurisdiction without any further documentation or confirmation. This response letter, as I understand it 

from the record, was written the very same day the EAC received 

the inquiry from the Kentucky Board of Elections. But there wasn’t 

any indication that the EAC officially adopted the General Counsel’s interpretation of the NVRA. Considering the very limited rulemaking authority given to the EAC, do you think the EAC exceeded its statutory authority in this case? 

Mr. SUPER. Well, I have seen the letter you mention and I found 

it very disturbing because the statute very clearly in Section 208 

requires three votes for any action. The Sunshine Act requires notice of public meetings. So I can’t imagine how they could possibly 

respond in an authorized manner the same day they get a request. 

The letter is ambiguous as to whether she is writing for herself 

or for the commission. At the beginning she speaks about ‘‘I’’ and 

at the bottom she says ‘‘we conclude,’’ which implies she is speaking for the commission. She obviously has no authority to speak for 

the commission under the statute without a proper meeting and 

three votes. 

Also, it is not clear to me from reading the statute whether the 

subject matter of that letter is something that the commission is 

supposed to be opining on or not. But this is certainly not the appropriate manner for doing so. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask Mr. Greenbaum, you were involved in 

the report in question. And we have heard the testimony of Professor Montjoy about the process and his recommendation, and we 

appreciate his testimony. But you were a participant. Do you have 

any—what do you think about what he said here? 

Mr. GREENBAUM. Well, the thing that is interesting in terms of 

what happened with this report was, and you know I work with experts all the time. It would be very unusual for me to take a report 

from an expert, change it how I deem to see fit, never consult back 

with that expert and then file it with the court. And that is sort 

of what happened here, is that you had consultants who were 

picked that came back, researched, did significant research, and 

submitted their conclusions. And you had EAC staff changing the 

report without talking to the consultants at all. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am going to stop because we have been here a 

long time and we have got votes. And if we go promptly we might 

be able to let these gentlemen leave and not have to wait for our 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
136 

hour of voting. I am going to yield back my time and allow you to 

question. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So you want to go right now? You want me to 

yield to you? I yield to Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The next bill up 

is a bill that I have to speak on and be on the floor to manage, so 

I appreciate you yielding. 

This just sounds like a bit of a mess to me. I think some of the 

witnesses are making more of it than they should. This is a new 

agency. It appears the procedures weren’t fully in place. It sounds 

to me like a very poor work product. 

I totally agree with the comments about transparency. There 

should be transparency. I agree with following proper procedures. 

That should be done. But if you have a poor report there is no 

sense even trying to manipulate it. Throw it out, start over, use 

what you can of it. 

On the dais here we have a number of experts on law, business, 

science. We do a lot of studies. We know when we get a good study. 

And if we do, we take it, run with it and maybe expand it if necessary. We know if we get a bad study, toss it out and start over. 

And I don’t see a sense to quibble on it. 

I particularly appreciate Mr. Montjoy’s comments. He has a great 

deal of academic experience. And I think he has the ability to judge 

fairly quickly whether a study is good or not. 

I would also like to give a quote from Mr. Chris Thomas of Michigan, as I said earlier, one of the most experienced election officials. 

His quote was, after reviewing the material I have concluded that 

the EAC was acting responsibly by not releasing portions of the 

contractor’s conclusions that were not supported by the documentation and that were beyond the scope of the contract. In no case 

should a contractor be forced to allow an agency to publish a conclusion or position that lacks adequate documentation and that is 

beyond the scope of the contract. 

And I agree with that statement. I know what good research is 

in my field when I see it. I have seen an awful lot of bad research, 

I have seen an awful lot of good research. We can make judgments 

about whether it was done right or not. I don’t see any sense quibbling about what procedures were used after finding out something 

was inadequate. The important thing is to do it right. And I have 

confidence in the EAC to do it right, after perhaps having a false 

start in this one. 

It is clear to me from 40 years of experience in election-related 

things that there is fraud. What we don’t know is how much and 

what type. And what particularly concerns me is some of the modern manifestations of it. Since I know a lot about electronics I also 

can personally dream up a lot of ways to defraud people in systems. So that is what we should be looking forward to and stop trying to nitpick what fraud is taking place where, who knows what, 

who is doing what. Let us try to get the broad picture here. And 

the goal is not just to find out if there is fraud or how much. The 

goal is to stop the fraud. And that should be the emphasis of the 

studies. 

We all have ideas of how we would do it because we have different districts, we have different situations throughout the United 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
137 

States. And again, it has to be a comprehensive, thoughtful, careful 

study that really looks at all aspects of it and gives the EAC and 

us guidance on how to deal with real and potential fraud, particularly the anticipatory nature of stopping fraud and the geniuses 

that are out there dreaming up new ways to defraud. 

End of sermon. Thank you for letting me go. I appreciate it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And I 

would like to out of deference to the minority let Mr. McCarthy ask 

his 5 minutes and then Mr. Davis. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I will be very fast. Professor Super, you said it 

should be three people there and it should be a public meeting, is 

that correct? 

Mr. SUPER. Yes. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So the December meeting where it was a partisan vote for a final report with two Democrats voting yes and two 

Republicans voting yes unanimously, that would meet your criteria, 

would it not? 

Mr. SUPER. If it was a properly noticed meeting and the vote was 

as you described, then that is a perfectly legitimate action, sure. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. To Professor Montjoy, do you believe that if you 

get 24 interviews and use LexisNexis, is that an effective and accurate research method for determining voter fraud? 

Mr. MONTJOY. Of course not. I think the interviews are very effective in determining ways to go about studying voter fraud and 

raising issues to be studied, which I thought was the subject of the 

report. I would have difficulty using opinion to determine voter 

fraud, period, whether it is 24 or 50. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Professor Super, would you agree that 24 is an 

insufficient number of interviews or do you think it is? 

Mr. SUPER. I am not a social science researcher. I will say that 

it depends entirely on what you are trying to do. If you are trying 

to get a sense of what people feel, that can be very helpful. I have 

seen numerous Federal agencies act on the basis of literature reviews where there were many fewer than 24 examples given. If you 

are trying to get data on the ground, that wouldn’t be a useful approach. But of course people aren’t very good at responding to questionnaires about whether they have committed felonies. So that 

kind of review of literature or interview of experts is a very common way of getting at it. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Now, Mr. Greenbaum, you are an attorney by 

trade, right? 

Mr. GREENBAUM. I am. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Tell me if this is correct. In your opinion the social scientist at the Eagleton study was not in any way flawed, is 

that correct, that you didn’t believe it was flawed. 

Mr. GREENBAUM. I am not offering any opinion as to whether 

there were any mistakes at all or whether the report was perfect. 

I simply pointed out the point that I—I simply made the point that 

they went through a vetting process, they chose this consultant, 

they spent half a million dollars on this consultant and at the end 

of the day—and I am assuming, because I know for the voter intimidation fraud study that the EAC research director was involved 

with the consultants. If that was true for the voter identification 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
138 

study as well, it is a real shame that you put all those resources 

into it and at the end of the day you decide not to adopt the report. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if 

you spend a lot of money, I ask for data, data comes back, but if 

someone points out it is flawed it is not your opinion we would still 

be forced to use it, would it, just because I spent money and I 

worked with them and the data was flawed? 

Mr. GREENBAUM. Well, once again I am not here to offer an opinion as to whether that report was perfect or not. But I mean you 

are talking about taxpayer money here. And the thing that calls 

into question all this is what we have been talking about in a more 

general context of where people are coming to opinions that the administration, the Justice Department don’t like, and that those 

opinions are then rejected out of hand. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Could I just follow up with one question? Are 

you familiar at all with the one-tailed hypothesis test and the twotailed hypothesis test? 

Mr. GREENBAUM. I am not. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I would just argue from a sense tax dollars were 

used, but I would hate from a concept, one, tax dollars to be used 

and wasted in using the wrong data and putting it out to the 

American people. Just for your own information the commonly used 

one is a two-tailed hypothesis test. The data came back was one 

tail. And if you talk to others, even the PhDs in Caltech and MIT 

studying this, and the early results back are they think it is 

flawed. 

I yield back my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 

Alabama is recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Do any of you have any knowledge that 

the EAC contacted the individuals who did the survey and told 

them their work was deficient? You all are shaking your heads no. 

Mr. Greenbaum. 

Mr. GREENBAUM. My understanding is no. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. All right. None of you have any knowledge that the EAC made any contacts suggesting the poll was deficient, is that correct? 

Mr. SUPER. No information. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Do any of you have any knowledge that 

legal counsel for the EAC sent any communication to the entities 

suggesting that they had not performed the contract successfully? 

Mr. SUPER. I have no such information. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. And you are all nodding your heads no. 

Do any of you have any knowledge that the EAC in any way attempted to void the contract at issue here? 

Mr. GREENBAUM. No. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. The reason I make those points is I have 

a different perspective. Mr. Ehlers I think is a very able Member 

of Congress, but I have a different perspective on this matter and 

I will state it briefly. If the EAC had problems with the performance of this contract, if the EAC thought that the study that was 

produced was incompetent, there were several steps that were 

available to it. One of them was trying to void the contract, one of 

them was raising some legal claim suggesting that the contract 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
139 

need not be followed. There were steps that were available to the 

EAC other than editing the report. 

As I understand the EAC, and I learned more about it in these 

last 30 minutes than I knew before, but it is frankly not meant to 

be a judgmental body, it is not meant to be a policy maker, it is 

meant to have almost no rulemaking authority. That frankly 

makes it a more or less, Professor Super, administrative entity 

without a lot of capacity for independent judgment. 

As I understand it, this was the body that was meant to make 

the judgments in terms of future legislation. Perhaps the executive 

branch may have a role as well. Obviously secretaries of state have 

a substantial role. But what is troublesome to me is that the EAC 

seems to have taken on the burden of making a judgment. What 

is of concern is that the judgment was shaped and influenced by 

one very assertive individual within the Department of Justice. 

That is problematic, and this is the last point that I will make. 

This again has a very familiar sound to those of us who constantly hear about an administration that suppresses scientific reports that it doesn’t like, to those of us who hear constant reports 

about an administration that suppresses and demotes scientists 

who take the wrong perspective. For that matter those of us who 

hear about an administration that demotes generals who give advice that it doesn’t like. All of those things add together and they 

paint a cumulative picture that is all too familiar to those of us 

who have sat on a number of these panels in the last several 

months. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. I thank all of the witnesses for your testimony today. We may have additional questions 

which we will direct to you. And we ask if possible that you respond to them promptly. And we will adjourn this hearing now, 

with tremendous thanks for the participation of all of the witnesses. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of the chairman follows:] 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
140 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 175 37738A.110
141 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Information follows:] 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
142 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 177 37738A.111
143 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 178 37738A.112
144 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 179 37738A.113
145 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 180 37738A.114
146 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 181 37738A.115
147 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 182 37738A.116
148 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 183 37738A.117
149 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 184 37738A.118
150 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 185 37738A.119
151 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 186 37738A.120
152 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 187 37738A.121
153 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 188 37738A.122
154 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 189 37738A.123
155 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 190 37738A.124
156 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 191 37738A.125
157 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 192 37738A.126
158 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 193 37738A.127
159 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 194 37738A.128
160 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 195 37738A.129
161 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 196 37738A.130
162 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 197 37738A.131
163 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 198 37738A.132
164 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 199 37738A.133
165 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 200 37738A.134
166 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 201 37738A.135
167 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 202 37738A.136
168 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 203 37738A.137
169 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 204 37738A.138
170 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 205 37738A.139
171 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 206 37738A.140
172 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 207 37738A.141
173 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 208 37738A.142
174 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 209 37738A.143
175 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 210 37738A.144
176 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 211 37738A.145
177 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 212 37738A.146
178 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 213 37738A.147
179 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 214 37738A.148
180 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 215 37738A.149
181 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 216 37738A.150
182 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 217 37738A.151
183 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 218 37738A.152
184 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 219 37738A.153
185 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 220 37738A.154
186 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 221 37738A.155
187 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 222 37738A.156
188 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 223 37738A.157
189 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 224/300 37738A.158
190 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 001 37738A.159
191 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 002 37738A.160
192 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 003 37738A.161
193 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 004 37738A.162
194 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 005 37738A.163
195 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 006 37738A.164
196 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 007 37738A.165